It has occurred to me that the Australian Internet Filter is being debated at such a high level that the average person will not understand what the fuss is about. Child pornography is bad and the filter will stop that badness (so you’ve been told), which means you’re either pro-filter or child pornographers(1). This is not the fault of the average person; by keeping actual intelligent discourse at bay via whinging and bluster, both the pro- and anti- camps are doing all parties(2) a disservice. Time to change the game by framing the argument how true, thoughtful, participating, REAL Australians will understand. By comparing it to booze.
Unless it is being syndicated on prime time television via “20-1 Worst Vehicular Homicides”, the Australian public frowns upon a National road toll that’s higher than the average winning margin in their sport of choice. Since there are elections at some point in the future, and representing the people is best served by finding a set of figures and skewing them, the Australian Government has decided to tackle road-related deaths as an election campaign. One solution that has worked acceptably in individual boozer situations was found to be a method of filtering the shopping process(3). The logic is extensible and sound – acquiring the stronger and more left-of-center alcoholic beverage can be directly related (well, anecdotally but it totally sounds right) to blood-alcohol level induced road incidents. Time for the government to swing into action with a Filter(tm).
The “Filter(tm)” – Fluid Imbibing Limitation by the Teetotalling Enjoyment Restrictions
This Filter(tm) was a small box that attached itself to the shoulders of anyone trying to purchase items from any shop in Australia. This friendly little device watched everything the shopper did and compared it to a list of Refused Cashification (RC) booze-related items (hard liquor, anything with more than five syllables, anything made overseas that isn’t paying a large tithe to the government) that were maintained by a shadowy oversight committee – possibly in dark robes in buildings with far too many archways, possibly not. The filter looked at everything a microscopic fraction of a second before the person did and, if it matched anything in the list of RC items then it put a blindfold over the shoppers eyes until they looked elsewhere. Parents were given free access to people who would install these Filter(tm) objects so that if anyone in their house went shopping (specifically children) the blinkers would activate automatically. Famously, at least one school-age child got around his filter within an hour mere days after this Filter(tm) was announced. The government decided a more centralized implementation was in order.
Prior to winning office, the current government made a promise to create an opt-in system whereby this Filter(tm) would be mandated for every shop in Australia. This opt-in system will block everyone’s access to the liquor cabinets, but if you have a valid reason (research, showing the government cares about alternate fuel sources, wanting to go to the shops without being slowed down by the filter asking you if you are currently trying to buy liquor when all you want is some milk) you can turn off the Filter(tm). So, adults could ensure children wouldn’t get access to alcohol (to a point, see later) and adults who really were annoyed by seeing the liquor cabinet and alcohol ads every time they went shopping could browse in a happy, delusional bubble. This all changed when the election was over and the current government gained power.
After all, choice and options are just other words for anarchy.
2008 AD (Advanced Deception)
The first thing to go was the optional nature. Every person, every time they went to the shop, would have a Filter(tm) attached to their shoulder to make sure they weren’t getting into the hard stuff. Secondly, an additional Filter(tm) was created(4), this one prevented any alcohol whatsoever from being viewed. This was sold to the public as a GoingCleanFeed, turning shopping into a safer, friendly, child-safe experience. After all, it is a right since the dawn of man for children to go into any shop and expect nothing but kittens and lollies. The government, understanding they had had a brainstorm nobody else in the civilized world had(5). They proudly announced it.
This meant people looked at it. And people noted problems.
A Flair Trial
The list of banned booze was maintained by a Shadowy Cabal, and was a closely guarded secret(6). During the first test, Bunderburg Ginger Beer suddenly found their bottom line bottoming out. Apparently the “Beer” in ginger beer tweaked off the Cabal and was axed. Not only that but Schwapps’ Lemonade suddenly vanished – research showed that someone had changed a label to Lemonale and reported them to the Cabal, who duly nuked their purchasability(7). The trial pushed ahead, amidst cries by consumer bodies, beverage companies, interested people world-wide, and a secretive group called Secret.
After the trial(8) published data gained by running the Filter(tm) through a number of participating shopping chains, the results showed some people actually shopped faster while blindfolded; but the document helpfully contained a sentence to ignore the silly data, logically because all the data that wasn’t undermining their viewpoint supported their viewpoint(9). Not only that but alcohol Consumer groups brought to light massive holes in the governments arguments. The Filter(tm), they claimed, only worked on aisles at eye level, anyone who used a mirror so as to face another level but still see the objects of their desire would have no problems whatsoever(10). The government’s own documentation on the Filter(tm) (and emailed responses to questions) mention that anyone with enough alcohol desire can bypass the Filter(tm). The argument that such a bypass is very easily sent by the boozily savvy to the boozily deficient is ignored. In the interests of round figures, a Effective Fluid Acquisition (EFA) group reduced their challenges to a round ten so as not to go on and on and on and on (19).
The government, deciding they needed some facts to back up rhetoric, ran an Australia wide poll which came out 80% in favour of the Filter(tm). This poll was entitled “Do you want the government to prevent more people dying in car crashes: y/n” (20). They were less keen in advertising that 91% of people didn’t like the filter as it was presented as secretly controlled by possible teetotalling cabals (20). The cabals being robed or not did not affect this statistic.
We Know Better
Further points were raised. The Australian Accident Victim Protection agency said the idea was flawed, wouldn’t protect people, and may even make the problem worse than the original proposal of speed bumps on all highways every 100 meters(11). Academia experts in the fields pointed out numerous flaws, the same way almost everyone else has(12). The arguments by the Consumer group included that most people who buy booze don’t even _use_ the supermarkets, there are stills or trade alcohol between friends. Recognised world experts in brewing have pointed out the flaws based on their own experience in International booze-banning bombasisms(13). Answering the question, the government smugly stated that they’re only interested in eye-level shelves, as people do not understand the shelving concept enough to look up and down, that it isn’t really their goal, and since they spoke with some friends with a really important invisible friend before-hand they know it’s the right thing to do(14)(15). And China likes it(16). Even if everyone else worldwide doesn’t(17),(18).
Footnotes
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
(2): Save for the party Conroy will throw once it goes ahead, given that approval of this plan allows him to achieve nothing with millions of dollars.
(3): Conveniently ignoring the ability to acquire it from friends, make it yourself (mmm, sanitary and regulated), steal it from other people, or buy it from anyone not in a shop.
(4): Resembling the “Good” and “Evil” shoulder angels from cartoon mythology – only this time it’s the “Good” and “Gooder” angel.
(5): *ahem*
(6): You didn’t get this from me.
(7): Search for “dentist”.
(8): Long after
(9): Pilot results
(10): http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2009/12/ways-to-bypass-the-internet-filter/
(11): http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/
(12): (PDF)
(13): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8517829.stm
(14): http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conroy-will-be-censoring-people-not-the-internet-20091217-kzxl.html
(15): http://www.itnews.com.au/News/161533,christian-lobby-buoyant-on-filtering-after-meeting-conroy.aspx
(16): http://openinternet.com.au/2010/03/11/oz-internet-censorship-gets-noticed-in-china/
(17): http://opennet.net/blog/2009/07/australias-conroy-named-internet-villain-year
(18): http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/australia-on-internet-watchlist-with-iran-north-korea-20100312-q23p.html
(19): http://www.efa.org.au/2010/01/20/the-top-10-filtering-questions/
(20): http://www.zdnet.com.au/80-of-aussies-support-filter-339300949.htm
problem is most people are in that part of the bell curve where they can’t grasp the issues and still have a say. Pollies only listen to polls and therefore 70% won’t get the point and be led by what ever ACA says.
Oh, I do hope this article goes viral. It deserves to, it’s brilliantly put together.
Thanks!
Very good way of explaining the governments tom foolery. I particularly like the comment about the current structure preventing the government from getting their part. Isn’t that why they legalized prostitution in Australia?
@Chris: The perils of democracy
@ChrisSylvester: Thank you!
@DavidJ: It is an interesting one; beyond just prostitution it’s amazing what you can stroll into stores in Canberra and purchase that you cannot purchase elsewhere in Australia.
Aren’t most of the laws pertaining to sale/distribution/possession of material (based on its classification) actually STATE laws?
My understanding is that the only FEDERAL legislation that says, eg, “it’s illegal to possess this material because it’s X-rated” is the Northern Territory Intervention Act. Even the prohibitions against selling RC material are State laws, AFAIK.
Which would make Rudd’s censorship system an attempt to enforce State laws at a Federal level.
Hmm.. I think I’m going to need something *even* *simpler* than this.
Maybe you could explain this with puppets?