Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: December 27, 2008
Tags :
Subscribe: Tech Feed, Email, Twitter

Is there a global left wing conspiracy to kill the Internet?


    StumbleUpon Digg Reddit Mixx del.icio.us MySpace Fark Facebook TwitThis Propeller Wikio Yahoo! Buzz

censorshipThe United Kingdom will soon join Egypt, Iran, China and likely Australia with a regressive internet censorship scheme.

The proposal from British Culture Secretary Andy Burnham includes content ratings for websites and content, television style restrictions on when content can be played (ie violence only after 9pm) and broadening libel laws to make it easier for people to sue.

As with any argument for censorship, it’s always about the children.

“It worries me - like anybody with children,” he says. “Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do. This isn’t about turning the clock back. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around…what can be a very, very complex and quite dangerous world.”

but just for good measure lets sneak in copyright as well…because you know, the billion dollar movie and music businesses are doing it really tough:

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

But just in case you think it might not affect you, Burnham said that the British Government intends to work with the Obama Administration to make these rules international, at least throughout the anglosphere. I’d also bet that the totalitarian fascist Rudd Regime in Australia will quickly put their hands up to take part as well.

Where do you start in explaining how this is wrong?

Compulsory content rating systems usually involve the submission of content to a Government body for review in a system little understood by those creating content online. The queue to review the content, and the need to block content not rated could easily overnight shift the goalposts to old media and large corporations, killing many in new media and stifling online participation.

The idea of a 9pm for adult content is absurd and would result in many sites simply being blocked, or just going out of business. Besides the onerous and near on impossible task of rating all content, how in the world do you categorize and filter it. Consider that 10 hours of new content is uploaded to YouTube every minute.

The broadening of libel laws would have a chilling effect on free speech online. The law may have issues currently with access, but widening the laws and making them easier to use isn’t a social justice play, it’s a recipe that will encourage a surge in libel cases that would and could result in less speech online.

Conspiracy?

What I don’t understand is why all of a sudden left wing Governments in the anglosphere have decided to go after the internet. First Australia, then the UK, and possibly the US next (although unlikely, don’t rule it out). Burnham, like Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy calls the internet a dangerous place. Maybe I’m on another internet?

Here’s what I haven’t accidently viewed today

  • Porn
  • Violent content, including beheadings
  • absolutely anything that isn’t child safe

In 1996 maybe you could have ended up on a porn site by accident, but in 2008 more people visit social networking sites than porn sites, and while porn may only be a Google search away, it’s not exactly popping up all over the place either.

The other thing that confuses me is the use of children as a justification; it doesn’t stack up. I’m actually in favor of ISP’s offering an optional kiddie safe cleanfeed, but ironically, at least in Australia, is that most ISP’s already do offer such a feed…so what’s the real reason?

Could the think of the children line simply be a smokescreen for repression of free speech? After all, I’m not exactly seeing protesters calling for repressive internet censorship anywhere in the world at the moment.

Could it be a play by big media to take back control of news gathering, or the movie and music industry to kill the internet so as to kill piracy (notably Burnham throws piracy into the mix).

And why left wing Governments? And more than one of them….at the same time, out of the blue.

A left wing conspiracy to kill the internet?

I know, far fetched, and a little loopy on the suggestion side, but we’re not getting the whole picture here, and something more than kiddies is driving this.



You might also like



  • If we are using the "traditional" left-right continuum, the ALP is a centre-right government. The ALP hasn't been particularly left wing for several decades. I think the idea of left-right is outdated though, and not particularly relevant to today's politics. Besides that, good read.
  • don't disagree, but likewise I wasn't going to spend time arguing the finer points of the political spectrum. Left may be a inaccurate line in a true sense, but it's still a commonly used label.
  • It is a commonly used label, but I think it was disingenuous to use it (yeah, I know you were looking for a good snappy headline!).

    Have to agree with the view that this isn't really a left/right issue and more about commercial control. When the government started talking about P2P filtering, I think that was a big giveaway as to the true motive behind this filtering scheme.
  • AnIrritatingTruth
    I hate the title of this article, as much as I hate your concept which claims that the calls for censorship have only come from the left. Wasn't it the Bush administration that deliberately restricted civil liberties in the name of national security? Wasn't it a republican administration that allowed McCarthyism to take hold. I resent the implication that it's a matter of left vs right, rather than an issue of freedom under threat, that lies at the very heart of democracy.
  • You can resent all you want, the facts remain that Governments of the left in more than one country are gunning for the internet. The right tends to be anti a lot of these proposals, so yes, it is a matter of left vs right, nanny state vs freedom. Yes, the Bush administration isn't brilliant, but hey, do I see them censoring the net? ;-)
  • Oh you're just asking for some drive-by flaming aren't you... ;-)

    Left/middle/right doesn't have anything to do with it. Have you forgotten about Net Alert already? Your man Johnny didn't mind a bit of net censorship himself. And the Tories in the UK would have gotten their hands dirty by now if they had have been in power at any stage in the past 10+ years.

    As for Bush, well he's probably already instituted a net censorship program -- except it would have been a secret program initiated by executive decree in the interests of national security -- so websites will just disappear, never to be heard of again... what's that smell? Whiffs of a right wing conspiracy? ;-)

    No, but seriously, net censorship of the kind that you described in the article is a horrible idea. It won't work and it'll just drive the illegal elements further underground, making them even harder to catch.

    Unfortunately though, I tend to think that net censorship is inevitable as more of our commerce and lives move online -- the best we can do is put it off for a few more years.
  • AnIrritatingTruth
    On the 8th of December 2008, the Australian legal system granted human rights to cartoon characters. On the 8th of December, a NSW Supreme Court ruled that an internet cartoon in which lookalike Simpsons child characters engage in sexual acts, is child pornography.

    In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams upheld a decision convicting Alan John McEwan of possessing child pornography, after sexual depictions of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson were found on his computer.

    The main issue was whether a fictional cartoon character could be considered a "person" under the law.

    To quote Neil Gaimen, I believe that in this case, the judge has "inadvertently granted human rights to cartoon characters".

    To read more on developments within internet censorship, visit An Irritating Truth, at:
    http://www.anirritatingtruth.blogspot.com
  • "A left wing conspiracy to kill the internet?
    I know, far fetched, and a little loopy on the suggestion side, but we’re not getting the whole picture here, and something more than kiddies is driving this."

    This push to censor the Internet is nothing more than business wanting a bigger share of hyperspace or, more accurately, the profits that can flow from creating software/systems which are required to use the world wide web.

    Censorship/security via filtering is a growing commercial opportunity that certain big IT companies are eager to get a piece of and, many are already actively lobbying for or privately supporting the government plans to legislate mandatory ISP-level filtering.

    Mandatory filtering is also being supported by those companies which feel that sales and royalties are being lost due to file sharing.

    A brief Google will bring up pages of IT companies selling programs capable of limiting what can be viewed or downloaded and many are apparently quite happy to encourage calls from religious and community groups to 'protect' children from the evil Net.

    However, the trend for governments to consider/introduce Internet censorship has nothing to do with child protection and everything to do with the commercial dollar.
  • 'Mystic Bird'
    I believe that clarencegirl has it right. Children aren't the real reason but are the smokescreen.

    Just take a look at what's going on in the US alone of late: mass corporate greed/corruption leading thousands to financial ruin, the financial industry itself cannot even run it's own affairs and the so called "Big 3" automakers want "Uncle Sam" to bail their companies out of possible bankruptcy, home foreclosures ongoing all across the nation, etc. All directly from large corporations wanting to get bigger ie: greed.

    Next, take into consideration that the ISP's across the country want to limit bandwidth (their version of controlling who gets a bigger pipe to use). These are just a taste of what's looming on the horizon and no, it's not all that loopy of an idea to consider as it's happening right now.
  • 1st amendment
  • Backwards. Left-wing wants net neutrality and freedom of speech. I love the fact that the FCC doesn't give me a list of words not to post.
  • Its not really a "left" or "right" issue, its between authoritarian and libertarian outlooks. Unfortunately, voters on both sides tend to be more libertarian on social issues than their politicians: Voters mostly want to be left alone and politicians want to exercise power.

    When Obama talks about nationwide internet access, I read between the lines and assume that this federally funded network won't be delivering any "illegal content."
  • AntiNWO
    ["When Obama talks about nationwide internet access, I read between the lines and assume that this federally funded network won't be delivering any "illegal content."]

    You got that exactly right!
  • asdf
    "A left wing conspiracy to kill the internet?"

    Try: New World Order.
    If you don't already know, look it up.
  • Marie
    The funny thing is I am against the idea of this. Yet I have seen the damage that the internet can cause. When people are given true freedom they tend not to play fair, act nice, behave morally, etc. In the long run, people should be controled. It protects all.
  • Robo
    SAVE THE NET -- DUMP LABOR
  • MorganScorpion
    There is a category mistake here, "New" Labour is more right wing than Thatcher.
  • Claude Miller
    Probably. As probable as O'Bomber actually being a president.
    Remember, Democrats like to control everything; the Internet is something that will prevent that, even though the Internet was complicit in electing O'Bomber.

    The Internet needs to be protected; the Democrats need to be destroyed.
  • This proposal was made in an interview about a week ago and aren't official policy at the moment. I hope my government in the UK realise how ridiculous this is. I'm sure they will - it's totally unworkable.
  • Steve
    While the labour government is traditionally seen as left, they've themselves made an effort to be seen as more centralist, and if you examined most of their recent legislation you'll find it right, rather than left wing.
    As the left is traditionally liberal and the right conservative it doesn't really matter whether the party providing the legislation is seen as left or right wing, the legislation ITSELF is right wing and conservative.
    So in one article you've shown a complete lack of insight about politics in the UK. Well done trying to push your right wing agenda but, as other comments show, most people can see through it.
  • tegdsv
    true true...e
  • Ben
    If the internet goes the last best hope for humanity goes with it.
  • Old Rubberlegs
    It's government, stupid.

    Good luck taking all that power back.
  • stevemac
    Left... No Right.... No Left..... Nuh uh it's Right. Wabbit season... Duck season... Shut up!!! When is the government going to realize they aren't mommy and daddy. It IS up to the parents to filter what their children see and hear and no they can't do that 100% of the time. But they can talk to their kids about it instead of looking up with sad, pathetic eyes to daddy government to take care of the problems. Citizens have done exactly that for so long the governments have now taken that to be their role.
blog comments powered by Disqus
King.com (Midasplayer.com Ltd.)