Four Corners tonight tackled internet censorship in an episode entitled “Access Denied”. For a debate ruled, like most debates, by sound bites – “child pornography”, “censored like North Korea” – I was excited to see the issue get a detailed examination over 40-odd minutes of quality investigative journalism.

I thought they did a good job. There was, as usual in this discussion, much emphasis on the evil content on the internet without really pointing out how the vast majority of people use the internet the vast majority of the time without any unpleasantness whatsoever. There was, for some reason, a lot of filler shots of porn sites themselves. But several sides of the debate got an airing that we wouldn’t normally hear. At about 12 minutes in, teenager Justin Katz is asked about whether kids need to be protected from nasty material, and he says exactly what you’d expect from a sane person: “I think if you just have common sense and the right attitude you don’t need to be protected from anything, that with just a straight mind you’ll know what’s right and you’ll know what’s wrong.”

The pro-filter camp included some of the usual suspects like Jim Wallace and Clive Hamilton. Clive did not disappoint with his rhetoric about “perverse and extreme sexual practices”. The phrase “penetrated in every orifice” quickly made an appearance along with “bestiality” and “copraphilia.” (Eww. I start to worry about what’s on Clive’s hard drive for research purposes.) Unfortunately for my self-image someone on twitter pointed out that Clive and I look somewhat similar: “Clive Hamilton and Colin Jacobs are both bald w/glasses. But Clive has the look of a man who doesn’t get laid much.” Thanks, @renailemay.

I also though the producers did a good job highlighting the democratic dangers and putting the lie to the government’s “child pornography” rhetoric by showing some much more controversial material that would be blocked, and is currently prohibited. The oldies learning about proxies and the outraged anti-abortion candidate certainly illustrated this important point.

I also found it surprising that they discussed how the current classification scheme applies to normal adult material, with Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party showing the audience how some pirate porn needs to split the swashbuckling violence onto a separate DVD to the piratical sex in order to pass classification muster. I think most Aussies have little problem with the idea of adults being able to watch this sort of harmless material, and it was a good and light-hearted counterbalance to the worst-of-the-worst rhetoric we normally get.

I’m in there with a couple of grabs about how the filter was presented to the electorate and how it has since changed. Mark Newton had better material with his final line, though (spoiler alert): “The idea that the internet is this scary place that parents don’t understand, that everyone needs protection from, isn’t a view that’s held by  most of society . What it really is is a scary place that politicians don’t understand and politicians need protection from, and that’s why we’re having this debate now.”

You can watch the show at the Four Corners site or on ABC iView.

The topic was also discussed on Q&A after Four Corners. Kaiser Kuo, who I have followed and read since living in China, had me worried but actually proved to be an eloquent opponent of censorship under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. A poll of the audience showed the overwhelming majority against the filter. Brett Solomon stuck up for us internet-loving nerds with genuine passion. Definitely worth checking out on iView.

Today’s sacking of Catharine Deveny by the Age is the latest in a string of people getting in trouble for offensive tweeting. Nick Snowden was kicked out of the Liberal party only a couple of weeks ago.

I think this is a terrible move by Age and sends a terrible message. Is it too much to hope our newspapers might wear a little embarrassment for the sake of erring on the side of free expression?

Is The Age suggesting that Catharine is an advocate of child sex, as evidenced by her tweet? If so, the sacking might indeed be justified. Some views are too extreme or offensive to the public to want to have them associated with your organisation. As a media organisation, I wouldn’t want to employ virulent racists, for instance – not only are they unpleasant people, it would be bad for business. Encouraging promiscuity in 11-year-olds would be a pretty extreme and offensive position to most people.

However, if The Age doesn’t believe that’s Catharine’s position, it must believe the tweet was a joke – an offensive, off-colour joke. This means that they fired a humorist, known (and hired) for being edgy, for making a one-sentence offensive joke on her own time in another medium.

To me that’s obviously no way to run a newspaper. A newspaper can employ somebody who writes something they wouldn’t publish in another medium, surely. Are Age columnists all constrained to having opinions that are uncontroversial enough for the papers of a daily broadsheet, even when not on the Fairfax clock?

This trend concerns me a bit. Imagine I make an embarrassingly off-colour joke today, then I run for office in 10 years time. Must I defend everything, including its context, lest it be held up forever as an example of ignorance, insensitivity, bigotry, or just a ribald sense of humour? I’d be worried if all of our future politicians are selected from only those who, in their 20s, never dared to write something embarrassing.

I hope Catharine finds another outlet for her writing.

For more corporate censorship fun, if you missed it, see my article on the iPad in New Matilda last week.

Last night I appeared on Radio National’s Australia Talks show alongside Senator Conroy (literally – he was next door in another booth). The filter was the topic, of course, and the debate went as expected; the Minister did his best to monopolise the airtime, scared the public with talk of how horrible child pornography is, and obfuscated where possible.

The audio of the show can be downloaded here.

I have an opinion piece in today’s Age, expanding on the theme of offensive internet content: do we need Rudd to step in and save us? I’m seeing more and more panic, fanned by the media, and a sense of proportion is quickly being lost.

This also continues on my new favourite theme, “Why should the Internet be any different?” I particularly dislike this sentence, often uttered by Senator Conroy, as it so clearly has a number of obvious answers explaining why the Internet is fundamentally different to other media. More on that later.

The online version of the piece is available here.

Conroy will be facing questions about the filter on ABC Radio National’s “Australia Talks” show at 6pm today, and I’ll be there to ask a few of my own.

Conroy faced the public tonight on Channel 10′s The 7PM Project. I gave my input and let fly a few sound bites for the lead-in piece, but the interesting bit is the discussion that follows. The producers and hosts of the show were well-informed, and asked the tough questions. They demonstrated that filtering won’t help parents, nor will it stop illegal material. Conroy was left with nowhere to go but to rabbit on about RC material.

If Conroy is now reduced to defending the filter as an expensive and complex way to harmonise the classification scheme, it’s a debate he can’t easily win, but I’d be happy to have.

He also repeats a line I love to hate – “How is the internet any different?” I’ve written about this before (most recently, this week at EFA) and will have more to say on the subject. Suffice it to say, the internet is different, in so many fundamental ways. The fact that the Communications Minister doesn’t realise this should worry every Australian.

Here’s a video of tonight’s segment:

There’s a depressing cycle repeating itself in the Australian news. Something nasty happens. The media report the outcry about how nasty it is. Then comes the depressing bit; the politicians, wanting to be seen to respond to the confected crisis, propose some sort of ill-thought-out, knee-jerk regulation to mitigate it.

A good example is Senator Nick Xenophon’s reaction to the tragic murder of Carly Ryan. Apparently, her killer lied about his age online to entice her into a meeting. The Senator’s proposal, therefore, was to outlaw lying about your age to minors online. Can anything be said in defence of such a proposal? Never mind that the crime is vanishingly rare. Isn’t it enough that rape and murder are already illegal? How many murderers would balk at a little lie, legal or not, in pursuit of a victim?

The trend is worse when it comes to the internet. Recently we’ve had flaps about racist speech, and do you remember the furore over a stupid web game called “Muslim Massacre”? If there is a politician who can resist the temptation to forcefully condemn something so obviously tasteless, I’ve yet to see one.

(more…)

I think Tim Dunlop missed the point yesterday in his Crikey piece about the Men at Work/Kookaburra case. Trying to decide whether they did or did nor borrow the melody from the folk song seems, to me, insignificant compared to the question of “should it matter if they did?”. Here’s my response (as a letter) in today’s Crikey.

Re. “Music copyrights and wrongs: money hits the right note“. Tim Dunlop’s piece seems to have missed some of the larger issues at play in the “Kookaburra” case. To me the question shouldn’t be whether a musical riff was borrowed consciously or unconsciously, was part of the composition or the arrangement. It’s not who owes whom money. The question is whether culture can grow and thrive under conditions where a few notes can land you in a courtroom.

(more…)

The last couple of weeks have been pretty hectic thanks largely to Senator Conroy’s announcement that it’s full steam ahead with Internet censorship. At EFA we’ve been flat out keeping up with media requests and corralling the outflow of support into a coherent campaign. We’re working with volunteers, other organisations, and internally to make sure January will see some exciting announcements and interesting campaigns.

Below is a Youtube of my appearance on the 7pm project. I hear it may have at least helped touch a nerve with the Minister himself. My small piece a few days later in Crikey reporting on the appeal by Reporters Without Borders to the Prime Minister to abandon the plan also seems to have gotten through, as it was one of the pieces singled-out for a bollocking by Conroy himself in a letter to Crikey. (See the previous blog post for my response.)

Thanks to everyone who has said nice things about the work I and the rest of EFA are doing – it means a lot to know people are listening and on our side!

The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was published in today’s Crikey, firing back at several pieces run over the last week about his government’s mandatory ISP filtering scheme, including one of my own. I’m very happy to see the minister respond personally and at length; over the last year we have been starved of information on the plan, and the debate, such as it was, has often been in the form of quick sound bites. Discussing the real facts for a change is a welcome development. (Plus, it’s nice to know that a slightly miffed Commonwealth Minister is amongst my readership.)

The fact is that this is a complex policy and there are a fair few misunderstandings out there on both sides of the issue. If I were minister, factual inaccuracies and exaggerations would annoy me, too. Sometimes in dealing with the media it’s hard to get a nuanced point across and things get inadvertently misrepresented. Personally, and as a representative of EFA, I sincerely regret any inaccuracies, and even the “cheap shots.” But it’s no point raising a fuss about them, then making your own. Sure, I slip up from time to time, but to suggest I am “blurring the lines, burying the facts and wilfully misleading the Australian public” seems the sort of exaggeration Senator Conroy is himself complaining about. So let’s see how many mea culpas I owe.

Senator Conroy implies that perhaps the reason Australia’s image is suffering is due to my own rabble-rousing. I wish this were the case, but the Minister has to share some of the blame. It’s an inescapable fact that this filter is censorship, and that such censorship in a free country like Australia is unsettling to observers overseas. The Minister, of course, sees the policy as benign; that’s fair enough from his point of view, but that doesn’t change how the rest of the world sees it. Yes, “Iran of the South Pacific” is an obvious exaggeration – but the filter is tarnishing our reputation.

In my piece I was reporting on the letter from Reporters Without Borders, and their Secretary-General used words I wouldn’t myself (the reference to aborigines is confusing to me, too). However, the anorexia, abortion and marijuana sale examples could all fall under the categories mentioned by the Minister in his very next paragraph (crime, self-harm, drug use). Surely it is a legitimate concern to speculate about what’s at the margins of the RC system? It’s neither interesting nor helpful to confine our attentions to the “worst of the worst”, the unavailability of which is uncontroversial.

This is also a little strange:

Jacobs argues that the government’s policy will “block access to inappropriate websites”, the same language he criticised the government for using months ago as being unclear.

Am I being criticised for using vague language to describe the scheme, even though the words are his own, and I’m expressing concern about their very vagueness?

Most galling is the Minister’s outrage at my statement that in the past he has implied filter opponents are “all card-carrying members of the Child Pornorgaphy Apologists League”. Of course, that’s not a direct quote – hence my use of the word “implies” – so I can’t produce such a quote. But how about this?

If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.[1]

Doesn’t that imply that filter opponents are advocates of more liberal child porn laws (they aren’t). Or in answer to a question in the Senate as to whether the filter will be opt-out, the Minister replied:

I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography. [2]

Senator Ludlam, the questioner, was indeed not suggesting that. So why smugly bring it up? The debate has never been about the legal status of child pornography, and to pretend that it is is, as I wrote, a distraction that simultaneously smears the filter’s opponents. Those are two examples I remember and I know offended many. If you can remind me of any further examples, I’ll chronicle them here.

The Minister’s kind query about my whereabouts for the last nine years seems pretty irrelevant to substance of my argument. As it happens, I was in the USA, and I did not join the EFA board until 2007. Nevertheless, EFA was certainly a vocal opponent of the 1999 amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act that gave us the equally useless system we have today, including the infamous ACMA blacklist.

The fact is, the reason there is so much confusion about this policy is that while it has changed markedly over time, the government have tried to maintain that it was always as it is; and the vagueness of the original, pre-election policy document is used to help prop up this illusion, rather than acknowledging it and providing a more detailed document for the community to dissect.

The minister concludes with the following rhetorical question:

Let me repeat the government has been clear that mandatory filtering will only apply to RC-rated content. This content is not available in newsagencies, on library shelves, at the cinema or on DVD and you certainly can’t watch it on TV. Why shouldn’t Australian ISPs be required to block access to such content?

Because it’s pointless, it’s expensive, it’s done in secret, and there are no guarantees the scope will not increase under this or a future government. And these are exactly the points I am trying to make in the public debate. If this is misleading, then it’s up to you, Minister, to demonstrate why that is so.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm

[2] http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/greens-senator-quizzes-conroy-on-filtering/