(Author’s name
#NAMES#
AUSTRALIA.
ABC & The Conversation
Box ****
Australia
RE: Proposed Internet Censorship by the government-funded ABC and The Conversation
The Australian internet censorship is protected by the censorship law that aims at controlling the content in the web that is viewed by Australians in Australia. The act was passed into law in 2000 and functions to: protect against terrorism, avoid children accessing porn, enable adults avoid offensive material, and block information that can be used to commit crime (LLC 64). Internet censorship procedures in Australia began in 1992 through the Broadcasting Services Act, which allowed ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) to ban material over the internet that was deemed inappropriate. However, since legislation of the censorship act in 2000, there have been more legislations that have been passed that has made Australia become the strictest country in terms of internet censorship. Notable legislations include: SUICIDE RELATED MATERIALS OFFENCES ACT of 2006 that prohibits discussion of suicide over the web; COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION AMMENDMENT BILL of 2004 that protected copyrights to as far as USA; the NEW SOUTH WALES internet censorship of 2001 that criminalizes any online material unsuitable for minors; and many more.
Therefore, the following letter is a formal submission designed to present several opinions regarding the issue of the current Australian Internet Censorship by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Conversation. Upon the release of the advert, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was acting as a government corporation that is usually run by tax-payers’ money, while The Conversation played its part as a web-based magazine that is usually involved in academic forums in the country (John Carlo et al., 31). It is commendable that these two corporations have given the public an opportunity to air their opinions after their official announcement through ABC’s Late Night Live program. Attached therefore, is a formal submission to your proposal that internet censorship to be enacted in Australia, written from my personal viewpoint.
The ineffectiveness of this advert can be seen in the timing of this advert. It does not seem appropriate for such an important issue to be advertised during a late night program since it would reach very few people. Being a contemporary review, internet censorship called for public comments, and it would have been more appropriately advertised. The advert did not allow enough people to get the message, and the time that it was advertised did not allow enough time to make the necessary public decisions and opinions. Therefore, the responses that will be collected might not reflect the true picture of the public thoughts and sentiments. The publicity given to the internet censorship issue was arguably ineffective since it did not reach many people.
The proposed internet censorship is usually considered after the government realizes that the internet is doing more harm than good to the country (Fallows 65). The stated reasons of censorship were to prevent social decadence and the leakage of confidential and private information regarding the Australian government to other people, countries and organizations. According to the terms of reference, the government plans to censor news and limit discussions amongst the country’s people by imposing policies of blocking some websites through the internet service providers. Internet censorships are usually imposed for three reasons namely political, social or security reasons. Alarmingly, the terms of reference were not clear since it seems the reasons were falling in all the categories instead of just one. The issue of moral decadence could fall in social or security category while the issue of government could fall in political or security reasons. This proposal did not clearly state how and in which aspects the internet was contributing to moral decadence, neither did it state the aspects through which the internet was being used to compromise the government private information.
The advert can be said to have a rhetoric aspect because its lack of clarity makes it hard for the public to understand the underlying issues affecting their moral, social, security and political aspects. By stating only the overall issues of the internet censorship proposal, the ABC and The Conversation inclined towards getting support from the public. People would only get the idea that internet was playing a bad role in the society through leakage of government information and bringing in moral decay amongst the people. In such a case, people can easily vote for internet censorship without considering the reasons ABC and The Conversation had regarding the censorship. Such adverts and proposals encourage people to respond in a certain way, typical of many political documents (Lasica 56).
It is important for the government and the concerned institutions to understand that internet censorship controversy has affected different governments over the years (Dealing with the Filtering Stigma 25). Even with so many discussions going on, internet censorship has not had a resolution yet. The problem is that the governments have failed in finding the best way to control and regulate the World Wide Web. It is worth noting that governments, churches and organizations have had debates regarding what is right and what is not when it comes to regulating the ever changing technological advancements. According to the terms of reference regarding internet censorship by ABC and The Conversation, it is not clear which URLs they want to block in the internet. It would not be fair to block certain social sites simply because the government feels that the discussion that goes on in those web sites is morally wrong and detrimental to the government privacy. Simply because one or two persons engaged in immoral behavior over a certain network does not mean that all the users of such network should be disrupted.
Media censorship has affected other sectors such as the American online, literature, bulletin boards and music (John Carlo et al. 39). However, for censorship to take place, all pros and cons of such an act need to be weighed. For example, it was alright for the Jewish Defense League to make demands of regulation and monitoring of neo- Nazi recruiters who were using the America Online as their communication network (Dealing with the Filtering Stigma 25). People may have supported such a move because it was clear that all the people connected to neo-Nazi were a threat to the society. Therefore, ABC and The Conversation need to understand that censoring certain websites may deny people their rights to freedom and expressions because some social sites just allow people to share ideas. It would be better if the government would find an alternative way of dealing with the few people who have engaged in what it terms as ‘moral decadence’ and ‘leakage of government information’. Furthermore, the government should have alternative ways of protecting its confidential information from getting to the wrong people (John Carlo et al. 39).
If the government goes ahead with the internet censorship proposal, apart from failing in the implementation, there will be several outcomes that will affect the public. For example, many people will feel that the government is really interfering with their freedom of speech and association through pervasive censoring. In pervasive censorship, the government and other institutions may block a lot of content in the internet, with an aim of controlling what is accessed and passed over the internet (Lasica 56). In such a case, the government seems to infringe on people’s right to speech or association. Also, the government may seem to be imposing an unfair policy because a few individuals’ immorality or crime should not make the government block web sites that are used by many other innocent people in the country. It would also be crucial for the government to consider other fair alternatives that can replace such pervasive internet censorship. The implementation of such a policy may fail because criminals and immoral people may find other sites in the WWW that they can use to continue doing what the government is trying to stop (Luck 42). It is advisable for the government to understand that by imposing internet censorship, people will lack freedom of expression, it will be an unfair move, it will not work since criminals can use other sites to do their dirty work, and also there are other better alternatives to pervasive censorship.
The government may like to know how such an implementation is bound to fail, and how possible it is to find alternatives. Pervasive internet censorship is bound to fail in its mission because the blocked websites are not the only websites that criminals can use. Criminals can keep on shifting their target websites, and it is not practical to keep on blocking every website that is suspected to be used by criminals (John Carlo et al. 40). Also, the government should really consider the aspect of alternatives to the internet censorship. The government can carry out measures to regulate and control access to internet content through other practical ways such as parental guidance. This kind of solution can eventually lead to the creation of a responsible society without any coercion of the public. These aspects are vital because they offer practical view of the internet censorship proposal.
The government can address the issue from the public’s perspective. For example, it is important to consider the views and perceptions of the public before carrying out the censorship. The government needs to emphasize on mutual responsibility and accountability when it comes to implementing of policies that affect the public (Carr 24). Although a large section of the media is privately owned, the government should work together with other relevant private institutions before making decisions regarding media control and censorship. The public should also be given an opportunity to air their views. The scope is not too narrow because the government can easily enact policies based on recommendations from individuals and other institutions.
The recommendations and justification
The awareness created by the government needs to reach more public through the use of appropriate media, and the advert should be aired at an appropriate time to ensure that it reaches many people. This is because different people have different views, for example, Vint Cert (a person considered to have been the father of internet) once said that internet control was bound to fail since the web is largely privately owned (Luck 44).
The government should explicitly state the finer details of how internet has been used for immoral and criminal activities in order to ensure the public understands what is at stake. It should also mention the websites that need such regulations for more clarity to the public. If the problem is the website of the Australian Sex Party, the website should be regulated as such, if the issue is the Wikileaks.org, it should be regulated as such. These two internet topics may have had much controversy for long due to their explicit and malicious topics (Carr 24).
Parents can be given the necessary know- how regarding how to block some sites for their children using keywords. These parental guidance tools are available from software stores and they can be of help when it comes to blocking pornographic sites and other immoral web sites (Lasica 56).
The government should also find a way of protecting vital and confidential information from unauthorized users through security precautions. Government officials should be reminded on how to handle private and confidential information at all times (John Carlo et al. 39). This can be done through the use of for authentication of all government documents so as to prevent unauthorized access. Face recognition devices, thumb print- recognition devices, strong security and identification codes can be used to ensure that only authorized people access government documents.
It is vital for the government to regulate internet access because some activities can be a threat to the political, social and security aspects of a country. However, ABC and The Conversation could have elaborated more on their reasons for censorship. In addition, a few individuals or websites should not make the government to enact a policy for pervasive internet censorship. It is in the interest of the public to enjoy their freedom of speech or association while taking responsibility for the young generation. The above recommendations can be used to ensure the government works in the interest of the public when it comes to media regulation and censorship.
#NAME#
Works Cited
Carr, John. "It's Time To Tackle Cyberporn." New Statesman 127.4373 (1998): 24. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 June 2012.
"Dealing With The Filtering Stigma." Library Journal 125.7 (2000): 25. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 June 2012.
Fallows, James. "'The Connection Has Been Reset'." Atlantic Monthly (10727825) 301.2 (2008): 64-69. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 June 2012.
John Carlo, Bertot, Jaeger Paul T., and Hansen Derek. "The Impact Of Polices On Government Social Media Usage: Issues, Challenges, And Recommendations." Government Information Quarterly 29.(n.d.): 30-40. ScienceDirect. Web. 25 June 2012.
Lasica, J.D. "Censorship Devices On The Internet." American Journalism Review 19.7 (1997): 56. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 June 2012.
LLC. (2010). Internet Censorship by Country: Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China, Internet Censorship in Australia. New York: General LLC. Pp. 2+
Luck, Geoffrey. "Can We Trust The Abc?." Quadrant Magazine 52.6 (2008): 40-45. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 June 2012.
