 The magazine of the Melbourne PC User Group You Had Your Say Monika Merkes monika@melbpc.org.au |
What Do Melbourne PC User Group Members Think About
Internet Censorship?
In the December/January edition of PC Update I invited readers to share their views on Internet
censorship. Since then, I received five e-mails and eleven members participated in a newsgroup discussion at
melbpc.general. They made 44 contributions in total. With the exception of two women, all contributors
were male.
In principle, all contributors to the discussion believed in freedom of speech and found censorship
"unacceptable in an intelligent and free society". However, there was concern about the protection of
children, for example from pornography, or from detailed information how to make a bomb. Another concern
related to the protection of individuals' privacy. For example, an online list of paedophiles may inspire
some people to take the law into their own hands.
While people may find hate speech upsetting, censorship will not change the way "haters" think, and it may
drive them underground. One member contemplated whether the Internet is an outlet for "angry ants", and
whether, if left to themselves, they would cause much damage. However, he was concerned that these people
would be dangerous when in a position of power.
One member observed that the larger and more diverse a society is, the more difficult it is to draw the line
between what is acceptable and what is not - who is to judge what is the truth or good taste.
It is impossible to censor the Internet, in particular at the point of origin. Therefore, it was argued,
attempts of censorship are a waste of time and give people a false sense of security. Contributors remarked
that filtering software does not work, and that children are more computer literate than their parents and
will find ways to circumvent the filter.
There was concern that governments or other powerful individuals and organisations may use censorship "to
exclude and control". The burning of books during the Nazi regime in Germany was given as an example. Another
member commented that "those denying opponents' expressions of views are generally those demanding freedom of
expression for themselves".
So what are the solutions to this dilemma? A number of contributors suggested that we need a level of
censorship to protect individuals' right to privacy. However, there are no easy solutions. How do we find the
balance between free speech and the protection of individuals' rights? One person put it this way: "No easy
questions, and no easy answers - and a pox on those for whom everything can be reduced to chanted slogans
(for any ideology)".
Better education of children and good parenting was suggested. But "how do you get people to be good
parents?" One parent wrote she believed "that regardless of what our children see on the Net (and everybody
agrees that we should supervise) their perception of it will depend on what we, as parents, teach them".
Another member recommended, tongue in cheek, to "get your kids a 386SX with 4 MB RAM and a 1200 bps modem
… they won't be looking at anything unapproved … anything at all, in fact".
Thank you to the Melbourne PC User Group members who contributed to this discussion.
Reprinted from the February 2001 issue of PC Update, the
magazine of Melbourne PC User Group, Australia
