Much has been written and said about the Labor Government's plan to censor Australia's Internet. The plan, which involves a Government blacklist of web sites that all Australian Internet service providers would be required to block, has been criticised for its ineffectiveness, free speech risks and technical difficulties. However, while there has been some moralising, there has been little serious debate about the filter's moral implications.

The Prime Minister injected morality into the discussion on Tuesday when answering a skeptical question about the filter, saying that the Internet may present technical challenges to censorship, "but the underpinning moral question, I think, is exactly the same." If it's not allowed in a cinema, she argued, the change in medium does not change the underpinning moral issue. But what, then, exactly is the moral question?

Is the Prime Minister arguing that our morals need to be protected? The preservation of public morality has always been a justification for censorship. This is as true now as it was in the 19th century when information on contraception was banned in Australia, just as it is used now to deny information on sexuality or alternative religions in Saudi Arabia. Many view it as self-evident that such protection is necessary.

These days, though, we ought to be a little more skeptical about claims that we need protection from moral pollution. Whether exposure to controversial content can adversely affect the morals of the viewer is a question that is open to scientific analysis. Is viewing material considered abhorrent by the community alone sufficient to turn a moral person into an immoral one? Does pornography have a corrosive effect on the attitudes of those who view it? This is a fertile avenue for research, but what we know so far is far from unambiguous. While violent people may seek out violent material, cause and effect is not clear. Research shows that the use of pornography may actually have a positive impact on its users and their attitudes to sexuality.

This is an area of legitimate debate, but before we introduce drastic new public policy, we ought to be clear just who we are protecting, how and why. We may decide that the government has a role to play in shielding adults from "harmful" influences. Then again, we may decide that individual freedom trumps such concerns.

Where the rights of other people are being violated the moral dimension of the problem becomes much clearer. The production and dissemination of child pornography clearly violates the rights of the children involved and is unambiguously immoral by any sane definition. Is the morality of child abuse germane to the discussion of censorship? I would argue that it is not, at least in the case of the Internet filter. Consuming this sort of material is unanimously abhorred and is a serious criminal offence everywhere in Australia. No matter in what format a person views child pornography, they are committing a crime. Since criminal sanctions are already in place, and experts agree the filter will be totally ineffective in slowing the traffic of this material, it's not clear how the existence of child pornography makes Internet censorship a moral imperative.

One could argue - and some do - that we as a society should take any measures that could potentially prevent the spread of such immorality no matter what the costs. Others, including myself, argue that even here we must weigh the benefits against the costs to society of stricter censorship and greater intrusion into our personal lives. Certainly, effective measures to combat child pornography should be taken, and these include enforcement and infiltration by police agencies. The ethics of an ineffective filter are however highly debatable.

As it happens, even the Prime Minister's movie theatre analogy does not hold up, as it is would not be illegal to go and view a movie that was Refused Classification in a cinema, though the cinema's owner would certainly be in breach of the law. The actual material that would be blocked under the current classification scheme is also much broader than clearly "immoral" content such as violent porn, and would include content banned for discussion of crime, sexual fetishes, or even adult-oriented computer games. This is not mere nit-picking, as it demonstrates that Internet filtering represents a major shift in censorship policy from laws that affect corporations distributing entertainment commercially to those that affect ordinary citizens who consume and create content online.

Should the government have this level of control over the content we view? I would argue that this, too, is a moral issue, as it could have a very significant impact on a human right we take very seriously.

Want to show your support for an open Internet?  Here’s how
Keep up to date with the latest news on Twitter and Facebook

Image Credit: Joel Duggan


  1. If the Australian people really want censorship (which I seriously doubt) then that is what they should get, but we should not be entertaining for a second that the proposal from the Government has anything to do with genuine concerns of morality. The party is only proposing this censorship because it is interested in securing votes from ultra-conservatives.

    I personally believe it is highly immoral to trade off the very real pain and suffering of the abused in the service of political goals. It's obscene and repugnant that the ALP is taking money from real policing and real child protection, just so they can pander to repressed fundamentalists and country bumpkins with the ridiculous white elephant. Then they have the hide to claim this is about morality? Disgusting.

    Comment by Stuart on 14 October 2010 at 20:11
  2. ^ Hear hear.

    Comment by SpaceMonkey on 14 October 2010 at 20:53
  3. What is the purpose of a share toolbar that sits right in the middle of the page and blocks the article I'm trying to read?

    Comment by Mark on 14 October 2010 at 22:03
    • The purpose is to not be a noob.

      Comment by Vikeyev on 10 November 2010 at 22:19
  4. Nicely put.

    The ‘moral’ question Gillard asks is not really the actual moral question, in that it’s accepted that child pornography is immoral. No one’s arguing about that, but she and Labor are trying to position the debate as if that’s the issue…

    The moral question is about censorship and precedent setting. The pragmatic question is about efficacy and achieving a useful outcome at an acceptable cost. On these criteria I’d say the filter is immoral. It will have a negligible effect on the spread and accessibility of such RC content, and has the potential for us to pay too great a price.

    Comment by @theojclark on 15 October 2010 at 23:02
  5. Does morality descend from our elected representatives, or feed upwards from the constituency?

    I don't believe the Prime Minister or Senator Conroy has evidence to back an internet filter policy on moral grounds. If they do, it should be made publicly available.

    Irregardless, we have laws that make some activities and behaviours illegal. Where a law is not in place there may be gray areas on morality and ethics, however if information, activity or behaviour is NOT illegal, then the community is allowed to partake of it.

    An internet filter that steps beyond the law and seeks to prohibit access to information, activities and behaviours that are not illegal is unethical and amoral - and challenges the rule of law in our society.

    If parliament, public services or government-back agencies can prohibit access to legal content and activities without using legislation to make it illegal (in full public scrutiny), we no longer live in a democracy.

    RC as a classification should not exist. There should be Illegal and legal activities and behaviours. No information should be illegal - as access to information is a requirement to understand and address illegal activities.

    Ratings on legal material should serve as guidance (NOT proscription) to the community on its suitability for different age groups, with an R18+ rating sufficing for adult material which has not been classified directly by Australian authorities.

    The internet is a public forum, not a content delivery channel. We should look at how to employ standards for discourse online in the same manner we employ standards in physical fora - through education and guidance.

    Comment by Craig on 18 October 2010 at 11:59
    • Craig that is the most intelligent thing I have read all day, If only the politicians actually listened to people like you.

      Comment by Vikeyev on 10 November 2010 at 22:35
  6. Thanks for this post. It is exhausting pitting wits against the "unfools of unbeing" as e.e.cummings describes them. There is a Management theory of Control being placed here as a reasoning of supplying "well being" like a commodity. This whole debate towards "protecting children" is a lock-in and it conveniently avoids more intelligent decisions about community.

    Instinctually morals are personal not collective and we've understood this through-out history and the practices of the past ... what is important about the Net is that for perhaps the first time we are able to see processes at work in an open space ... these processes as hidden deprives the users of that Net the access then to formulate his/her meaning from the people that occupy a shared space.

    This isn't a Moral argument, it needs to be shifted into an Existential one.

    Comment by Rupert on 13 November 2010 at 13:32