[plug] Arguments in favour?

marks at fs.com.au marks at fs.com.au
Fri May 28 11:30:27 WST 1999

Hi all,

> With all this debate on the censorship bill I'm seeing all the old
> arguments (that I certainly agree with) as to why censoring the internet
> is a bad idea and unworkable and unfair etc. - are there actually any
> arguments in favour of it?  From what I read in the paper the other day,
> everyone (including their own consultants) told the government that such
> censorship was unworkable so why are they pursuing it?  I know
> politicans aren't always the brightest (or at least, sensible) of people
> but they're totally stupid.  Harradine's ditched the GST, (close to)
> everyone hates it and everyone says it's unworkable - so why is the
> government pursuing this?

I believe censorship is based on stopping the wrong people being exposed to
the wrong material. As to how you define what material is wrong for who,
you have a whole other kettle of swimming animals. I agree to this
sentiment. This is what parents to for their children every day of their
young lives. What's the problem here? The second stage to censorship is
when it is distanced from the individual. The ruling body decides that this
choice is too dangerous to be left up to the individual, and so it takes a
hand. We see this in the banning of certain movies or books.

The Australian government believes that they are in a better position to
decided what people should be viewing, and this does not just relate to
internet content. Unfortunately there are people in our society for which
this is true. The 'average' person is who this stuff is aimed at...

Basically choice must be informed. Our society seems to have forgotten that
in its ponderous cultural meanderings... Social change is the only
evolution left to us, but the government seems to forget that individual
choice is a large factor in this.

There is of course another hand :) What the governemt is doing is taking a
position. Lets call this their thesis. There is an obvious negation to that
position (us), lets call this antithesis. Deep in the arguement there are
many issues that really should be raised, and these would not be aired at
all without this situation. Some questions that I have asked myself during
this episode are "Who should lead a country?", "How do we decide who should
lead the country?", "What is individual freedom?", "What is choice?", "What
is social evolution?" and "How can we change society?"...

Somewhere in the midst of all the crap that is flying around is a gem of
truth. Culturally, socially and individually relevant truth. Lets call this
truth synthesis. Sometime in the future this will all change, just like it
has changed from the past.

Hmm, rambling is good... This is something I believe in strongly, there is
no absolute truth. Quite a few people I have talked to actually believe
that censoring at the level the government is talking about is a good
thing. Illegal meterial should be banned and sensitive material should be
rated so that users can make informed choice as to what they view. They
accept that this is not technically workable, but the carrot has to lead
the horse.

I don't think any of the above was really considered by the governent, they
are a selfish bunch of hypocritical posturers. Self interest seems to be
the guiding light, but some of them even believe they are doing the right
thing :(

My $0.02 with inflation....


More information about the plug mailing list