A post to Kate Lundy's blog

[ Originally posted at Kate Lundy's blog. ]

---

Kate,

The Government's policy with respect to mandatory ISP filtering is currently:

"(The) Introduction of mandatory internet service provider (ISP) level filtering of content that is rated Refused Classification (RC) in order to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure."

This policy is explicitly not about using filters to prevent criminal access to illegal material as the Government quite freely admits that such filters are easily circumvented with technical measures.

What then is the policy about? Let the words speak for themselves: "in order to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure" to refused classification material.

Does the Government have any evidence that inadvertent exposure to refused classification material is an actual problem? Is there any evidence that inadvertent exposure to refused classification material causes lasting harm to either the viewer of such material or to society at large?

It is not even clear that the problem the Government is trying to solve is an actual problem in the first place.

Deploying a heavy weight censorship mechanism that has the potential to distort the health of Australian democracy for generations is hardly a rational policy response to a problem that hasn't even been demonstrated, let alone quantified.

Can you point to a single example of another Western democracy where the scope of the filter is broader than strictly illegal material?

What makes Australian citizens unique in the Western world that adults are not entitled to decide for themselves which legal (but refused classification) material they should be able to view?

Does not the Government's insistence on denying Australian adults this choice fly directly in the face of principle 1a) of the National Classification Code:

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;