One of the main arguments put forward by supporters of the internet filter is that the internet is no different from any other content distribution mechanism in the modern, connected world. They insist their plan is “not censorship”.
They insist that the internet is “nothing special”, and that it is a “broadcast mechanism” – much like television and radio, and as such, the classification systems that apply to television and radio are equally applicable to the internet. But, as people with some level of foresight can tell you, the dynamics of the internet are completely different, and a very special case.
The internet is very very different. In any given region in Australia, there are five broadcast television networks, which deliver up to fifteen channels into their local areas. Each area can be served by pay-television operators Foxtel and Austar who co-operate in delivering a bouquet of approximately 150 channels. Most Australians therefore have been 15 and 165 channels of television content, beamed directly into their loungerooms.
Classification is obviously a big job – every single program broadcast on every single one of those channels needs to be classified so that viewers can make an informed decision as to whether they – or more importantly – their children should be watching a particular program. It allows each and every family unit to make their own decision as to what is appropriate for them.
This is one of the two the concepts that the proposed mandatory internet filter attempts to apply to the internet. That every web page should be classified so people can make an informed decision on whether they want themselves or their children to view it. Obviously, this is ludicrous. Classifying the entire content of 165 television channels is a massive job. Imagine how big a job classifying approximately two trillion web pages would be?
Fortunately, the government understands this, and say that they won’t blacklist anything on the internet unless a complaint is made, and the content complained about is deemed “inappropriate”. Once deemed “inappropriate”, it is placed in the so-called “Refused Classification” basket, and officially at least, that content will be inaccessible to everyone in Australia. No personal choice, just arbitrarily banned, by a government controlled mechanism. This content will not necessarily be “illegal” in the traditional sense. You just won’t be able to see it online, because someone who believes that their own personal moral standard is applicable to everyone else, has decided that it needs to be blocked. Regardless of whether it is available in Australia in other forms – and in many cases, it is and will continue to be available.
Hang on…what? Aren’t the government saying that the internet is nothing special, and needs to be treated in the same way as television? Already, they are treating it differently, by not only classifying the content, but banning it, and not allowing Australian’s to make their own choice as to whether they want to view it online? Curious – smelling a little like censorship, right?
Earlier this year, Senator Stephen Conroy appeared on the “ABC Radio National Breakfast” program to discuss a recently granted license fee concession made to Australian television broadcasters – reducing their license fee over a number of years, to allow them to use the funds save to combat the threat that is IPTV – in layman’s terms – television-style content delivered over the internet. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of IPTV that Senator Conroy wanted to combat was that when television-style content is “beamed” into “television rooms” all over Australia, from anywhere in the world, that we as Australians cannot control that content.
His main beef was that Australian television broadcasters have specific Australian content restrictions – a certain amount of the content that they broadcast MUST be Australian-made. That is fair enough – it is a provision that protects the production – (and therefore jobs) – of Australian film and television producers, while still allowing overseas content to be shown. Content is classified, regardless of its origin, and broadcast. People then get to choose if they want to watch it or not. Certainly, R-rated and X-rated content is not shown on traditional terrestrially broadcast television in Australia, but R-rated content is shown on specific adult channels on subscription television platforms. Channels which people can CHOOSE to subscribe to or not.
Australians are not blocked from viewing this content – but the internet filter is proposed to block some R-rated and X-rated content – however, lets get back to Senator Conroy’s radio appearance. Interestingly, in that interview, he stated quite clearly that “you can’t regulate the internet” – and after a pause when he realised what he had said – he added “in terms of IPTV content”.
Another contradiction. If the internet is a “special” case, why can’t he regulate the internet in terms of IPTV content? Video (and audio) content on iTunes and other online distribution systems is given a classification. Can’t IPTV streams be classified too? If the internet is not special, why can’t he block IPTV streams that don’t meet Australian content rules? Much as he proposes to block content on the internet that doesn’t meet “reasonable moral standards”?
See how even Stephen Conroy himself doesn’t realise he has admitted that the internet actually IS special? That it is different?
As with television – each and every family unit must make their own decision as to what is appropriate. The internet filter will cut a whole swathe of content out of that decision making process, because somebody we don’t know, will likely never meet, and who thinks they have a better idea of what is “right” or “wrong”, has already decided that we are not allowed to see it. However the supporters of the filter try to spin it, that is censorship.
That is anti-democratic.