The History of Censorship – and why the internet filter will fail

 In 1384, just before his death, John Wycliffe translated the bible into English, which at the time was considered a crime against civilisation worse than Justin Bieber is to music.  Yes, that bad.  He died before the church got their hands on him, but in 1415 to show they are the harbingers of peace, love and understanding, the church ordered his body exhumed, burned and thrown in the river just to show there were no hard feelings.

In 1599, the Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift, (whose offices had the function of licensing books for publication in England) in an effort to promote free thinking and debate, issued a decree banning satire (here).  Those Chaser boys would be in a world of hurt.

 In 1954 there was a lyric change to Cole Porter’s “I Get a Kick Out of You” because of a cocaine reference. The lyrics were changed from “I get no kick from cocaine” to “I get perfume from Spain”.  Which, ironically, would only make sense if you were actually snorting cocaine.

In 1964 then Indiana Governor Matthew Welsh attempted to ban the Kingsmen’s hit “Louie Louie”, calling it obscene. After review by the FCC, the lyrics were deemed “indecipherable”.  If you’ve ever tried to learn that song, you’ll know that the band had no idea what the lyrics were either.

A little closer to home -

• In 1929, James Joyce’s Ulysses was banned in Australia (here).
• In 1957, Catcher in the Rye was banned in Australia (here).
• In 1975, the Australian Censorship Board banned The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (here).
• From 1991, American Psycho by Bret Eaton Ellis is still banned in Queensland and is R Rated (wrapped in plastic with enticing warnings) everywhere else (here).

And you know what all these censorship measures have in common?  They were all ultimately utterly and completely ineffective.  In the internet age, even more so.

A couple of weeks ago, the government shelved making a decision on the internet filter, a mere (coincidentally mind you) 8 days before calling an election (here).  The internet filter is just another stumble in the long history of ill-informed and fearful people trying to censor something they don’t understand.  What’s going on?  I’m glad you asked – oh, and because this is such a serious topic – I’m making it a joke free zone (which will be a surprise to regular readers, who always assumed that was the case...):

What is the Internet Filter?

Led by Senator Stephen Conroy, the proposed filter censors Refused Classification from all Australian’s via an ISP-level filter (such as BigPond, Optus, iiNet, etc).  In May 2008, the Government said it would spend $125.8 million over four years on several measures to strengthen cyber safety, including the filter.  Basically what it boils down to is that the government will have the ability to block any website it doesn’t like.  They have used child porn as the main flag waiver (more on that later), but there’s a lot more to it than that.

The techos know it’s a bad idea (here), so does Google (here).  Even the US Government thinks it’s a bad idea (here).  And they have Homeland Security!

So what’s the problem?

Why people are complaining about this is because the Government has not made it clear exactly what problem it is trying to solve.  As it stands, most Refused Classification material is legal to view and no evidence has been provided that demonstrates that accidental exposure to such material is either common or deleterious (here).  During a trial conducted last year, both legal and illegal material was blocked -as well as a Queensland dentist and a couple of bus companies, amongst others (here). There will also be no right of reply - no group will be created to hear please to be unblocked.  Last report was that one, yes one, person will be appointed to independantly monitor content (here).

So it will stop child porn, so that’s good right?

Almost all child abuse material produced does not appear on the web.  It is traded mainly over peer-to-peer (P2P). Where it does exist on the web, it is usually placed there nefariously by people taking advantage of vulnerabilities in legitimate websites.  Hosting companies do not want to be associated with child abuse material and delete it as soon as they are aware that it exists on their equipment.  Blacklisting compromised websites is not as effective as notifying the company.  The fact is that illegal material on the web has a very short life span.

Indeed, a German study demonstrated how unethical it is for governments to keep lists, when an email to the hosting company can get the material taken down permanently within a few hours (here) .  This has all been confirmed by the Australian Federal Police on numerous occasions.  The AFP’s National Manager, High Tech Crime Operations, Neil Gaughan, confirmed that most trading occurs over peer-to-peer (P2P), even going so far as saying that filters “don't work at all''.  

But saying you’re fighting child porn makes pretty headlines doesn’t it?  Here.

Like George W Bush saying you’re either with me or you’re supporting terrorism (here), it‘s a felonious argument.  I think the Australian people deserve more intelligent and enlightened arguments than the A Current Affair grabbing headlines.  We’re a more intelligent and well informed populous than our pollies give us credit for, but yet we’re being treated like a herd of unthinking and reactionary sheep.  I mean, we’re not Scientologists here.

Why shouldn’t we be censoring the internet like we do other mediums?

Again, like the filtering, it sounds OK in theory, but the reality is nowhere near as straightforward.  Those that say the internet system needs to brought in line with the rest of the classification system are misinformed.  The classification system is not consistent within itself.  Radio, television, films and publications all have different systems.  Television has three different systems because SBS & ABC were forgotten about when the new code was written.  So what should apply to the internet?

I guess you could say it is more like the phone system, the material that is communicated is highly varied.  It is inherently a pull medium.  Material is not broadcast on the internet, rather users must actively instruct their computers to request information from a connected computer.  And like the phone system, any means of censorship is not only unrealistic but a scary and an ill informed attack on our freedom.

OK, so if they do install the filter, will it work?

In a word.  No. 

Despite the fact that the government delayed any decision until conveniently after the election, there is the very real possibility of this abomination being implemented.  Sure, initially it may work, but like the previous efforts (here) it will be circumvented.

There is a saying: “The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it”. 

The whole concept of the Internet was to have redundant means of communication should any number of nodes be destroyed.  Circumvention is thus not only possible but exceptionally easy.  Both reports from Enex and Telstra made this very clear.  Even WebShield was unable to prevent circumvention of their filters and this is their specialty.  Thus, this Government proposal will do nothing to stop people seeking out objectionable material.

Here’s my guess as to how this will all turn out (and because I’ve posted this on the interweb, I’m sure some smart-arse will come back and let me know if I was right or not):

• In a flurry of publicity the filter will be implemented.
• Numerous highly public exceptions will be bandied about to show sizable flaws in the system.
• After three to four weeks it will be suspended for “retooling”.
• In six to twelve months it will be re-implemented with less fanfare, but again will be shown to be ineffective.
• After several more months of ignominy it will be quietly shelved and millions of dollars that could have been spent on social welfare, health or education will be pissed up against the wall for no reason whatsoever.

 The purpose of government should be to provide for the people – not censor them.  The web filter, despite claims to the contrary, is an attack on freedom, our rights and self expression.  No one is claiming that child porn isn’t bad and that any perpetrator or user should be lined up and shot, but this isn’t about that at all.  It’s about a government imposing its will on the people, with no right of reply, input or way to refuse.  It is the worst form of oppression – that of freedom of thought.  Any government that chooses to oppose liberty and free will is one that I can’t support and will fight against with all the strength I possess. Freedom is too important to be left to any government to determine what is appropriate.  Like our old friend John Wycliffe (before he was dug up and chucked in the river), the powers that be can try to use their authority unjustly to silence those it wishes to remain quiet, but ultimately, liberty will win in the end.