This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/pirate-party-censorship-australia

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Pirate party and Coalition agree: internet censorship is not the answer The Pirate party and Coalition agree: internet censorship is not the answer
(12 days later)
Less than 48 hours out from the federal election, the Liberal party released an internet censorship policy remarkably similar to that of the Cameron government in Britain. A mere few hours after the announcement and in the face of a huge backlash, opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull disowned the policy shortly after having defended it on Triple J radio.Less than 48 hours out from the federal election, the Liberal party released an internet censorship policy remarkably similar to that of the Cameron government in Britain. A mere few hours after the announcement and in the face of a huge backlash, opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull disowned the policy shortly after having defended it on Triple J radio.
In case Australian voters have to face yet another U-turn, it might be worth looking at whether censorship laws ever work. All censorship regimes face the question of what exactly should be censored. If we aim to prevent children from viewing particular content, who has the power to decide what that content is? Is this up to the whim of whichever government happens to be in power? Pornographic websites are easy enough to identify, especially the websites of registered businesses, but what about information about pornography (such as a Wikipedia article)? In case Australian voters have to face yet another U-turn, it might be worth looking at whether censorship laws ever work. All censorship regimes face the question of what exactly should be censored. If we aim to prevent children from viewing particular content, who has the power to decide what that content is? Is this up to the whim of whichever government happens to be in power? Pornographic websites are easy enough to identify, especially the websites of registered businesses, but what about information about pornography (such as a Wikipedia article)? 
There is not one example, in Australia or elsewhere, of Internet censorship deterring the determined. It is very difficult to claim that protecting children by preventing their access to graphic websites is possible when children have a better understanding of the internet than greying frontbenchers.There is not one example, in Australia or elsewhere, of Internet censorship deterring the determined. It is very difficult to claim that protecting children by preventing their access to graphic websites is possible when children have a better understanding of the internet than greying frontbenchers.
It has also been argued that filtering out child pornography may help to protect the victims: those children who are the subject of it. The rationale is fairly clear – filtering out child pornography reduces the demand, and therefore production decreases. This argument is sadly misguided. While it is a nice thought that sweeping such an enormous problem under the carpet might make the whole thing disappear, consumers of child pornography are determined, and tools to circumvent censorship are widely available. If they want it, they will get it – it is vital to understand that child pornography is not found through Google. Instead, we should ensure law enforcement agencies are given adequate resources to apprehend the producers and abusers actually causing the bulk of the grief and close the websites down.It has also been argued that filtering out child pornography may help to protect the victims: those children who are the subject of it. The rationale is fairly clear – filtering out child pornography reduces the demand, and therefore production decreases. This argument is sadly misguided. While it is a nice thought that sweeping such an enormous problem under the carpet might make the whole thing disappear, consumers of child pornography are determined, and tools to circumvent censorship are widely available. If they want it, they will get it – it is vital to understand that child pornography is not found through Google. Instead, we should ensure law enforcement agencies are given adequate resources to apprehend the producers and abusers actually causing the bulk of the grief and close the websites down.
In order to ensure that censorship is not being conducted arbitrarily, what is being censored must be published – but it would defeat the purpose of filtering the internet if the websites to be blocked were collated together into a convenient list. But it is also an affront to freedom, liberty and democracy to accept indiscriminate and arbitrary censoring of information. In order to ensure that censorship is not being conducted arbitrarily, what is being censored must be published – but it would defeat the purpose of filtering the internet if the websites to be blocked were collated together into a convenient list. But it is also an affront to freedom, liberty and democracy to accept indiscriminate and arbitrary censoring of information. 
The effects of censorship capabilities have already been felt in Australia. Government bodies such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have issued orders for specific websites to be blocked, relying on section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which compels telecommunications providers to assist in enforcing the law. However, this is a weapon that is being used with minimal care and understanding for the collateral damage it causes: ASIC orders inadvertently blocked 250,000 websites unrelated to their intended target.The effects of censorship capabilities have already been felt in Australia. Government bodies such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have issued orders for specific websites to be blocked, relying on section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which compels telecommunications providers to assist in enforcing the law. However, this is a weapon that is being used with minimal care and understanding for the collateral damage it causes: ASIC orders inadvertently blocked 250,000 websites unrelated to their intended target.
The outrage on social media when the Coalition policy was first announced was intense. With the election not quite in the bag, a backflip was the only option to limit the damage, hence Turnbull later stating the policy "wrongly indicated [the Liberal party] supported an opt out system of internet filtering. That is not our policy and never has been."The outrage on social media when the Coalition policy was first announced was intense. With the election not quite in the bag, a backflip was the only option to limit the damage, hence Turnbull later stating the policy "wrongly indicated [the Liberal party] supported an opt out system of internet filtering. That is not our policy and never has been."
This is quite the opposite to the original policy, which stated until rectified:This is quite the opposite to the original policy, which stated until rectified:
As … in the UK, we expect these standards will involve … home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise.As … in the UK, we expect these standards will involve … home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise.
Surprising as it may seem, Pirate party Australia agrees with the Liberal party on something. Their policy was wrong. Whether backflip or genuine mistake, we agree on that point.Surprising as it may seem, Pirate party Australia agrees with the Liberal party on something. Their policy was wrong. Whether backflip or genuine mistake, we agree on that point.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.