Internet filter puts the common good first - a case for the filter

A considered argument for the Internet filter by the Christian Lobby. It’s good to see - we need both cases articulated clearly so they can be weighed on their merits. Right now, the debate is too ideological, too often shrill. That’s unhelpful.

For my part, I cannot support the filter for at least two reasons. The inclusion of Wikileaks on the initial blacklist is a demonstration of Government insouciance (at best) towards what makes the list.   

Secondly, even without a filter, the sad broadband speeds we currently enjoy in Aus are already a commercial impediment.  

Filtering is important, but it is the responsibility of the household, not the Government.

30 July 2010

Interesting presentation by Accessnow.org’s Brett Solomon at TEDx Sydney.

The filter’s detractors sometimes struggle to deepen arguments beyond: “it won’t work”, “it’s a waste of money”, “it’s not right”.  

So Solomon’s argument is useful. He frames these points in a wider context: the importance of citizen journalism, digital grassroots action and how a filter hampers the interwebs’ social potential. 

It would’ve been nice to hear more on education as a more effective alternative to the filter, though… this is where the anti-censorship argument generally runs out of puff. 

Raging for abstract rights gets more attention (ok, Solomon doesn’t really ‘rage’). And I guess flying the flag of revolution is just more exciting for the chorus. 

But the line that “Some internet content is wrong; but censorship is wrongerer” just polarises the argument. Makes it zero-sum. We need more airtime dedicated to these education approaches that are only ever touched on.

An opposition with considered alternatives is more credible. Its time to stop preaching to that chorus. It’s time for the debate to evolve.

3 June 2010

What it's about...

Looking at the role of digital media in elections and riots; campaigns and chicanery; in the righteous and the underhand...

Shots