Internet Censorship ielts reading answer

Internet Censorship reading answer

To some, censorship is a powerful example of the loss of personal freedom and a step towards
fotalitananism Others see it as a necessary part of protecting the values that have provicled the
moral foundation to our society for generations.
Censorship is a double-edged sword with the potential to provide great benefits 10 society or
to become itself the rot that destroys the democratic ideal.
At some level, censorship is practised by individuais, families, communities and nations
Our personal moral code, laws and regulations restrict and prohibit all manner of content
or behaviour based on personal standards or societal expectations. OÍ course, no level of
censorship can ever be 100 per cent effective. Prohibited material will always be available to
those who are prepared to break the rules in order to obtain it
While there are a few civil libertarians who advocate fur persona' choice to reign supreme
and wili oppose any form of coourship, mainstream Australia accepts that the appropriate
classification and filtering of content is a reasonable thing to do.
The questions then remain, what is appropriate content and who should be the arbiter of it?
The government already appraises most modern forms of mmedia and regulates when and
where certain content can appear, This has proved to be a reasonably effective process.
Fiowever, there is now a suggestion that all internet content should be filtered at the ISP
(Internet Service Providen 'evc! and only 'acceptable' content be available to home and
business users. Apart from the technical aspects of the scheme (which have come under fire
from many araas and which l'am not apprcpriately qualified to address), there are a number of
more fundamental principles for people ike myself.
Tidentify myself as a social and fiscal conservative and most people vho know me would
agree with that assessment. As such, one couiu reasonzbly expect me to support ISP filtering
as a means of ensuring inappropriate content remains unavailable via the internet.
Yet I have grave reservations about the Labor Party proposal on mandatory ISP filtering
which is described as 'e clean feed-woras that just sugar-coat compulsory censorship of
whatever the government deems you are not allowed to see.)
Wrile I strongly believe that anthing we can do to prevent access tri illegal material is a
lawful and moral chligation, there is a worla of difference between illegai and inappropriate The
Eiter is a perscnal assessment in which I als recognise that my own standards and beliefs are
not shared by all in our community
Further, the nature oi he internet means that we can't really classify content for availability
only at a certain time or for certain ages like we can with television, movies or saine printed
content. This is a concern where young peopin may be expored to inappropriate content

There are also broader philosophical reservations about allowing government to be
the ultimate udge of what people should or should not have access to ibelie e in small
government - not Big Brother where personal responsibility is subservient to the State
There are already many PC-based filters available that will prevent access to 'blackisted
sites and allow PC end users to tailor the filters to meet the particular requiremonts of ther
households Critics of these filters claim that they are easily disabled, but as I wrote earler
prohibited material will always be available to those willing to break the rules.
in recent times we have seen evidence of this where paedophiles have been caught using
peer to peer networks, bypassing mainstream networks to exchange files. I am advised that
such peer to peer networks would not be captured by cunent ISP filtering technology
Where there is evidence of illegal conduct or content oriline then fillering is certainly no
substitute for sophisticated and well-resourced law enforcement, Wouldn't it make more serse
to increase resources for oui law enforcement agoncies to strike al the haart of illegal content
production and distribution rather than penalise millions of law-abiding citizens?
Where material is legal (many forms of pornagraphy for instance), whilst many will object to
its abundant availability, a blanket ban on accessibility via the internet is simply wrong.
Among the many advocates for ISP filtering that Ihave spoken with, no one has been able
to explain to me exactly how it will work and what content will (er should) be filtered. It has bee
suggested that there should be a rating systom for internet content similar to how Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACIviA) rates media content. Whon I have askednow
this could work, no one that I have spoken to has any clear idea, yet thoy all maintain that it
needs to be done'. That may be so, but at whal cost?
There is no stroriger supporter of families than myself. My political life is a commitmer!
to strengthening families and changing our nation through the development of our children.
Ewever, I elbo believe that in most circumstencés, families know better than govermment)
what is bast ior their childrein. Parental responsibility cannot and s!iculd not be abrogated to
Ocvernmert - if it is, cur society wilt only become weaker.
Ves, illegal pontent should be banned from the web. It is illegal after all, but it is wiong to g
Tie government a blank cheque to dete mine what is appropriate for us to view on the internet
That is a job for fanies, working for vith government.