The Australian Governments move to introduce internet filtering is possibly the most sinister move by any Australian Government to curtail freedom of speech and democracy that this country has ever seen.
The US government tried to introduce filtering into that country but failed because the right to freedom of speech is enshrined into it’s constitution and the US courts rejected the move to protect that right.
Australia has no such rights to free speech in its constitution and hence our right to freedom of speech are not enforceable by the courts.
Although the Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech, the country has made efforts to defend this fundamental right. For instance, Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (”ICCPR”), which seeks to guarantee everyone the right to freedom of expression.
Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law in Australia, the government has not implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not technically enforceable by Australian courts.
The influential Jolt Digest which is an online companion to the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology argues that the proposed internet filtering is not only something Australians should be fighting tooth and nail to stop but the rest of the free world should be protesting against it as well.
The article states:
Australia Poised to Begin Internet Filtering Program Unprecedented in Scope for Modern Democracy
By Debbie Rosenbaum
If the presumption that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions is true, then there is cause for great alarm as one of our nation’s closest democratic allies moves to drastically curtail this foundational freedom within its boarders.
The Australian government will likely enact legislation that will make sweeping, compulsory Internet censorship a startling reality for all Australian citizens. Spearheaded by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, and backed by $44.2 million from the government’s $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety budget, the planned filter (part of the NetAlert program) will render Internet access in Australia similar to that in Iran or China.
By enacting such far-reaching, mandatory Internet censorship, Australia joins more repressive governments including those in China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.
What is insidious about the Australian Governments moves to filter the internet against po***graphy is that it won’t work.
In Australia, the majority of Internet traffic – and the bulk of illegal content – travels over peer-to-peer networks, which are unable to be censored by current filtering technologies.
Second, the filtering program itself leads to negative externalities for all web users, including those that have no interest in the blocked content. Statistics suggest that about 1% of websites blocked by modern filters are blocked accidentally, thus creating unnecessary and unwarranted censorship, or “overblocking.”
Additionally, even as Internet users demand ISPs deliver content faster than ever before, government studies indicate the filter “would result in a slowdown [ranging] from 18% through to 78% of current, unfiltered speed.”
The worrying upshot is that the Labor Government knows the following:
1. Filtering won’t stop child po***graphy.
2. Australians have no constitutional or court enforceable legal right to ‘freedom of speech’
3. Filtering with slow the internet for Australians, which by world standards is already ‘ordinary’.
If the Government and Minister Stephen Conroy already know this, then what is their real motive? The Harvard Law Journal is quite clear on what it believes:
Digital media is a powerful platform for spreading political opinions, religious views, personal perspectives, and other core speech. Just a few years ago, the Internet was barely a part of political campaigning, yet it has become an important, low-cost tool for candidates and political activists all over the world to get their message out.
For example, when the military government of Myanmar cracked down on protests by Buddhist monks in 2007, citizen journalists used blogs to share vital information – acting as a vital resource for traditional news outlets.
Even when nations disagree, the Internet allows dialogue to enhance understanding. Palestinian and Israeli children exchange videos documenting their daily lives. In Iraq, American and British soldiers – as well as Iraqi citizens – share their experiences with YouTube audiences around and the world.
As a new media technology, the Internet empowers people. It has provided access to information, unprecedented in its scope, low-cost, and speed. It has revolutionized communication across the globe, providing both feasible and inexpensive access for everyday people.
If we accept the argument that uncensored speech is fundamental to a thriving democracy, then more is at stake than mere Internet censorship in Australia.
The Journal see the move as something that should be opposed by every free person & society on the planet.
All nations, organizations, and individuals who believe in the promise of free speech, and its broader importance to human rights, have an ethical obligation to oppose this Internet filter.
Freedom of Speech is vital to freedom of thought, the engine of democracy. It helps drive innovation and the free exchange of ideas.
We Americans, with our strong Free Speech tradition, have long reaped the benefits of an open society; the United States should especially oppose Australia’s filtering proposal.
Censorship of this magnitude in any democratic society is a threat to the citizens of every democratic society.
Bear in mind that if this legislation is introduced the Government or any future Australian Government could and probably would at a flick of a switch block your access to sites that scrutinize and critisize their activities – like Agmates or any number of site where you can express your views and opinions uncensored .
There are two things that need to happen here.
1. This legislation is an unprecedented attack on our democracy and rights to freedom of speech, it must be stopped.
2. The second is that we must have legally enforceable rights to freedom of speech included in our constitution, if Australia is to remain a healthy democracy and we as individuals – a free people.
Have Your say!
