[LINK] Good words

[David Boxall]

I'm always on the lookout for well-phrased arguments. Other people 
always seem to put their points so much better that I.

Of particular interest to me:
> ... Conroy compares the internet with means of publishing - books, 
> films - and assumes it should be subject to the same classification 
> controls as they are. In fact it should be compared with free means of 
> communication - speech, telephones, newspapers* - which it more 
> closely resembles, and in which governments intervene less because 
> intervention is less likely to be effective.
* [not sure about that last - it's probably there because this was 
published in a newspaper]
and
> ... by trying to control the net, Conroy raises expectations that such 
> a thing can be done. When the measure fails, as it will, there will be 
> pressure to crack down harder, to restrict freedoms further. And what 
> happens when various pressure groups - well intended, no doubt, every 
> one of them - decide that they would like views opposing theirs 
> censored, and start to pressure governments to limit net access 
> further? Can we be confident that Conroy would defend freedom of 
> speech in particular instances, now that he has so easily given away 
> the general principle?

>From 
<http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/tea-party-brewing-a-rebellion-20100425-tlhf.html?skin=text-only>

Conroy tilts at a web windmill

STEPHEN CONROY, the Communications Minister, is feeling the heat over 
his attempt to censor the internet for Australians. The latest critic is 
the US government. Conroy, of course, is used to criticism. Internet 
polls overwhelmingly oppose his measure. He was 2009's villain of the 
year at international internet industry awards for his singleminded 
doggedness in his self-appointed task. Reporters Without Borders has 
placed Australia on its list of countries under surveillance as a 
possible ''internet enemy''. He has shrugged it all off. We do not doubt 
he has the self-belief similarly to shrug off criticism by the US State 
Department as just more carping from an ungrateful world.

Yet the minister should listen more closely. His explanations for what 
he proposes have been inadequate, and his justifications are equally so. 
He lists sites dealing with child pornography and bestiality as among 
those that would be banned as having been refused classification - just 
as publications would be in other media. He asks: what's so special 
about the internet? The answer is: nothing. But Conroy compares the 
internet with means of publishing - books, films - and assumes it should 
be subject to the same classification controls as they are. In fact it 
should be compared with free means of communication - speech, 
telephones, newspapers - which it more closely resembles, and in which 
governments intervene less because intervention is less likely to be 
effective.

Technology, in effect, makes his arguments about child pornography and 
terrorist communications into red herrings. As information technology 
experts attest, a filter will not work. Child pornography and other 
horrors will still be available to those internet users who pursue the 
(not particularly sophisticated) ways to circumvent it. The great 
majority of internet users, needless to say, will steer well clear 
unprompted. But by trying to control the net, Conroy raises expectations 
that such a thing can be done. When the measure fails, as it will, there 
will be pressure to crack down harder, to restrict freedoms further. And 
what happens when various pressure groups - well intended, no doubt, 
every one of them - decide that they would like views opposing theirs 
censored, and start to pressure governments to limit net access further? 
Can we be confident that Conroy would defend freedom of speech in 
particular instances, now that he has so easily given away the general 
principle?

By trying to sanitise the net, he is limiting what is becoming a basic 
medium of information exchange, and gagging freedom of speech. He should 
stop now.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  All that is required
                                |  for evil to prevail is
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  for good men to do nothing.
                                |     -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)