[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans - ACS position

[Jan Whitaker]

At 09:52 AM 17/12/2009, Philip Argy wrote:
>As I said yesterday, I accept that not everyone will agree with the line we
>are adopting but if ISP level filtering is as inexorable as climate change
>there's no point staying in denial.  We have to do our best to ameliorate
>the consequences of a fundamentally ill conceived and promoted election
>promise.

two things:
1. Tt isn't as "inexorable" as climate change and to conflate the two 
things doesn't make sense. Climate change is an environmental 
condition that could eventually kill people. Internet smut isn't. 
Filters aren't either. Filters, or properly 'censorship measures', 
are political control decisions that are by the policy choice of 
*elected* officials.

2. The promise was NOT a filter. It was provision of a clean feed for 
those who wanted it, not a mandatory restriction on the nation.

However, ameliorating bad policy is a good goal. However, this 
filtering is *still* bad public policy in a liberal democracy. If we 
are no longer the latter according to the actions of our 'leaders', 
someone had better explain that to the public who behaves and 
believes otherwise. Then we can reconsider our options of who we put 
in charge of the place.

Jan


Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _