Daniel Crispin

The topic of a mandatory ISP level internet filter, which forms part of Labor’s policies, has been hotly contested over the past few months and in the last few days the Green Party have come out to side with the Coalition and state that a PC-based approach would be more effective. Labor devised such a plan to target refused classification material that shouldn’t be available online such as child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. This material is currently not available on Australian hosted websites however it can still be accessed on international websites and Labor plan to block these with an ISP web filter.

My question in this blog is this: Should we be against this? Is this being done purely for the safety of our homes and our children, or is this just censorship and a way to control what we see, think and do?

I personally believe that the aforementioned refused classification material should not be available on the internet. I would not want children or adults to view or be at all exposed to this,  however, I do feel that an ISP filter isn’t the best option to combat this, particularly with simple ways around a filter, such as adding a question mark to the end of the web address thereby changing the address enough to make it different, as recently documented by Gizmodo, and the sheer volume of websites out there meaning that a filter could never block them all. In my opinion, I think that both the Greens and the Coalition are right in suggesting PC-based filtering which can offer a much broader filter and can be personalized depending upon the household. Read more…