Will Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy and the Australian Federal Government go ahead with mandatory Internet content filtering after so much negative feedback from the ‘informed’ public arena?
Results from an Australian Broadband survey conducted recently that attracted approximately 20,000 respondents overwhelming voted against the new content filtering proposal. The survey found that only 1.2% who voted for Labor at the last election actually supported the proposed policy of Internet filtering, while almost 90% say they would opt out of a filter if introduced.
Although many of the participants in the survey are highly informed and or technically sound, it still asks the question of just how many people in mainstream society would also agree with the survey finding’s. Furthermore, if this were to be the case, would the Federal Government proceed with an Internet content filtering policy just to ‘check’ so called election promises?
One irate content filtering opponent in a online news forum labeled the Government as ‘hubris’ and waved goodbye to democracy whilst saying hello to China/North Korea. A silly remark perhaps, or does this statement have a basis for concern? The general consensus of the survey results, and from many opinions found in corresponding online forums, suggests there’s a significant amount of conjecture behind the underlying principles of what a ‘mandatory filtering policy’ may bring to the table.
The impeachment of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and a ‘Big Brother’ type government are two such concerns, and although this may sound a little overboard, many believe that whilst the general public have good principles and morals that would welcome the eradication of pedophiles and explicit material, which the Government have based their whole policy around, they feel that mainstream Australia may overlook the bigger picture and what’s really at stake.
Does a 20,000 thousand strong survey that heavily weighs against the introduction of Internet Content Filtering warrant a reversal of policy? I suspect not, but then again it does give the Government something to think about.
Upsetting a minority is a ‘rational transaction’ that any Government obviously has to execute from time to time, however introducing a policy that evokes grave fears for ’human rights’ that may, over time, grow louder and louder in the public sector, is certainly something that a Government cannot ignore.
