Filtered freedom
The Australian government recently announced it plans to implement a mandatory, national Internet filter aimed at combating child pornography and adult content. It’s the kind of program that looks almost innocent–if not honorable–on the surface, but critics are crying “censorship” and warning that the “net nanny” could eventually go further in restricting personal rights. The government has said no one will be able to opt out of the planned filter, which is similar to one China instituted.
Human Rights Watch has condemned Internet censorship, and argued to the U.S. Senate “there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the Internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the Internet, (and) want to control it.”
However, Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, supports the Internet control measures: “The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry’s desire for unfettered access.”
What do you think of Wallace’s conclusions, and where do you stand on the issue?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top42 Comments to “Filtered freedom”
I read about this the other day, and my heart goes to the children first, and if it is limited to filtering that sort of stuff, quite frankly, it’s worth it. The market for such filth, even live pictures of children being raped, is tremendous. And have you ever heard of “snuff films?”
I favored forcing the sex industry to use “.xxx” rather than “.com” a few years ago, but that was voted down here in favor of free speech. But even that wouldn’t stop individuals from sending child pornography.
At some point, we have to decide what’s important, and the kids are important. I would vote for a national filter on child pornography in this country.
Report comment to moderator
Not voting for such a filter, in my humble opinion, makes us all accessories.
Report comment to moderator
I’m no fan of slippery slope arguments, but here’s a place where it seems to fit. How can you be opposed to blocking child porn? Well, two problems: 1) People who want it will find it. In the meantime, legitimate sites be blocked. I had to remove a filter, for instance, when I couldn’t get the information I needed to write a talk on breast cancer.
2) How long before they’re blocking “anti-Islamic hate speech?” As Douglas Wilson says, how many who supported the Patriot Act are changing their minds now that it’s Obama who’s empowered by it?
No mandatory filters, I say, but slow capital punishment for offenders. Like at the end of Braveheart, but with the good guys winning.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, I will donate to your candidacy should you declare. We need more folks like you and Tom Coburn!
Report comment to moderator
What is the role of government? It’s to protect its’ citizens from foreign threat and to protect them from themselves and each other, hence laws. The government is never more the government than when it is protecting the most vunerable members of society. I’d vote for a filter in this country, too. And Stubob would get my vote.
Report comment to moderator
When we refuse to stand on the side of decency in the first place we run into these types of solutions. As Chesterton put it, if we don’t stand on the ten commandments we will have the 10,000, my paraphrase.
Librarians in my state were upset for years over the garbage they had to put up with because of unfiltered computers in the library. No one should have to put up with a work environment like that or have to clean up after the nastiness of those who left it using porn. Somethings need to be stood against.
It is an area that I am going to do more speaking out about myself. More of us have to educate ourselves more on the ramifications of even soft porn and then lovingly speak to others. Some will never change, but some will.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what the solution is, but the filth needs to stop for sure. There are lots of victims of this “industry” and not all of them are children. I’m for helping all of them.
Like NJLawyer I’m for the .xxx suffix on all porno sites. This way it would make it extremely easy to filter out at work, school, or home.
We should just bring that issue back up. As it is, it’s nearly impossible to accurately filter out with normal filters. The technology just isn’t capable of it. Yet.
Report comment to moderator
I’m flat out opposed to it in America. There are other ways to accomplish this without gutting the Constitution.
It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans are willing to surrender their liberty in exchange for a promise of “safety” from the government.
I wonder what folks like NJLawyer will do when someday the government shuts down this site on grounds that it’s a “hate site” and not deserving of free speech protections? By then it will be too late.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I’m sure there are ways of solving this problem without restricting the “rights” of people to view porn. There are also laws on the books that prohibit pornography already. It’s just not being enforced. What are you going to do about those laws?
Report comment to moderator
Hogwash! NJawyer.
What part of
There are other ways to accomplish this without gutting the Constitution.
don’t you understand?
For a so-called attorney, you sure seem to have a really poor view of the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Whatever happened with the idea of http://www.______.xxx for porn? Why would this be a free speech issue? I could block all .xxx sites and protect my daughter from the predators of the porn industry?
Regardless, I’m with StuBob with one modification: Go after both the supplier AND the consumer.
Report comment to moderator
If the folks want to vote to limit vice I have no problem with hem giving up their rights. I have a problem with the government taking them away without a vote.
This is the problem we have here. Our elected officials and administrators have too much power and they always want to limit someone’s rights or protect someone else’s without the folks having their say. When our elected officials do not do what we want them to do, we vote them back in power anyway. It is obvious we can’t trust ourselves to ever hold them accountable and responsible.
These people put us $11 trillion in debt and the left just loves their Marxist criminals anyway, and the right just loves their socialist skaflaws just as much. Both of these elected officials are inept at best, are grifters and con men and criminals at worst. When the house and senate bring banking, insurance company, oil company and hedge fund CEOs to testify on capital hill to beat them up and whip them in public – we should be taking our elected officials out for a perp walk and possible hanging.
The left actually gained seats afer their immigration amnesty bill and their $850 Billion bailout of wall street – even though Americans were against these two ideas by at least an 75% margin.
Re-electing these idiots is just like shooting yourself in the head only slower.
Report comment to moderator
“If the folks want to vote to limit vice I have no problem with hem giving up their rights. I have a problem with the government taking them away without a vote.”
Good point Llama.
Considering the .gov tag doesnt limit government, I fail to see how a .xxx tag would hurt the porn industry. You could also make money by fining those who failed to use the .xxx and shutting them down. This would make filters so much easier to use and code for while allowing maximum usage for the pc user with less worries over what they and especially their children may come into contact with.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir would be against changing the constitution since this is exactly what Blacks and Hispanics are voting to do to gays
Report comment to moderator
Our Constitutional liberty should never be put up for a vote. Of course, I’m not surprised that a fair number of conservative Christians would throw our Constitution overboard in a heartbeat.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for the .xxx designation on porn sites. I don’t see how it can be labeled censorship – it just keeps all the pervs contained in one place and out of the mainstream. That way those who want to say “no thanks” don’t have to be bothered with it and those who violate the rules are easier to prosecute. Fines for violations or using .com or .net for porn could be used to enforce and regulate.
Report comment to moderator
#16 aNLIR,
Lefties don’t know much about the constitution. it was wroitten by a small group but voted on by the masses and accepted before becomeing law. It also can be changed if the prople vote to do so. You just don’t want anyone who disagrees with you to have the same rights you do under the constitution do you?
Report comment to moderator
The constution has been amended and changed many times quite leagally. This should not be news to you. Why you oppose the constitution is beyond me while claiming those that follow it – are not.
Report comment to moderator
Some on here tended to disagree with my suggested “restrictions of free speech.” I made the point that at least some general guidelines should be put into place to assure the protection of children from obscenity of various kinds. I agree that this “suffix method” would be a good idea to protect children from one aspect of “obscenity.” It doesn’t limit pornography, so I see no reason why anyone should be unhappy with that method, unless they actually want kids to be able to access pornography. It’s true that “where there’s a will, there’s a way,” and that a determined person can do almost anything they want to regardless of any attempts to stop them. However, I believe certain measures like this one would prevent the accidental exposure of children to inappropriate materials.
What are the disagreements with this plan of action?
Report comment to moderator
Instead of tearing up the Constitution of the United States, a less drastic solution is to get ICANN to assign the .xxx or .sex domain name.
It’s too bad that llama’s have such poor eyesight that they can’t see that the First Amendment also protects the rights of llamas to speak freely.
Who would have ever thought that conservatives would become such ardent foes of liberty?
Report comment to moderator
#21 Anlir
“Who would have ever thought that conservatives would become such ardent foes of liberty?”
Liberty or license?
Report comment to moderator
First of all, child pornography is illegal. Engaging in live sexual acts with children is illegal. It wouldn’t go on an .xxx site anyway. Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t at least be .xxx sites.
Some people don’t understand that the sexual abuse, torture and murder of children should not be tolerated. Some prefer enabling perverts. Filtering child pornography is just another form of a time, place and manner restriction.
So, no, there is no need to gut the Constitution, but there is a need to shut down the perverts. Now some support perverts; they support gutting the morality of decent people. They have no problem with lowering every moral standard we have, even if innocent babies and children are exploited. All in the cause of fundamental rights for perverts. And what does it matter if a few kids are raped and snuffed out live online as long as the perverts get their fundamental rights?
Report comment to moderator
Alrighty then, rather than get into a long debate about free speech I just wanted to point out an error in the article and a few other bits of information that might help folk understand what’s going on here.
First to the error in the article: “The government has said no one will be able to opt out of the planned filter,..” What most people don’t realise is that the government is putting 2 filters in place. One is allegedly to stop or limit porn the other is an anonymous black list of ‘illegal sites’ determined by whichever government is in place at the time. Hopefully I shouldn’t have to warn anyone about the dangers of having governments decide what constitutes ‘illegal’ information as history is replete with examples of how a key feature of all dictatorships is their ability to limit and control the types of information available to it’s citizens. It is this black list which is mandatory, as far as I’m aware the porn filter itself will be opt-out.
Even if the porn filter wasn’t opt-out it would still be next to useless as people who want porn will simply get it via one of the peer to peer formats which no filter yet invented can monitor, or they will simply go back to buying porn DVD’s from Canberra.
As for kiddie porn, I agree with stubob that some things should never be tolerated and much harsher penalties should apply in this area. Yet just last week a person who was in possession of kiddie porn was let off without a sentence which says to me that despite all its talk, the Government isn’t too serious about this matter. Like adult porn, these filters will do nothing to stop kiddy porn because as previously mentioned anyone who engages in that behaviour can simply ring or email their overseas contacts and get them to seed the latest filth as a torrent file, some other P2P file or simply send the dvd’s through the mail.
The subject of porn is simply a pretence for the Government to get the black list in place through which it can then limit the free flow of information that we are currently enjoying, all by the way in contravention of the U.N. human rights charter that Australia is a signatory to.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
I’m not sure but, as a member of the UN, I think Aus is likely to be bound by this.”
There is also a policy speech given by the former Minister for Communications, Helen Coonan on why ISP level filtering wont work here:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/newsroom/speeches/protecting_families_online
As well as a rather long, but technically informed discussion on the subject here:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=967413
Also please note that the BEST filtering software that was trialled in Tasmania recently had a false-positive rate of thousands of web pages per second and slowed down the traffic by 70%!
The Australian Christian Lobby is well aware of these details as I have sent them 2 emails in the last fortnight pointing out the main issues with this abominable policy. They have so far declined to reply.
And to cap it all off there is already a system in place whereby concerned parents can get FREE filtering software for their home PC’s which does a much better job than any mandatory country-wide filter could ever do.
Report comment to moderator
National filter, no.
Filter in taxpayer-funded places, determined by local vote
Filter in private locations, if the owner so desires (this would include restaurants, airlines, etc.)
One can watch all the smut one desires in the privacy of his home; the rest of us shouldn’t have to endure even the shortest glance.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir and I disagree on just about everything, and I’m pretty sure he despises me, but I can’t let this pass without comment.
This is one of the most reprehensible things I’ve ever read about anyone.
NJLawyer, you are a truly despicable person.
And WMB is even more despicable for not banning you for this unspeakably evil comment.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously no decent American would support things like child porn or the abuse, torture, or murder of anyone. We can prosecute that stuff and still uphold our fundamental Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. It’s done every day in courts all over America.
Uphold Constitutional freedoms and prosecuting child porn is not an “either/or” proposition. Accusing people who want to uphold the Constitution of supporting that disgusting stuff is worse than contemptible.
Report comment to moderator
I find it incredible that I’m the first person to call NJL on her vile post.
That’s because Christians believe it’s so important to love their neighbor as themselves, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed NT — probably the worst comment in the last two-three years. Prior to that it was open season. I’m amazed the comment is still there for the world to see.
As for the topic — the slippery slope argument works here and Anlir is absolutely right. I don’t need the gov’t to filter my internet. Technically and logistically its almost impossible to develop a perfect filter. And let’s face it if a a good socialist like me doesn’t trust the gov’t then its completely baffling that supporters of free enterprise, free market etc find this a good idea.
see note #25 for practical ideas.
#23
#21 Anlir “Who would have ever thought that conservatives would become such ardent foes of liberty?”
BOBLiberty or license?
And you trust big brother to tell you which is which?
Report comment to moderator
I’m against it because it will be ineffective, places an undue burden on net providers, and will likely inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
Report comment to moderator
I just read this late (it’s 2:00 AM here…I’m not sleeping.)
At any rate, I think that Anlir had some of the most sensible comments on this thread. For all that I disagree with him on many issues, his voice was the calm, reasonable and correct one IMO on this topic.
NJL, I have always liked you, but you really do owe Anlir an apology.
I really was surprised that so many Conservatives were for censorship like this. While I would like to see the .xxx or .sex URLs too, and I don’t see how that infringes on anyone’s free speech (it would just gives me the freedom to avoid) this country-wide filtering seems to be a very scary development.
The thing is that a government gets its fingers in by claiming its filtering is for pornography (something most of us — at least in public — claim to be against). But, like in this bill, there are all sorts of other things the government then starts filtering that the “powers that be” simply disagree with. I don’t want to start down that slippery slope.
As for child porn, that is ALREADY illegal, and I’m sure there are better ways to fight against it than a country-wide filter. Having used private filtering software in my home, we realized that it just doesn’t work well. It gums up the works and makes it hard to get to lots of legitimate sites. We had to remove it. I can’t imagine how much worse a country-wide filtering software would be, and how much slower things would be. (And, since the advent of FIOS, I am NOT a patient web surfer!)
Report comment to moderator
If you knew what I know about child pornography, you would not oppose a filter for that purpose. Child pornography is a crime. This is not a free speech issue, but in the name of free speech you want to give rights to some of the sickest people on the planet to broadcast their crime and you are aiding and abetting the viewers — who are also committing a crime. You’ll say no child should be subjected to rape and murder — sometimes live online — but you will not lift one finger to cut into the “market” for the “product.” Committing rape and murder is not free speech, and possession of videos and stills of child pornography is illegal. Would you allow a video store to carry such a criminal product in your neighborhood? I doubt it. The internet is now your neighborhood.
I have seen a child pornographer who “produced” a snuff film sit in a courtroom and brag about it. He was offered a lesser sentence if he cooperated with the government in catching others. He laughed. Ted Bundy before his death talked about the influence of regular pornography on his deeds. You have seen an increase in child rapes and murders, yet you won’t lift a finger to help those children. Because you think rape and murder is speech???
.xxx doesn’t infringe on free speech. It just directs you to those types of sites, but that’s not how child pornographers operate. They are committing crimes. They won’t use .xxx sites. They hide behind their own filters.
You can call my post vile all you want, but what I call vile is this devotion to protecting criminal acts. The “speech” you are protecting is itself criminal. We do not have unlimited free speech in this country. We have restrictions. And the same people who don’t want to restrict child pornography want to enact “hate crime” statutes. Children should not be sacrified to the liberal agenda. If you can’t draw the line at children, you will draw no line.
Yes, everyone has the right to free speech and free expression, but everyone does not have the right to rape and murder children. Quite frankly, you all seem to be supporting free access to snuff films and these crimes, these rapes and murders, take place online and people watch them as they happen, and you want to protect that. I think that’s vile. You should spend some time with the police officers who day in and day out try to stop these crimes. When I balance the equities, I don’t come out on the side of allowing even more criminal acts to take place. Anlir does. Most of you evidently do.
You are already on the slippery slope of watching your society kill children with abortion, with pornography, with rape and murder, and what I’m hearing is “what can you do, there’s free speech?” It’s not speech.
Anlir has never hesitated to post nasty and vile things to me, and I have not complained. And I have no doubt that many of you are angry with me now because I have just put you in the same category. I draw the line at children. The rest of you don’t. And why? Because you are not patient web surfers.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
What about pornography that is not child porn?
The courts have regularly considered it to be legal, regardless of how you or I might feel about it.
How do you propose following the law for general pornography while rightfully excluding (already illegal) child porn?
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
This is not about child pornography, which is already illegal. This is about censorship of the Internet. I point out again, that the Australian government is NOT just censoring pornography, but is also censoring sites they do not approve of. How long before anything to do with Biblical Christianity is one of those sites?
Child pornography should be battled as hard as we can. But, censoring the entire population and slowing the Internet by 70% is not the way to do it.
That’s like saying, because some people get in horrible car accidents, we can all only have electric golf carts to drive that go 15 miles an hour.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
THIS is why we can’t get along in our country and make progress in a lot of areas.
There is not one person on this thread that condones child pornography, snuff films, or rape. Not one. We’d all like to see that stamped out and the perpetrators punished. (Boiled alive in oil, perhaps?)
But, we don’t see the same solutions that you see, and so we are called names?
That just doesn’t work. It’s insulting. It isn’t true. It keeps us from finding solutions that do work or trying compromise options. Who wants to work or compromise with someone calling them vile names and accusing them of supporting the most vile crimes?
I really think that (especially Christians) need to get away from this mode of operating. It is not kind, but — more importantly — it doesn’t even work.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I have never posted any “nasty” or “vile” things about NJLawyer.
Report comment to moderator
Leave it to Anlir to support smut, snuff films and perversions of all kinds. At least he’s consistent — he supports the exploitation and murder of children.
Anlir has never hesitated to post nasty and vile things to me, and I have not complained.
Nothing is as vile and nasty as the first quote. You lost control and now you’ve lost the decency to do the right thing.
Still wondering why that statement is still on the thread.
Report comment to moderator
Well, kids, here’s the deal: The leftys will pre-season you with a saline solution, abort you, add barbecue sauce and grill you. The Christians, the righties, will allow you to be born, but if you fall into the hands of a predator (sometimes your own parents!) who want to make a buck, the Christians and righties will look the other way when the live streaming video of your rape, torture and murder which “satisfies” a pedophile goes over the internet and redefine it as “speech worthy of constitutional protection.”
So, kids, as the Christians and the righties stand at the top of the mountain railing against abortion and the slippery slope as the lefties shove off on their skis, they fail to see that when they redefine the vilest of crimes as speech worthy of constitutional protection, they’re just shoving off on their skis down another slope.
Kids, you’d better hope Jesus has enough millstones in stock, because you’re in for a rough ride and no one will defend you.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re offended by my defense of the little ones, just think how Jesus will feel about it. I did my best to hit you in the face with the fact that these are CRIMES, not speech, and I know I have failed. I’ve seen the results of these crimes which you all discuss as if there is no victim. They are your children, and Jesus said if you harm the children, it would be better for you if you put a millstone around your neck and drown yourself. He didn’t write the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train at #25: This is one of the most reprehensible things I’ve ever read about anyone.
NJLawyer, you are a truly despicable person.
And WMB is even more despicable for not banning you for this unspeakably evil comment.
NJLawyer has been doing this a lot lately. She has decided that I support infanticide and rape … in the latter case by completely misconstruing a comment I made and in the former because I did not comment one way or the other on a distasteful joke someone else made.
Now I will say that I have no problem with rules to keep people using the Internet in public places — whether libraries or coffee shops or airplanes — from being able to access porn. My problem with filtering software is that it doesn’t work very well. As StuBob pointed out, it may block information on breast cancer as much as images of bare breasts. Our filter at work blocks the words “homosexual” and “porn,” which means I can’t read threads on this site with those words in their titles from there.
And even when it’s set so broadly, it still doesn’t block all the adult images out there, which makes me seriously question how effective it can possibly be.
Now that I have said that, I’m sure NJLawyer will take it to mean that I want child pornographers to be protected and free to operate.
Report comment to moderator
NJLaywer, you are completely failing to make a distinction between opposing a practice and questioning the effectiveness of a proposed solution.
NO ONE has defended the right of people to torture and rape children.
NO ONE has defended the right of anyone to view images of those practices.
Several of us have questioned whether a broad filter is an effective or appropriate way to address the problem. From that, you accuse Anlir in particular — and no doubt me and others in due course — of supporting the vile acts themselves.
One says, “Child rape is a terrible thing, but I don’t believe Option A is a good solution,” and you say “Why do you think child rape is good?”
You have truly lost your mind.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: when they redefine the vilest of crimes as speech worthy of constitutional protection,
Name one person in this thread who has done that.
Report comment to moderator
Re #25: Am I just not seeing it now, or has the original comment from NJLawyer been removed or edited?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!