Internet regulation offers useless solution to safe surfing

Ryan Mulvey / The USD Vista

John has just arrived home from a long day’s labor. He sits at his computer and boots it up. Clicking his Internet browser icon, he hopes to catch the latest news and check out that one YouTube video going around town. Then, after clicking an innocent enough link, his browser freezes and the web page is blocked from opening. In vain, he checks his settings. It appears that everything seems alright. He then remembers that the federal government has instituted a mandatory national web-filter and firewall.

To many Americans, the preceding scenario, the concept of the government blocking access to web-content with a mandatory filter would seem ludicrous. Surely, such an action would be unconstitutional and an infringement of one’s freedom of speech and expression. However, our English speaking cousins in Australia has decided to turn away from the road of liberty and set a new path towards brazen government intrusion.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Labour government and the Australian Communications and Media Authority are set to implement a new program which would block web-access as part of a “Plan for Cyber-Safety” campaign to fight smut and other “unwanted content.” Initially, the program will be instituted on a trial basis until it is finally expanded to include all internet users. The current blacklist includes around 1,300 URLs. The program, originally proposed to parliament by Family First, a socially conservative political party, is primarily aimed at restricting access to illegal pornographic sites. However, the filter is capable of blocking over 10,000 sites, and proposals abound to expand restricted access to any “objectionable” material unsuitable for minors. Civil liberties organizations are up-in-arms in response to this action.

Have Australians lost their minds? The answer is yes, to an extent, they have. The introduction of the proposed mandatory national web-filter is unwise for three reasons. First, there is a philosophical objection to the idea of government invading in the lives of private citizens by blocking Internet access, which is a part of the public domain. In the U.S. we have the freedom to express ourselves to a certain point and to associate with people, places or things we so choose. A national firewall would be abhorrent to these foundational principles of our society, principles which the Australians share in common with us.

Secondly, the government does not exist to act as a nanny to its people. Quite the opposite; the rationalization of democratic and representative government is to ensure the liberties of its citizens. I strongly agree with the premises of the Australian administration. Pornography, especially exploitation of children, is immoral and ought to be illegal. But politicians must find an effective and constitutionally amicable method to preserve the moral order and prevent societal degradation.

It certainly is appropriate for government to discuss morality, but is not the responsibility of a national government to institute a blanket restriction of access to any “potentially” objectionable material. The state should rely on local communities, as well as families, to prevent such access. The decision to engage in immoral activity is of a private matter unless it involves the public sphere. Whereas restricting access to the Internet is perfectly acceptable in public libraries, schools, prisons and even on a university campus, it is inappropriate in a private household.

Finally, the idea of restricting access to objectionable material does not present any real solution to the problem of its production and dissemination. For example, in our war on drugs, we certainly go after those who use, but unless we focus our attention on the drug-lords and smugglers, there will be little change in the long-term. If Rudd and the Australian government want to stop the production of illegal pornography and other objectionable materials, they should go after those who produce and distribute such material and avoid implementation of an invasion of privacy that could lead Australia on a slippery-slop to dystopia as described in George Orwell’s “1984.”