The concerns being voiced by politicians in various countries from Britain to the United States to as far-flung places as Australia all sound the same. They want to protect children from potentially harmful web sites, which they believe could be dangerous to children who happen on them without proper restrictions. Politicians point to the Motion Picture Association of America that currently classifies and categorizes films based on the perceived maturity of the content in order to keep children at arms length. Interestingly, Culture Secretary for Great Britain, Andy Burnham, eagerly awaits the inauguration of Barack Obama to begin a process that would bring about internet censorship for children. What do these two seemingly unrelated events have to do with one another?
Mr Burnham admits that his plans may be interpreted by some as “heavy-handed” but says the new standards drive is “utterly crucial”. Mr Burnham also believes that the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President-Elect, presents an opportunity to implement the major changes necessary for the web.
“The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause,” he says. “The more we seek international solutions to this stuff – the UK and the US working together – the more that an international norm will set an industry norm.”
But critics in Australia facing the same kind of government interference don’t agree. Just as the Australian internet has been unclogged by unrelated governmental regulations by the incoming Labour Party, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing through an internet filter that will be counter-productive to easing internet congestion.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority conducted tests earlier this year on six filters that could be imposed on internet service providers. Five slowed internet speeds by at least 20 per cent. And two of them crippled speeds by more than 75 per cent.
And this is before we look at their habit of falsely blocking legal sites. A 1999 trial of internet filtering (censoring the internet has long been a bipartisan goal) even accidentally blocked some government websites. Filters have improved since then but, as ACMA’s test revealed, it is a certainty that some sites will be incorrectly blocked — let’s be honest, the technology to efficiently and effectively censor the internet isn’t quite ready yet.
The biggest problem with state interference into the anarchic blissful freedom of the internet is that it is always fraught with the inevitable law of unintended consequences. Why should it be the state’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Again? Parents are responsible for providing their children with healthy food alternatives, with limits on television watching, and giving them a sense of limitations and understanding of the world around them through proper guidance. I don’t need the government rating websites for my children, since I can and I will monitor these things on my own. And if I do want to restrict internet access to my children, there are any number of programs that can accomplish the job without slowing down the internet or creating potentially confusing blockages of perfectly legitimate websites.
As with almost everything the government does to “protect us”, this sounds like another road paved to hell with good intentions.

















