Clive Hamilton misses the point completely
Clive Hamilton’s case for restricting the internet fails to point out why the scheme must be ISP based and not PC based.
We’ve all come to expect at least some level of alarmism from Clive Hamilton and his kin and his post today doesn’t dissapoint. His well trained and reasoned tone of writing weaves a chilling tail of a young boy’s inadvertant descent into sexual deviancy through the unfiltered use of the internet.
As scary as his short story sounds, it is one that, like most Hollywood disasters, jumps several steps of logic in order to reach the desired conclusion.
If the accidental fall from grace of a young boy downloading pron is the situation we are trying to fight, why is it imperative that we discount PC based filtering as a solution? The situation he describes wouldn’t happen on my home PC, I’m running Integard. if parents were concerned about the situation, they too would run a similar product to ensure that this fictional young man could not access pornography while not being supervised.
His article fails to give a compelling reason why ISP filtering is needed and PC filtering is inadequate to solve the situation he scripted.
Spinning the low uptake of the PC based filters provided in the Net Alert as a failure of the project relies on a blatantly condescending attitude towards the Australian Public. The uptake of the free filters may have been small, but conservatives like Clive have repeatedly failed to mention the market usage of commercial products such as Net Nanny that were denied access to the Net Alert program.
The dollar value of the marketing campaign is often touted by Clive and Co as an example of the waste of time that Net Alert became. When you compare Net Alert’s $22 million advertising budget with the $180 million Tourism Australia spent on their failed campaign, perspective starts to set in.
Another much loved anecdote amongst conservatives is the story about a 16 year old breaking the filter within minutes of first seeing it. Fast forward to 2009 and my 10 years of hardcore computer literacy can’t break Integard in 6 months. I’ve met the guys at Race River, creators of Integard, they’re not stupid. The products on offer today are nothing like the crap originally offered on Net Alert.
Clive also manages to confuse freedom of speech with unrestricted access to pornography. Allowing children to view porn has never been a policy of the EFA. Classification of content is fine where it allows people to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to view it. Prohibiting adults from making that decision is different, we are fighting for the right of an adult to choose what they see, hear or say.
There are numerous mechanisms both economic and legislative that have not been explored as solutions to the issue of unintended exposure of pornography to minors. Clive misses the point that he has chosen to back a mechanism that infringes on civil liberties.
Perhaps Clive should show us how truly smart he is and suggest a solution that everybody can be happy with, instead of lumping in with the nearest idiot with a ministry.
I’ve posted a rather ill-tempered response to Clive Hamiltons’ rant. I’ve run out of patience and, as the comments show, I’m starting to believe that he’s not arguing in good faith.
My anger derives from the fact that Hamilton is essentially recycling the same rant from before Christmas, and I’ve already responded. He hasn’t.
Hamilton fails to address the arguments being put to him. Logically, I see only four possible explanations: ignorance, incompetence, unconscious inconsistency or willful misdirection.
It can’t be ignorance, because he and I presumably read each other’s material in Crikey. It’s presumably not incompetence, because he’s produced well-research material in other fields which systematically dismantle others’ arguments just as we dismantle his.
That leaves only unconscious inconsistency — i.e., he doesn’t realise he’s using the same dodgy arguments he decries in others, but then this has been pointed out to him — which leaves only deliberate misdirection.
They are the only alternatives, aren’t they?
I was recently talking to someone (ex-ADF) that has known Jim Wallace as a general and christian lobbyist for quite some time who suggested that the narrow brand of lobbying he has been engaged in for so many years has addled his mind a little.
He also suggested that there is a growing lack of respect for Jim in the Christian community for this exact reason.
I’m starting to lose patience with him as well. I’m sick of hearing the same lines repeated as though they were magic spells that would make rational men and women dissapear and make Jim, Steve and Clive’s jobs a hell of a lot easier.
Clive’s using Conroy’s (and every other politician’s who has no basis or supporting arguments for eroding human rights) trick of continually recycling the same lines and messages; relying on the same response using fear, calling opponents supporters of pedophiles. And if it’s said often and loud enough it’ll drown out the voices of opposition and become the accepted position.
The likes of Karl S and Mel and Kochie pushing Conroy’s rot and their ignorance of the Internet is making getting traction for the campaign for freedom of the Internet hard to get.
Now, if Mel and Kochie actually understood the situation, THEn we would have some traction.
That’s just one way of getting such traction since Mel and Kochie are so indicative of MSM. To get their attention we need to more clearly illustrate how the government’s filter will greatly inconvenience and annoy everyday Australians. At the moment the issue is being treated as something that only affects a very small per centage of Australians [the Internet geeks snigger snigger].
It’s also worth looking at escalation tactics and greater coordination and organisation of interwebs.