Here is an interesting train of thought I found myself drifting into whilst watching the bumbling attempt by Stephen Conroy to explain his internet filter during his appearance on The 7PM Project last night.
He – and other supporters of the filter – always come the “if you are against the filter, you are supporting kiddie porn” argument. They wrongly spread the impression that this filter will be all about stopping kiddie porn. The so-called “Refused Classification” (RC) status covers a great deal more than just kiddie porn. It covers a significant amount of LEGAL material. He often seems to forget to mention that.
It is also ironic that anything that is considered “Refused Classification” is actually a classification. By definition, it is classified as “refused classification” – demonstrating the complete failure that is Australia’s current content classification system – but that’s an argument for another day.
But back to what I’ve been thinking.
The proposed filter has already been demonstrated to be completely circumventable, raising the question of why the Australian tax payer needs to waste $44M dollars getting this setup, and then $33M a year – (in 2010 terms) – for the life of the filter to fund its ongoing operation?
The counter – (and far better) – argument is that this money would be far better spent getting this material REMOVED from the internet. Identify it, locate it, and then notify the FBI, Interpol, or the relevant enforcement agencies for the country involved, and have this stuff removed, and the CREATORS of the content punished.
There would not be ANY such material available on the internet, if some sick twisted pervert didn’t take the time to actually CREATE the material. In creating the material, some innocent child, somewhere in the world is being abused – sexually, physically, emotionally, or – more than likely – all of the above.
And because we know the filter won’t actually block people from accessing it anyway, the whole purported “need” for the thing becomes irrelevant – so the only truly effective course of action becomes chasing after the content creators.
If Australia just throws up the shutters around this content – effectively turning a blind eye – are we turning our backs on the poor children who are forced to get involved with the generation of this vile crap, wherever they are in the world?
Perhaps or perhaps not, but in creating this filtering mechanism, Conroy is suggesting we hide the end result of the problem, instead of attacking the problem itself. Is he inadvertently supporting the production of this material?
Think of the children, Minister Conroy. Isn’t that your usual argument?