What do we want?

Clive Hamilton has written an article called net porn goes way beyond naughty about the "clean feed" the Australian government is proposing to demand from internet companies. The intention is to filter out hard core porn at the level of the Internet Service Provider.

You need a subscription to read this article, but a couple of quotes from it are:

"What’s so special about the internet? All but the most unthinking libertarians accept censorship laws that limit s-xual content in film, television, radio, books and magazines. Yet the hysterical response from the internet industry and libertarian commentators to the Government’s proposal to require ISPs to filter heavy-duty p-rn shows how the internet has become fetishised."

and

"Children are confused, shocked and disturbed by these images and it is likely that some boys and young men have developed unrealistic and perverse expectations about what a s-xual relationship involves."

The article will probably eventually appear on Clive Hamilton's own web site

Mr Hamilton's attempt at rational argument has been greeted in the web comments by a tidal wave of outrage. Unfortunately, this outrage is no tsunami of rational thought. The arguments of the opponents are:

1. it won't work technically
2. there will be undesired side effects which will limit free speech
3. leave me alone, I like the internet just the way it is (this argument is more implied that stated explicitly)

Interestingly, the opponents of the clean feed never, as far as I have read, confront the issue of children being confused and disturbed by these images. It is apparently seen as irrelevant by the proprietors of the internet.

The argument that clean feed won't work technically seems a very weak and dishonest one to me. Firstly, it ignores the fundamental issue of what we want to do and diverts attention to technical details. Remember that the people saying this don't want it to work anyway. Also, only a fool would make dogmatic statements about what will never work. Bill Gates famously said in 1981 "640 k ought to be enough for anyone" (I think he might have since denied saying that).

The free speech argument is also just plain silly. In what way could free debate and the expression of ideas be limited by controlling hard core porn?

In my opinion, Clive Hamilton is a shining light of rational thought in a pretty gloomy world of half baked rhetoric and self deceiving prejudice, demonstrated by the "arguments" used to condemn his recent article on controlling porn on the internet.