The Proposed Internet Filtering Laws by the Australian Government - Essay Example

Internet has revolutionized the means of communication. Though it is considered as the best and quick medium of communication, it has certain drawbacks as well like the availability of uncensored obscene materials, politically and religiously motivated stories etc. Thos paper briefly analyses the proposed internet filtering laws by the Australian government. Advocates of internet filtering argues that it is necessary to protect the country’s political, social and cultural interests while the opponents reject such an argument saying that the government’s move may restrict the freedom of expression by the public. Introduction “Children today are ‘digital natives’. They have grown up with computers and the internet and they spend a good deal of time online while at school and at home” (Conroy, p.1) Children are mostly vulnerable especially at their adolescent period. They were not much enough to separate between the good and evils during this period. The thirst for new knowledge will encourage them to experiment things which may potentially harmful to the society. Internet is an ocean of knowledge from where the children may get the wanted and unwanted information. It is difficult to control the internet activities fully because of its usefulness in the modern learning processes. The growth of incidents like online identity theft; cyber-bullying; abuse of child avatars in virtual worlds; computer addiction; an increase in the number of registered profiles of sex offenders on MySpace; and online breaches of privacy such as the posting of sexual photos and sex videos by students are some of the criminal activities associated with internet. (Conroy, p.1)The Australian government has recently suggested a policy of controlling the internet activities or internet filtering which has raised a hot debate among the Australian public. The Australian government has recently suggested a policy of controlling the internet activities or internet filtering which has raised a hot debate among the Australian public. (Maurushat & Watt) Supporter of internet filtering argues that such a move is necessary protect the country’s political, social and cultural interests while the opponents reject such an argument saying that the government’s move may limit the freedom of expression by the public. (Maurushat & Watt) Internet filter debate in Australia “Labor considers that, just as we teach Australian children about the risks of drunk driving, we must also teach them how to be responsible cyber-citizens and about the importance of cyber-safety.” (Conroy, p.1) It is the duty of the government to streamline the public and the future generation in a healthy manner to make them useful citizen. Labor government believes that internet activities need to be filtered or controlled just like the control imposed on smoking or consumption of liquor. Though smoking and drinking affect a person physically, the internet addiction affects a person mentally and hence it should be controlled as per the views of the labor government in Australia. Bernadette McMenamin, chief executive officer of Child Wise, has said that she still believes that filtering is something we should trial and then leave it up to the public to make that decision." (Lake) Most of the public are unanimous in accepting the negative impacts of internet upon the children. But still they have different opinions about the proposed restriction of internet. Relation between internet filter debate and information policy “There have always been two basic strategies for implementing public policy goals. The first is education, to achieve critical reflection and collective intelligence. The second is legislation and criminalization, to achieve control and suppression” (Schrader) The information policy in a democratic country always focuses on democratic values rather than autocratic approaches like what is happening in China where freedom of expression is controlled. Since internet filtering may result in the blockage of certain sites, the government policy must be formulated in such a way that the proposed restrictions may not utilized for political gain. The governments can easily misuse information policies to their own advantages if it is not formulated correctly. (Maurushat & Watt) Stakeholders Stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of information policy are the politicians or the members of the government, the media people or groups, and the public. Government is the entity which formulates the information policy and the parliament is the body which accept or reject such a policy. The governmental agencies such as police and other authorities are responsible for the implementation of the policy while the media group or the media personnel are the one who needs to restrict their activities based on the information policy. The ultimate beneficiaries, irrespective of good or bad are the general public. Arguments for and against the internet filter Most of the contents in internet will catch the attraction of children rapidly because of the interactive elements and the animation graphics. They will go through the net just like a drunken driver drives a car. They will come across with new things and that new things will lead them to some other fresh information. The children may not have much maturity and hence they will try to imitate what all information they get from the internet in their real life also (Teresa). For example, the sexual contents in internet will force them to engage in rape like aggressive and socially unacceptable activities. For them internet is an addiction just like smoking, drinking or injecting drugs. Because of the above reasons internet contents also need to be filtered before allowing access to the public especially to the children. As per the critiques of internet filtering, the government plan to filter the Internet represents the start of state censorship. (Australias plans to filter Internet under fire) The Australian Government has planned to impose restrictions on internet service providers; like forcing them to block a secret blacklist of websites maintained by the media watchdog using the primary filter. A secondary filter will be created to block material inappropriate for children, but users will be allowed to opt-out of this tier as per the government plan. (Lake) Those who oppose the internet filtering are of the view that the government may misuse such an information policy to gain political advantage over the rivals. Government can interpret any sites they dislike as potentially harmful to the society based on this policy or rule. Internet filtering will significantly reduce network speeds and interfere with people’s fundamental access to information, with no definite purpose in mind. (Maurushat & Watt) Conclusions There is no second opinion that internet is affecting the public especially the children badly also and hence the internet usage must be restricted to at least the children. Children don’t have the ability of segregating between the good and the evil. It is difficult to control the internet activities fully to the children because of its usefulness in the modern learning processes. Opponents of internet filtering argue that internet filtering policy of the Australian government is the beginning of controlling the whole media while proponents believe that such a policy is essential to stream line the children in the right path. The main stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of information policy are the politicians or the members of the government, the media people or groups, and the public. In short internet filtering is a good policy, but government should ensure that the general freedom of expression of the public should not be affected by this. References 1. Conroy Stephen, 2007, Labor’s Plan for Cyber-safety, Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from http://www.kevin07.com.au 2. Lake Chloe, 2009, Web filter debate descends into slanging match at Kickstart Forum 2009, Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,25100456-5014239,00.html?from=public_rss 3. Schrader Alvin M., PhD, Internet Filters, Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.htm 4. Maurushat Alana & Watt Renée, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2009/7.html 5. Teresa, How The Media Influences Children Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from http://www.thecutekid.com/parenting/children-media-influence.php Read More