February 16, 2009
Just a few days after a few small ISPs were reported as on the bandwagon with the Government’s Internet Filtering project, unsubstantiated rumour (from a mate – not a bad source 
), is that the Government may be looking at pulling out of this “gracefully”.
One can only hope this is the case at present, but if it’s not for now, lets at least hope that at the time [it is decided to be ditched], the people involved don’t drag this out more than need be, in any form, as a last ditch and desperate attempt to save some face.
Previous posts on Internet Filtering in Australia.
The talk seems to be livening up.
This piece from Clive Hamilton in Australian IT was “interesting” to say the least. Well worth a read. The “research” from Clive seems thorough.
http://tr.im/gfxy
One of the most linked responses:
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/your-argument-filtering-falls-flat-when/
Follow the latest twittering on this topic here:
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23nocleanfeed
The comments of Clive Hamilton, a person qualified as a Professor of Ethics, are intellectually astounding.
Hamilton’s high-moral-ground argument appears to be, governments are asked by its citizens to impose restrictions on them, as part of living in a democracy.
He said:
“We live in a democracy where citizens ask their governments to impose restrictions on certain types of content that are regarded as harmful to individuals or to the community more broadly.”
But ask yourselves this question: When was the last time you asked your Government to impose restrictions on your liberties ?
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t recall ever asking that of my Government, and I doubt there’s many of us, except a relative minority of do-gooders of society, that ever do. Perhaps Professor Hamilton is one of these people ?
What Prof Hamilton should have said is, a minority of people in society are often responsible for imposing their moral values upon us, the silent majority of society, through Government lobbying and political interest groups.
Hamilton also cites the Get Up campaigns’ use of the 87% slow-down in speed, as he put it, worse-case-scenario, blatant, “scare mongering”. But I see no problem with using a worst case scenario to highlight a problem. Get Up were merely highlighting the real potential for a significant reduction in speed, an argument which they are completely entitled, indeed – ethically obliged to make.
So, Professor Hamilton, in summary, I believe your arguments, whilst they have merit, are not completely based upon sound “ethics” but perhaps more so upon your own personal views ?
Happy to debate further.
I learnt so many new words from that piece I daren’t look any further. It was more “Debbie Does” than “Carry On” that’s for sure.
Censorship doesn’t breach free speech.
Well that is what our Senator Conroy tells us
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25068568-5013046,00.html
What is a Super Blogger? I have never met one before.