Julian Assange has done us a huge favour, and we owe him a debt of thanks.

Not just because he’s lifted up the rock of international diplomacy and made the diplomats and politicians writhe and squirm in the light of global scrutiny – though he has certainly done that.

Not just because he has revealed some of the secrets and deceit behind our own foreign policy, and demonstrated the gap between what our leaders tell us and what they really believe.

And not because he has revealed the often corrosive role of U.S. policy in its relentless drive to shore up American interests. By letting the world’s people know how the U.S. is pressuring or driving the actions of their own governments behind the scenes, they have forever weakened that power.

These things Wikileaks have done are of massive importance. But perhaps they are equally powerful as a demonstration of, a case study in, or even a fable of free speech.

These current disclosures by Wikileaks has been a clear demonstration of the power information can have. Every person in Australia – and indeed the world – who has read or watched the news in the last few weeks has had a lesson in journalism and in whistleblowing. The actions of the our own government have made sure the lesson was driven home in an unforgettable way.

By piling on Assange, by accusing him of criminality, our Prime Minister sought to talk tough on a supposed threat to our security. But it has backfired. We have seen through it. Assange has become David to a Government Goliath. He’s nothing short of a national hero.

That’s because the people know. They know that embarrassing the government is not a crime. Forcing transparency on our elected representatives is not terrorism. Reporting the truth is not, and must never be, against the law.

A mature government, a confident government, could have weathered the storm, explained the embarrassing leaks as grist for the mill of global politics, and defended Assange’s rights without endorsing his actions. But they chose the cowardly way. We noticed, and we were disgusted.

What this means that the next time our government try to tighten their control over information, people will sit up. People will ask questions. When the government tries to censor the free flow of information on the internet, they will talk about protecting children. They will talk about violence, and predators. They will scare us with talk of terrorists and security, telling us that censorship is for our own protection.

But we will think of Assange. We will think of our right to know what our leaders really think of the wars we are embroiled in, or that members of our own government are sources of information for a foreign embassy. We will think of politicians scrambling to protect their own image, and their own jobs. And we will say: No. We will not let you censor, suppress, expunge. Because you work for us, and free speech is the only safeguard we have to hold you accountable.

Wikileaks has demonstrated this beyond a doubt. For this, we owe Julian Assange our support.

The media going beserk today over the arrest of Julian Assange. It’s exciting, firstly because it is bringing unprecedented public attention to the issues surrounding free speech and the internet. The second reason it’s exciting is because it reads like a cyberpunk novel; hackers, espionage and Anonymous revenge groups cyber-attacking the Swedish prosecutor’s office.

I support EFA’s position strongly supporting Assange as an Australian citizen with a right to due process, and to Wikileaks too; clearly whatever harm has been done by leaking the cables is not in proportion to the hysterical reaction in the USA. What has America become when the feeling of self-righteousness engendered by a little embarrassment deteriorates so quickly into talk of whacking somebody in their hotel room? There is controversy in the USA at the moment over the fact that the president has ordered the killing of U.S. citizens – suspected terrorists – without evan a trial. But all Assange has done is shed a little unwelcome light into the snarky thoughts of diplomats.

Likening this to terrorism further cheapens an already overused word. If Wikileaks is added to the U.S. list of proscribed terrorist organisations, how could anyone take the list seriously anymore? Nobody has been harmed, or even jeopardised. Wikileaks is not advocating acts of violence, merely publishing information given to it. Unfortunately, instead of Assange it would appear that the U.S. constitution’s First Amendment is the one that has been taken out the back and put up against the wall.

Here’s a conversation I had on air with ABC Radio’s Paul Austin last night about Wikileaks and online civil liberties. It’s amazing to see the level of interest this topic has generated in freedom of speech online. I’m off to talk to RRR radio about the same subject tonight.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Yesterday I spoke to the PM program on Radio National for a follow up on Google’s WiFi privacy debacle, and have spoken to a few other media outlets as well. No doubt there’s a lot of interest in the story because of Google’s household name and seemingly unstoppable rise towards digital dominance. The “don’t be evil” motto is nice and simple, but it also means a good story is in the offing every time Google does stray to the dark side. Has the company done some evil here?

The answer to this question is a little nuanced. On the one hand, I don’t believe Google have deliberately done something sinister and the issue has been widely mischaracterised in the media. On the other hand, Google clearly screwed up and have to face the consequences, even the legal ones.

Continue reading…

Much has been written and said about the Labor Government’s plan to censor Australia’s Internet. The plan, which involves a Government blacklist of web sites that all Australian Internet service providers would be required to block, has been criticised for its ineffectiveness, free speech risks and technical difficulties. However, while there has been some moralising, there has been little serious debate about the filter’s moral implications.

The Prime Minister injected morality into the discussion on Tuesday when answering a skeptical question about the filter, saying that the Internet may present technical challenges to censorship, “but the underpinning moral question, I think, is exactly the same.” If it’s not allowed in a cinema, she argued, the change in medium does not change the underpinning moral issue. But what, then, exactly is the moral question?

Continue reading…

Geordie Guy today has a blog post suggesting that The Greens will “probably” block the filter, but suggesting that the outcome is far from certain. He’s not alone. I’ve heard similar sentiments on the subject from other quarters, usually by those predisposed to be sceptical of The Greens for other reasons. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to come to a firm conclusion on this.

Let me put your minds at rest – The Greens will never vote for the filter. First, let’s see what’s on the record.

Looking at the official Greens policy on communications, point number 52 states:

ensure that regulation of the internet is transparent, accountable and protects freedom of speech, expression and access to information.

As a statement of principle to which the party is committed, it seems pretty hard to imagine any way in which support for the filter could be reconciled with this. This policy made it into the national platform only after significant debate and scrutiny, and is a true reflection of the will of the party as a whole. However, it’s broadly worded, and is far from an unequivocal repudiation of the particular proposal put forward by Conroy. But look at The Greens policy page itself, which provides a strong hint – the prominent inclusion of the #nocleanfeed and #openinternet tags as two of the four key policy bullet points. That should reassure some skeptical punters.

(more…)

Today I had an op-ed in the National Times (Fairfax) about grassroots participation in party politics. It’s been a long time since politics was a genuine mass movement. That’s not good for the country. Here I do my bit to encourage people to think about giving it a go.

Take a look here.

As some of those close to me will know, I have recently resigned my membership in the ALP and joined the Greens. Although it might seem a sudden move to some, it has been a long time coming and was not an easy decision or one taken lightly. I’m still new to the party, but I have learned enough to know that I have definitely made the right decision. If you’re curious as to my reasons and experiences, please read on.

Why I joined the Labor Party

I don’t have a background in student politics – I came to political involvement much later in life. I joined the ALP when I lived in California. My political consciousness, while probably not underdeveloped compared to the average voter, was prodded by the continuing outrages of John Howard and George Bush. By the time the Tampa affair, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay were all unfolding, I felt something had to be done – if for no other reason but to feel a little less powerless.

(more…)

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.

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.

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…)