This essay is to outline the aspects, effects and reasons against the clean-feed program that the government is planning to put in place on Australia's internet. It's also to discuss the limits of democracy and the repercussions with implementing the clean-feed program.
What are the limits of democracy? In a democratic society that promotes this important value, one must ask whether democracy is limited or limitless. A popular and effective tool in which politics use to control society is the use of censorship. In relation to this newly suggested idea of a “clean-feed”: a means to censor all explicit material on the internet, this questions the ethical implications as to whether democracy itself is being censored.(6) To censor the internet is to forever change the landscape of cyberspace. The internet is one of the last free mediums in which people worldwide can express opinions, information and entertainment freely without concerns of censorship or viewer discretion.
'The Government failed to advise the filters would be mandatory for all prior to the election'. (4)
So what exactly is the situation with the clean-feed? Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing forward the notion to filter every computer in Australia. In accordance with nocleanfeed.com, the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts have condemned the idea.(2) Another important note is that if the clean-feed is in place, taxes will increase, causing all Australian citizens to pay a small percentage of their taxes for this new system. Networking sites have been used by members of the public to object to this idea. People are able to place a tag on their twitter accounts, disagreeing with the clean-feed. There is also a blog through nocleanfeed.com which notifies the public, essentially, of the disadvantages to a censorship. (2)
The public has voiced its opinion in a commended fashion, through democracy of course. An anti-censorship rally was held in Sydney just recently to oppose the clean-feed.(2) Networking sites such as twitter and facebook are used as means of communication, as a community to object to the government’s plans. But this asks the question: with a censorship in place in the future, would the public be allowed to voice their objections over the internet anymore? Again it relates to the ethical implications which are questioning Australia’s rights and democratic privileges, which the government so called 'promotes'.
'The filter will significantly slow down the internet for all Australians. Trials in Tasmania showed the most efficient filter caused an 87% reduction in net speed.' (5)
The EFA (Electronic Frontiers of Australia) has attacked the clean-feed notion. They have voiced opinion, stating their objection if Australia were to follow in the footsteps of North Korea, China and Burma, which are nations which have the censorship in effect.(1) In a rebuttal to the EFA’s outcry, Senator Conroy said: ‘If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.’(1) An abrasive argument nonetheless from the Senator, but it should be noted that child pornography is already illegal and the clean-feed would serve little or no purpose to that particular situation. The internet is a colossal cyberspace which sees no limits in perspective to space and quantity of WebPages and content. The clean-feed could not possibly censor the entire internet as hundreds of thousands of new content and information is uploaded daily. A flawed and limited system will not fulfill the objectives that Senator Conroy states.
What would the internet world be with a clean-feed? It would create a nation which is eliminating one of the last free democratic services to the public. It’s a service which would be less appealing and more expensive to run.(7) It’s scary to think the lengths to which the government will go to censor our words and expressions on the internet. Freedom of speech applies to everyday life and should most definitely apply to the internet spectrum also.(8) Understandably there is a strong percentage of illicit and vulgar content on the internet. But an entire censorship of absolutely everything on the internet is not the solution. Those WebPages are illegal for a reason and measures are already in place to prevent illegal behavior. The censorship is an extreme solution to a solvable problem. An entire sweep and span of censorship across the internet should only be focused on the sites with issues, not every website thinkable. The limits of the censorship are undeniable, and could not possibly place a filter on every single website on the net.
The internet is predominately a place for the community. It’s a place in which the public can freely express itself without thoughts of censorship and viewer discretion. The government does have some fair points for wanting to introduce this system, but it’s not the solution, and a strong percentage of Australian citizens agree.(9) The internet should remain an open community. As one of the last places of complete democracy in Australia, the internet should stick to its roots and remain the same. If a clean-feed were to be put in place then it would greatly tarnish the nation and make citizens question democracy itself and the limits to which we are granted. This subject even makes us question the moral fibre of politics itself and one could even say the biased standpoint in which the government tries to impose onto the public. 'I close by offering the outlines of an amended version of the law that promises not to violate the rights of adults, that affords children and adults equal and effective protection against the very harmful practices the current law cannot eradicate, and that prescribes punishments that are consistent with the tolerance necessary to support a more democratic vision of the Internet.' (10)
The public is being urged to object the clean feed. In a survey conducted, of the 18,000 people surveyed, only 13 percent agreed with the clean-feed policy.(3) In the time of an economic struggle, the money should definitely be put to better use. According to news.com.au, the budget for the “cyber-safety” initiative will accumulate to to $51.4 million dollars in the 2009-10 financial years.(3) It’s obvious to say that the strong majority of Australians’ disagree to the federal governments plan, and hopefully democracy will prove strong enough, and the ethical value that is democracy will be done justice.
All webpages accessed on the 12th of October (2009).
(1.) http://www.efa.org.au/2008/01/02/media-release-efa-attacks-clean-feed-proposal/
(2.) http://nocleanfeed.com/
(3.) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23703848-421,00.html
(4.) http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=cleanfeed
(5.) http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/
All academic journals accessed on the 12th of October (2009).
(6.) Title: Balancing free speech and censorship: academia's response to the internet.
Author: A. Graham Peace.
Year of Publication: 2003. Vol. 46, Issue 11.
(7.) Title: Censorship on the Internet: From Filters to Freedom of Speech (Issues in Focus).
Author: Wendy Herumin.
Year of Publication: 2004.
(8.) Title: New Labor, new censorship? Politics, religion and filtering in Australia.
Author: Brian Simpson.
Year of Publication: October, 2008. Vol. 17, Issue 3.
(9.) Title: Internet Filtering and Censorship.
Author: Samir N. Hamade.
Year of Publication: 2008.
(10.) Title: Censorship, the Internet, and the child pornographylaw of 1996: A Critique.
Author: Jacques N. Catudal.
Year of Publication: 1999, Vol. 1, Issue 2.






















