[LINK] With adults controlled like this, protecting the children can wait

[Jon Seymour]

LINKers not otherwise mired in the net censorship trenches are invited
to consider my recent contribution to SToC.

jon.
===============================

from:L http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/with-adults-controlled-like-this-protecting-children-can-wait/

Clive Hamilton does not believe, like the Kantians, that exercising
rationality is a virtue.

It shows.

Hamilton does concede that rationality is useful to the extent that it
allows one to avoid being manipulated by others against one's better
interests. The unstated corollary of this is that if one wishes to
manipulate others against their own better interests, convincing them
by rational argument may not always be the best strategy. On the
contrary, if one's aim is to win, and one does not consider that
winning fairly is a virtue, moral panic rather than rational argument
may well be your weapon of choice.
Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton

It is clear Hamilton passionately wants to maintain social controls on
the flow of pornography, irrespective of the medium through which it
flows. He appears to want to win the political war against porn even
if he buries his own reputation as an intellectual on the battle
field. For Hamilton, this is a high stakes game indeed.

To the observer, this seems absurd - why would a respected public
figure such as Hamilton stake so much of his intellectual reputation
on a plan which, if implemented, could not possibly achieve the
objectives that have been set for it. This just doesn't seem to make
sense, rationally.

For when measured against the stated objectives - eliminating
virtually all access to extreme pornography via the Internet from
Australian homes - the plan cannot possibly succeed. People trading
extreme pornography on the Internet are already using p2p networks and
encrypted tunnels or soon will be. People who don't seek extreme porn
rarely encounter it and those that do seek it will take extreme
measures to satisfy their desires - that's why they are called
extremists.

However, to assume that the stated objectives are the actual
objectives is to assume too much. What if the actual objectives of
this policy are far more modest? Suppose, for example, that one
believes that there is a net social benefit to be gained simply by
moderating the porn consumption habits of the middle 80% of the
population. While a leaky filter would be useless at preventing
extremists viewing extreme porn, it could still be quite useful at
moderating the porn consumption habits of the middle 80%. To explain
why, consider how a leaky filter would work.

Suppose you are an adult who occasionally hits the net in search of a
porn fix. Perhaps your particular interest is "South American Dancing
Girls". It is certainly possible that while Googling for a fix you may
come across links to material in the more extreme category. Feeling
aroused and against your better judgment, perhaps you click through
one of the more questionable links, rationalising that a pay-wall will
stop you before you get to the seriously sick stuff. However, suppose
that instead of delivering a more salacious image, your browser
displays the following message:

    HTTP 404

    Access from 10.10.2.2 blocked at 2008-12-03 00:45:00 GMT according
to Schedule XXX of ACMA Act 2009.

    If you believe this URL was blocked incorrectly, please e-mail
you-blocked-my-porn at acma.gov.au.

As a denizen of the middle 80% of Australia do you:

    * contact ACMA at the suggested address
    * fire up Tor and see what was behind the blocked link
    * write a letter to your morning paper and local MP decrying the
state of civil liberties in the country and use as an example your
recent experience
    * pensively wonder about what law you may have just broken and
resolve to be less adventurous the next time you need a porn fix

If you are congenitally stupid, you may do the first. If you are a
porn extremist you may do the second. If you are committed to free
speech and care not for your mother's next tea party, you may do the
third. However, if you are in the middle 80% of Australians, you will
likely do the fourth - moderate your own porn consumption.

And that, like the Chinese filter, is how a technically ineffective
filter can be an effective tool for social control; a tool for
Silencing Dissent about where the boundaries of acceptable porn usage
should lie. If parents really are worried that monitoring their own
children's Internet usage might impinge upon their children's sense of
freedom and responsibility, imagine how they will feel about Big
Brother passing judgment on their own?

It seems the Government's mandatory ISP level filter isn't targeted at
porn extremists - it couldn't possibly be, because it won't be
effective for that task. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude
that it is targeted fairly and squarely at middle Australia. Indeed,
it may even be somewhat effective at achieving the far more modest
objective of moderating most people's access to Internet porn within
tighter limits. It won't be perfect, but then it doesn't need to be if
your objective isn't perfection.

Irrespective of whether you believe this more modest social policy
objective is a desirable one, Australians should feel outraged that
they are being corralled into accepting it by proponents such as
Hamilton who are promising a solution "to protect the children". It
won't and it can't.

With adults controlled like this, protecting children can wait for another day.

Jon Seymour is a left-libertarian geek who believes that exercising
rationality in the pursuit of moral clarity is a virtue. He blogs
about this and similar issues at "Broadbanned Revolution - fight the
philterphiles that be."