Predictably there’s a few people on Twitter upset that Internet censorship is back on the agenda, vexation that is vindicated by Stephen Conroy on 774 Melbourne this morning spruiking up the plan.
Overjoyed with the election result, Greens supporters have dismissed this as melodrama, saying the Greens have said they’ll vote against it. This needs some perspective.
Senator Scott Ludlam has decried the proposal a lot, and has had some more-or-less “yeah I guess” support from other party members. Bob Brown has said the proposal seems “unnecessary” (as in “watching one’s diet closely is unnecessary if one has a sufficiently rigorous exercise regime”) and Lee Rhiannon has mentioned it would give a false sense of security. There is no official Greens policy statement on censorship of the Internet, in the same sense as the ALP’s policy here calls for it.
Some defence has come from Greens supporters that their November 2009 policy document calls for protection of net neutrality and free speech. That’s great and all, but does that cover it?
Net neutrality is nothing to do with censorship, it refers to the (also important) issue of carrier agnosticism to classes of data on their networks, and the fact that an ISP ought not implement technical measures to impair non-preferred content over preferred. In the US it’s a really big issue with talk that ISPs might (for example) artificially slow down Yahoo in return for licensing fees from Google, or Bittorrent traffic might be down-prioritised to allow email more bandwidth.
Freedom of speech is a great ideal to champion, but given that there has been no actual connection by the Greens as a party to the fact that Internet filtering is against freedom of speech (only the comments of one senator, with the others describing it as an unnecessary or including a bad side-effect), and the ALP has infamously declared that censorship is not a freedom of speech issue, where are we left?
One Greens senator has described the proposal in the same language as its staunchest opposition, but only one, with the others vaguely head nodding in place of a party policy. Until there is a party policy on the issue endorsed by the party leadership (in a policy document, on the website. Not from one Senator at a rally), we can only assume that the Greens would vote the policy down, and only then with it a middle-of-the-priority-list issue and subordinate to the Greens’ primary policy agenda. Central to the Greens’ ideology and ethos are environmental issues, and unsurprisingly everything else is beneath that. If the Greens were offered something which was extremely beneficial to the party-wide ethos of “the environment first”, we could expect censorship to be sold.
That’d have to be a pretty extreme benefit, and Scott Ludlam has been very strong in his individual opposition to the policy, so I think the Greens will vote it down when a bill is introduced later this year or early next. Probably. You’d think. I guess. We’ll see.
I would also add that the Libs may support a filter in return for mining tax concessions, workplace reform etc. Also what about something as simple as a condition of accessing an NBN ISPs must implement a mandatory filter. I dont think that would require legislation. The Greens are fairly confused about the filter it seems to me. On the one hand you have Scott Ludlam championing opposition yet they preselect Clive Hamilton a fervent supporter of Net censorship.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Why The Greens Will Probably Block Censorship. Probably. In All Likelihood. I Guess. -- Topsy.com
http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/41194-greens-torpedo-any-chance-of-internet-filter
“Any hope that a returned Gillard Labor Government will implement mandatory ISP-level internet filtering has further diminished with the Greens rejecting the proposal as part of its cyber safety election policy”
I think this is a bit mischievous. Nobody could seriously suggest The Greens are likely to backflip on the issue, but even suggesting it’s possible is a bit… odd.
My response, which is probably unnecessary, is here: http://bit.ly/dtgrxD
-Col
Hi Geordie, I agree that the filter is far from dead, but I do not share your concern about the strength of The Greens opposition to Senator Conroy’s censorship scheme. They will vote against it.
No, my biggest fear is that it still only requires 6 to 8 conservative Coalition MHRs and Senators to be white-anted by a certain lobby group, cross the floor and vote for the filter.
I know Hockey said on JJJ that the Libs would oppose it, but that was only AFTER the Senate group voting tickets were lodged, locking in all those lovely Family First preferences. If they were that committed to opposing the filter, why were the Coalition so quiet before then?
(BTW, Jim. Clive Hamilton was NOT a candidate at the recent federal election.)
According to Tony Smith’s office, they were (largely) silent until they had consensus. Whether you believe that or not is your call, I tend to.
It was the by election earlier. To be honest I didn’t actually remember that until now, which is why it’s absent from the post. If you wanted an example of an environmental issue seemingly trumping a technological one in Greens’ policy, there it is.
@colin this, and every other opinion on this blog, is mine, mine alone, and proffered as is. There’s no strategy, mischief or otherwise involved. To suggest there could be is I think is mischievous in itself, the old “nobody could possibly think that, so I wonder why he professes to?” dismissal.
Hey Geordie,
By mischievous I meant “cheeky”, not “up to no good”. I’m sure your skepticism of the Greens is sincere, and I applaud skepticism wherever it’s manifested. I think the doubts you express are overstated, but that’s why I wrote a response.
Hooray for healthy debate.
Pingback: Why The Greens will definitely block the filter- coljac