You are here

About Mandatory Internet Filtering

Mandatory Internet Filtering has been proposed as a way to supposedly prevent the exploitation of women by preventing or, at least controlling, access to pornography. It is presumed that (1) all pornography is degrading to women; and (2) that mandatory filtering will end or, at least, drastically reduce the availability of pornography. Given the increase in the trafficking of heroin and other illegal drugs after the decades long "War on Drugs", it seems no less likely that a ban on Internet pornography will be end of pornography. Rather, it will make it more costly and give more business opportunities for gangsters as has occurred with narcotics drugs as a result of its criminalisation.

Links to web-sites and pages about Internet Filtering

Pages

From RT

UK broadband users overwhelmingly reject porn filters (23/7/14) includes YouTube video
'Unavoidable choice': Cameron readying UK Internet porn block (22/7/14),
Overzealous UK porn filters block 20% of all websites (3/7/14),
Dumping net neutrality: 'Fast' lane to censorship & Obama's biggest letdown (10/7/14) by Bryan McDonald
Iran launches own video site to compete with 'inappropriate' YouTube (9/12/13),
Internet inventor slams UK, US for 'appalling and foolish' surveillance and censorship (22/11/13),
EU porn ban voted down amid censorship concerns (12/3/13, includes video),
EU porn ban: 'Censorship disguised by noble idea' (12/3/13),
EU porn ban voted down amid censorship concerns (12/3/13, includes video),
Canada kills controversial Internet surveillance bill (12/2/13),
Iceland's proposed porn ban 'like repression in Iran, N. Korea' – activists (1/3/13),
Iceland weighing ban on Internet pornography (14/2/13),
UK classrooms may teach students about Internet porn (25/10/12)

From this web-site, Candobetter

The articles below describe attempts by the Australian government to use the claim, that all pornography degraded and exploited women, as a pretext to give the government power to filter all of our Internet usage. The government came much closer to success than it otherwise would have been able to, as a result of support for Internet Freedom by Clive Hamilton, author of "Silencing Dissent" (2007). They no doubt counted that vocal support from an ostensible supporter of free speech would reassure many who would otherwise be concerned about an attempt by government to control the flow of information through the Internet. The proposal aroused furious public opposition. Articles about this on candobetter include:

How to end the sexual exploitation of women and children without giving up our freedoms (22/8/09) by James Sinnamon, Would you like porn with that? (21/8/09) by Sheila Newman, Would you like porn with that? (7/5/09) by Catherine Manning, Why are we concerned about the Big Brother Internet laws? (2/12/08), Government threatens Internet censorship (21/8/09), a press release by Greens Senator Scott Ludmilla

The outcome, as described in the Wikipedia article Internet censorship in Australia, is somewhat ambiguous. Much of the flow of Internet traffic is still free, but some is also subject to filtering and a number of web-sites have been blocked by the Federal Government. The Federal Liberal/National coalition government which had previously voted down attempts by Labor Senator Stephen Conroy to introduce the filter, now appears to be moving towards mandatory filtering. For further information, please see the Mandatory ISP Filtering of Electronic Frontiers Australia. Articles include:

Opt-out, opt-in: the Internet filter hokey pokey (6/9/13), The Internet filter that wasn't - an Open Internet back on the political agenda (6/9/13), ASIC admits to blocking another 250,000 sites (5/6/13), s313 Website Blocking - the Plot Thickens (31/5/13), Conroy calls for transparency on s313 website blocking (28/5/13), Like the filter, only worse (17/5/13), ASIC Blocks Scam Website and Takes 1,200 Innocent Sites Down With It. (16/5/13),EFA welcomes the government's back down on mandatory Internet filtering (11/9/12),Conroy: Filter alive and kicking (27/5/11),Conroy not fooling anyone on an open Internet (3/2/11).

Web-sites

Department of Dirty includes YouTube video

Appendix: articles about the United States' alleged "war on drugs"

Drug War? American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production – Global Research (Jun 2014), Major banks under investigation for ties to Mexican drug cartels (May 2014) – RT, ?Poppy revolution in Afghanistan to follow the elections? – RT Op-Edge (Apr 2014),Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade? – Global Research (Sep 2006), Mafias and narcopolitics (Apr 2014) – VoltaireNet, Remember When Venezuela and Bolivia Kicked the U.S. DEA Out of Their Countries, Accusing It of Espionage? Looks Like They Were Right... – Information Clearing House (22/3/14) ,NATO helping boost Afghan heroin production: Russia (6/3/14) on candobetter – re-published from PressTV, The Afghan economy is reconverting to opium (Nov 2013), Money Laundering and The Drug Trade: The Role of the Banks (Oct 2013) – Global Research, Afghan Heroin Flow Channeled to Russia (May 2010) – Global Research, Heroin is "Good for Your Health": Occupation Forces support Afghan Narcotics Trade – Global Research (Apr 2007), Global opium and heroin production explodes – VoltaireNet, The geopolitics behind the phony US war in Afghanistan by F. William Engdahl, Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade? (21/9/06) by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Russian anti-drug chief urges new plan to counter Afghanistan drug threat, The geopolitics behind the phony US war in Afghanistan.