Filtering decisions require independent review – who do you trust?

Technorati Tags: Filter,censorship,child protection,refused classification

Tomorrow (Friday 12 February) is the closing day for submissions to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in respect of proposed measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material under the Federal Government’s proposed mandatory internet service provider filter. The Government’s consultation paper followed its decision to proceed to introduce legislation that would create an Refused Classification (RC) content list.

That list will contain the URLs of RC content that was either “…the subject of a complaint to the (Australian Communications and Media Authority) ACMA or added through arrangements with highly credible overseas agencies to share child sexual abuse content lists”. The Government has also decided to introduce legislation to require all ISP’s to filter the RC content list.

For a range of reasons and motivations, the Government’s proposal to require mandatory filtering for the RC content has been contentious to say the least. Such conflicts are inevitable when there is near universal support for the goal of a specific public policy and an equal level of concern for the means by which that goal might be achieved.

A debate on censorship and freedom is always sensitive and likely to draw out views that are held passionately. Such debates are good for our democracy and society generally and each of us individually. Considering where, if at all, we would draw the line of censorship is important as history has shown that this line will move over time, based upon what we value.

My colleague Sassoon Grigorian blogged in respect of what Microsoft was doing to help law enforcement agencies reduce child pornography in December noting that Microsoft was investing its resources in finding technological ways of pursuing the goal of protecting the vulnerable. It was an excellent commentary on a challenging problem that is too easily overlooked or dismissed with casual agreement by those who would prefer to look away from a very real problem in our society.

I don’t intend to go over the arguments for and against filtering in this blog. Frankly I don’t think there are any new arguments for or against. Every good and every poor argument has been articulated over the past 6 years as both sides of politics in Canberra have sought conscientiously to find a solution to the problem that the marvel of an open information web provides to the world. What we must now debate and resolve is WHO should determine what is censored (filtered if the Parliament decides) and what is not.

A proposition that it should be up to corporations who operate for profit to decide which constitutionally passed laws they will follow and the extent to which they will follow those laws is not sustainable in any society let alone democracy. The concept of self regulation does not generally encapsulate the notion of legislative prerogative.

If the members of a society are willing to accept censorship then is it going too far to suggest that the members of that society must also take or be allowed responsibility for deciding how far that censorship will go?

As comments by one large multinational corporation demonstrate most clearly, censorship of content on the net is occurring today in Australia. In those circumstances I think it is timely we ask who is deciding what we can and can’t read and see and how are they making those decisions.