Peter Black from Electronic Frontiers Australia asked me to contribute to a series of posts the EFA is publishing to draw attention to its current fundraising campaign. Please consider donating to the EFA in order to fund its continued work to defend internet freedom and in opposing the internet filter.
The post, which appears below, was originally published here.
There are a range of good arguments against the Rudd government’s internet filter, some emphasised for persuasive or tactical reasons, some reflective of deeply held political and political positions. Among the latter, liberal and libertarian arguments tend to dominate. This is not necessarily to say that those advancing such arguments (which we might usefully summarise under the slogan ‘information wants to be free’) are liberals or libertarians in a consistently ideological sense, or on the political right. It’s more that the deep logic of the internet’s history produces an argument in terms of freedom, and that view seems natural to those who are passionate about the online world. In this article, I want to present a somewhat more sociological argument, and one that seeks to build on an alternative (though, in part, complementary) set of assumptions drawn from left and progressive thought and tradition.
In so doing, the target at which I want to aim is not the internet filter itself, or Stephen Conroy himself. To my mind, the personalisation of the debate has not been a helpful aspect of the campaign against the filter proposal. What I think is useful and important to understand is the underlying cause of the government’s move, which casts the argument around freedom in something of a different light.
What is at issue here is the desire to govern the private choices of individuals, a desire which has had its apogee in the communitarian aspects of New Labour governance in the United Kingdom. To adapt a judgement made by The Economist, thirteen years of New Labour government has seen the state grow, personal freedom greatly diminish, but the underlying social patterns of inequality little disturbed. The urge to shape and dictate private choices has been growing among Labor governments in Australia, with the long lived Bob Carr style state regimes leading the vanguard. Mark Latham tempered the communitarian rhetoric to a high flame during his leadership, and despite his repudiation by the ALP, the Rudd government has seemingly adopted a similar governing mentality, albeit at more of a simmer.
The causes of the desire to govern the soul are multiple, though interconnected and interwoven.
It’s no coincidence that an increasing drive to interfere with private decisions and choices accompanied the election of the first generation of centre-left governments after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Francis Fukuyama’s proclamation of the End of History. The ideological climate where social democrats lost any sense of the capacity to transform, and the desirability of transforming economic and social relations lent itself to a statism without long term purpose, a statism that manifests itself in interventions to transform private lives rather than to transform national and global society. Stripped of the power, and the will, to restructure economic life so as to negate deeply structural inequalities in a globalised world, purpose and the will to do good manifests itself into a micro-level of intervention; what Michel Foucault called ‘biopolitics’ – a politics of governing the individual body and soul.
Reflected through the prism of the constant campaign, the spectacle of the symbol in politics, and the 24/7 media cycle, ‘bite-sized’ policies have the capacity to substitute for social change over the long term and to feed the drumbeat of moral panic sounded on a repetitive and moment by moment time scale.
Secondly, in a risk society, individuals are less trusted to make choices for themselves, governed by their desires, their use of private reason, and their consciences. The sub-politics of risk, to invoke the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, concerns itself with the downside of modernity and complexity – the costs of the aggregation of private decisions to public finances and purposes. In areas like health, child development, and many others, the costs of perceived negative choices are transferred to a public purse unable to deal with them, and in a neo-liberal culture, the production of a docile and compliant workforce is key both to the legitimation of governance in a chaotic environment and to the reproduction of late capitalist patterns of work, consumption and distribution.
Thirdly, the micro-government of the individual is a key point of contestation at the site where democratisation and authority clash. An increasing climate of openness from the 1960s onwards, and the democratisation of culture among whose effects is a resistance to assertions of authority, later supplemented by the growth of populisms both right and left combined to render the notion that policy is an effect of expertise shaky. ‘Evidence-based policy’ is something of a backlash. With politics denuded of big picture ideological conflicts, the void is filled with hordes of experts, who with the best will in the world, think that they know what’s good for us. Labor governments, stripped of any real transformational purpose, obsessed with symbolic campaigning and feeding the media beast, and concerned about the governance of risk, seize upon (and cherry pick) crumbs from the table of thinktank, private and public research expertise.
So, then, the internet filter is part of a bigger picture. It’s one more item, among the alcopops tax, the national testing regime in schools, and many others, of a form of governmental mentality which seeks to shape, or to dictate, choices to citizens, who are presumed to be unable to discern their own best interests. Evidence, research and policy step in, and electoral advantage is sought through the intertwined machine of political communication and media dissemination.
Yet, there is another left tradition.
That is the tradition embodied in movements for popular education from the 19th century onwards, in the habits of auto-didacticism of early trade unionists and activists, of the respect for reason and informed conscience and judgement imparted to English speaking socialisms and Labourism from the dissent of chapel and the world of workplace dispute and argument. This tradition is one of the cultivation of the capacities of all citizens to apply reason to human affairs, to make conscientiously good decisions in their private lives through collective learning and civic conversation, for opportunity to be opened up rather than to be circumscribed.
This fundamentally progressive attitude and set of dispositions seeks to expand the capabilities of ordinary folk and to enable and facilitate citizens’ desires for autonomy, self-government and collective government of communal and state institutions.
It’s part of a sweeping movement of democratisation, which popped up in another context at the height of the administered society in the 1950s and 1960s, in a desire for participatory decision-making and for individuals together to question the force of ingrained social norms. It’s part of an activist culture manifested in social movements such as feminism and other liberatory and transformational currents. At its heart, it represents a fundamental optimism, a philosophical anthropology foundational to left politics (and to liberalism, too) which holds that humans are thinking beings able to be trusted with choice, and whose choices deserve a basic level of respect.
The internet, as I alluded to at the outset, is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It’s precisely because the internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle. I’m not so interested in the particulars of the reasons advanced by the Rudd government for this latest instance of the desire to micro-manage individual choices. I’m much more interested in opposing, in principle, anything that partakes in the disrespect for the capacities of individual citizens to decide severally and collectively how best to regulate their own lives. That’s a principle, in my view, that from a left and progressive position, is well worth fighting for.
Mark,
You write eloquently “The Internet, as I alluded to at the outset, is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It’s precisely because the Internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle.”
I 100% agree.
How then do you reconcile this ambition with your bitter opposition to really broadband Internet?
I see the advent of really fast Internet as socially transformative in the extreme.
We have barely begun to explore the possibilities of really wide bandwidth communications.
If I was a social democratic handmaiden I would tremble at the prospect of uncontrolled ultra wide band communications among the populace, at the prospect that over 50% of the population would not need to leave home to work. That entire new industries would grow up around this technology.
In the true broadband world censorship becomes irrelevant and impotent.
Huggy
Unfortunately this debate against an internet filter for which the prime purpose is to protect those below adult age, is framed entirely in terms and views of poeople above adult age. The internet unfortuneately does not descriminate between the 2 age groups. I’m no expert on the filter and its purpose, and correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the filter’s total purpose is to protect minors from the unimaginable flood of pornography. Pornography that preys on under age females predominately and males feeding a growing epidemic of human trafficing for the sex “industry”.
This statement
“capacities of individual citizens to decide severally and collectively how best to regulate their own lives”
presumes adult mental capacity.
I think that the arguments against the principle of the filter (assuming it is for the purpose stated above) are fairly self serving. People taking this view I believe are protecting their interests by “”"”not knowing”"”" what is going on on the web.
I would be interested in hearing from the mountain of “real” internet experts on what a truly workable alternative to the filter might be.
Pornography has a real place and fills a need for both men and women, but endless pornography that sinks to the ultimate depths of depravity, which can be accessed on any computer in just a few seconds serves only to build and feed sexual mental illness every bit as disabling as gambling, drugs, and alcohol, with the only difference that it is available absolutely free to any child who can wield a computer mouse.
I’m sorry, Mark, but assuming that the total purpose of the internet filter is to protect our young from exposure to depravity then most of what you have written above is talking about another topic altogether.
@1 – Huggy, I don’t have anything to reconcile, because I’m very far from a “bitter opposition to really broadband internet” but thoroughly in favour. I’m a little confused as to why you think that.
@2 – BilB – there I think the issue is the capability of parents and those who care for children to make their own adult judgements and take appropriate steps to ensure that harm is avoided to those who don’t have the mature capacity to discern, rather than have such a capability and judgement taken out of their hands by the state.
@2 we have laws against exploitative pornography, use them.
Your argument falls down when sites such as wikileaks are included on the banned list, the recent revelations of US gunships shooting civilians and children would not come to light under Conroys’ list – it seems to be more about control of information and avoidance of political embarassment
great article Mark, thanx…spot on.
Is it an acceptable Left position to be bored by this non-issue?
Those hyperventilating about this say two things that can’t be reconciled. First, that this is a horrible, totalitarian assault on free speech. Second, that any filter is easily circumvented. Well, which one is it? It can’t be both.
It’s probably all just a big waste of effort (and some money), but I have no problem with blocking websites containing illegal material. As I’ve said before, I doubt even Voltaire would go to the barricades over illegal internet smut.
Great post, Mark. Am scratching my head at this sentence, though:
“Secondly, in a risk society, individuals are less trusted to make choices for themselves, governed by their desires, their use of private reason, and their consciences. ”
I thought we were a risk averse society, although maybe your using risk to mean…?
Please explain.
@7 – risk society, in the sense that yes, we are risk adverse, and more conscious of risk.
The idea comes from Ulrich Beck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society
rob@wonthaggi: except I’ve seen that footage on the news on just about every TV channel. Honestly, it’s like living in North Korea!
Mark@3,
That is the standard “copout” statement which follows microsoft thinking along the lines that every person in the world will have the interest and knowledge to use the millions, if not billions, of features/options/codes/software/scripts/languages/protocols/whatevers that are “available” through the standard PC. The fact is that three quarters of the “software” offered to protect computers does exactly the opposite. This website would not work without filters. My computer would become permanently disconnected from the internet if my service provider did not filter every email sent to my email address. I think that the whole argument is corrupted right at the beginning.
I’m happy to do a little digging and post some links here to show exactly what this antifilter argument is actually protecting. If I did I would hope that you would block it because the links would lead to absolutely disgusting content. But I think that if this content was fully exposed there would be no argument.
@10 – BilB, I’m sure there is absolutely disgusting content out there, and you don’t need to link to it.
However, I think that the filter is the wrong response. The arguments that it is easily circumventible and ineffectual are not contradictory, because all attempts at censorship fail in one way or another, and there are much stronger reasons, in my view, for preserving the principle of online civil liberties. As rob@wonthaggi said, there are existing legal prohibitions against the publication of a range of offensive content, and sanctions should be directed against those who break those laws, not against the vast majority of people who don’t (and it’s here that the arguments about speed and false positives come in).
Mark,
An interesting post. I am of a similar ideological hue to you, and I too wrestle with my own views about where the boundary should lie between citizens’ autonomy and the paternalistic impulses of the state.
I think you have oversimplified the tension between the two.
You write: “I’m much more interested in opposing, in principle, anything that partakes in the disrespect for the capacities of individual citizens to decide severally and collectively how best to regulate their own lives”.
Does this mean you oppose seatbelt laws? Tobacco taxes? Alcohol taxes? Helmet laws? The ban on heroin?
All of these measures “disrespect the capacity of individual citizens to decide… how best to regulate their own lives”.
Rob@4, if the internet filter has been broadened to that degree, then the architects of the filter have doomed it to fail, and I am sorry for the kids and the community’s sake. There is an opportunity to return pornography to the top shelf out of reach for the young, and I will be disappointed if the government smashes this brief window with typical bureaucratic overreach.
Huggybunny @ 1 – As someone who has regularly worked from home I don’t think the limitation for most white collar people working at home is the lack of broadband. Especially given that to get better than current broadband rates people are going to be paying in excess of $100/month. With the current broadband capability a lot more people could theoretically work from home. Its corporate culture – primarily managers being able to trust that people will work when unsupervised and (I think this is underestimated) the ability for people to work in their home efficiently – both from a self discipline point of view and an appropriate environment – eg if you have kids at home you need a clearly separate area to work in. We’d also most likely have to move away from the situation where people are paid and evaluated based on the hours worked rather than actual work done.
btw I’m not opposed to a big fibre rollout – I’ll be a big beneficiary of it. But the lack of it is not what is stopping most people from being able to work from home.
Back to the filter – one aspect I didn’t realise until recently was that it will not be illegal to circumvent the filter nor to teach others how to circumvent the filter. If the government hold to their word on that then I think there is less to be concerned about. ISPs can supply their customers with instructions on how to circumvent their own filter
@12 – Good questions, Matt C. Got to go to teach a class now, so I’ll get back to you!
Mark@11,
The problem I have with that approach, Mark, is that, in principle, it would fill our child detention centres with underage kids who discover unmonitored computers on which to over extend their (natural) sexual fascinations, many of whom will go into adulthood with distorted sexual expectations. A brief glimpse of this effect being seen in the illicit sexual behaviour of a disproportionate number of top league football players.
Ah yes football players, those most prevalent when it comes to using the internets….Q.E.D indeed.
BilB@2
It’s called “parenting”.
But who has time to be a parent these days?
Mark,
I seem to recal that you wrote in opposition to the Fibre To The Home (FTTH)project.
You put forward some gimcrack bullshit Radio scheme in its place – this would not even be in the same cricket ground as FTTH.
Huggy
IMO MattC @12 above, the challenge is to identify the frontier where the exercise of personal discretion impinges upon the legitimate claims of others.
If one wanted to do so, one could argue that almost any exercise of discretion had the potential to infringe. The logic of the above is thus incipiently totalitarian.
On the other hand, an excessively laissez-faire approach necessarily amounts to a very substantial cross-subsidy from those playing nicely to miscreants or reckless people. We have a classic collective action problem.
Throw into that questions such as the nature of informed consent, the transaction costs of ensuring people can know their own interests and policing compliance and it really is tricky.
I’m somewhat with Mark. Unless one can show harm to a legitimate interest by granting a discretion — and this must be a measurable, significant and properly foreseeable harm rather than a purely notional, frivolous or speculative harm, then the discretion should be granted.
It is clear for example that those who consume substantial proportions of their calories in saturated fat and simple sugars do themselves a good deal of damage. How much is debatable, but it surely is a lot. Obesity costs the community a good deal of money directly and indirectly — those bariatric facilities don’t come cheap and in the most advanced countries, obesity is a significant problem (notice I resisted the adjective “growing”. How decorous I’m becoming!). Worse still, they are likely to pass on their lifestyle to their children who cannot give informed consent and perpetuate the problem. So we don’t even know if these people really are consenting or are merely habituated. And of course, there are the environmental issues attached.
So we should probably restrain people from over-indulging, because their lifestyle choice impinges on others, including others who aren’t consenting, yet we don’t want to arbitrarily ban people from eating empty calories. That’s almost certainly a bridge too far. What we need to do is to attempt to discourage them by placing roadblocks in the way. We might tax low quality foods more highly than high quality foods. We might use the funds to set up community food outlets where nutritious food could be dispensed at a discounted rate. We might set up before and after school care where children were fed nutritious food. We might early intervene with new parent and support them in developing good household practice. And we might run support programs for people who want to better manage their weight and consumption of food. One could easily apply these principles to alcohol or other recreational drugs. We could tighten up the regulations on car driving, so that there was lower cost and more effective compliance. Unlike eating, car driving is not a human right.
None of this fits the descriptor “coercive” but it is a form of restraint upon discretion.
Here is a Left reason to oppose the filter.
It’s a dumb idea.
@Huggybunny,
There is a very handy search function near the top of the sidebar. When you input “Fibre To The Home” (include the quote marks) and hit your enter key, you will receive precisely two results. Neither of the two posts in question was written by Mark. I don’t think either of them were against FTTH either.
HTH. HAND. DYOHWNT.
I think I disagree with almost all of this article.
Just for starters…
This is followed up with a reference to that ultimate master of lies, the Economist. I’m not sure what the communitarian aspects of New Labour governance are that we are meant to associate with the the governance of private choices. This article is lacking in examples. The Economist refers to the growth of the state under New Labour (NL), but a large part of that was caused by the much-needed rescue of the NHS, which, in addition to being refunded, is moving into a new choice-based model of care which NL aim to extend to schools and possibly also to welfare. I think examples are needed to contradict the obvious aspects in which NL are removing the hand of govt from significant individual choices like where to get care.
How is the desire to control private choices (at least in the context of modern social democracy) a desire to govern the soul? Stephen Conroy isn’t saying you can’t dream of shagging children, he’s just saying you can’t look at piccies of it.
The paragraph that includes this sentence:
suggests a link between the vigour of social democratic government and the existence of the soviet union which I think Lenin would probably argue hasn’t existed since 1920. This theme that social democrats have no purpose since the collapse of a political system completely unrelated to modern social democracy seems to run all through this article and it seems a bit pernicious and a bit wrong. Social democracies do have a purpose – to maintain and improve the welfare state, to direct the state to intervene in areas like climate change or environmental management where the market fails, and to use the power of the state carefully in a democratic and sensible way to reduce the effect of long-standing oppressive social phenomena (racism, sexism, etc.). This is exactly what social democratic governments have always done. I don’t understand why you think they lack a purpose now.
Then you go onto this business about risk, which seems misguided since social democracies have always assumed that the populace will give the govt some burden of its risk and that it is the govts duty to bear it. If anything the neo-liberalisation of modern social democracies has seen social democratic govts shirk their responsibilities in this area (superannuation, anyone?) So why do you say this? then there is this pearler
which is just not true. In a neo-liberal culture characterised by increasing levels of personal risk and the need for a more and more educated workforce, the opposite of this sentence holds. Sure, govts need legitimation but in the modern age they need to separate their docile accomodation by the populace from the populace’s increasing need to be active, educated, creative risk-takers. Docile and compliant workers are a necessity for industrial capitalism; not so much neo-liberal post-industrial capitalism.
The last part of your essay just reads like a description of the social democratic movement which recently won an election in Australia.
I think it’s much easier to understand this internet filter as a bug in the current social democratic culture, brought about by the dominance of religious conservatives in the ALP at present, and by a failure at all levels of government and community to resist the outrage over paedophilia.
Also, what’s with the scare-mongering about “communitarianism”?
TigTog
Robert Merkel ” So, in a nutshell, I reckon that we could have gotten enough capacity out of a moderately souped-up copper network, in large parts of Australia, for the medium term future. And we could have done it at much less than 43 billion dollars.”
From “Is the existing copper network at its spedd limit” about 1 year ago.
A grovelling apology will suffice.
Huggy
er, the post is written by Mark.
Er yes
My grovel.
Huggy
I would not donate a cent to the campaign to make degrading and violent material more available. Perhaps there is a fund where the majority of sane people who are not captive of the loopy free speech at all costs brigade can donate to. Bring on the filter. I will happily support attempts to block this revolting stuff. Bring on the clean feed. Your freedom to view degrading material is of no concern to me. Most Australians support the filter.
What I am trying to understand and have been from the beginning, is not the debate over this issue but the level of passion invested in the debate, the note of apocalyptic fervour particularly by those opposed to the government’s proposals.
BilB, you’re assuming that a social problem (pr0n) can be fixed with a technical solution (the filter). It can’t, for two reasons (one technical, the other social, in a rather nice symmetry).
Technically, it will be (I’m told) extremely easy for anyone who wants to circumvent the filter to do so. (Additionally, the really nasty stuff already comes to its afficionados via peer-to-peer networks, which a filter will do nothing about.)
While it’s possible to legislate against undesirable behaviour (like racism or domestic violence), the only way to actually fix such problems is through education. That is, technical solutions don’t fix social problems.
DI29,
The social problem/human_drive_problem cannot be solved, it can only be moderated, and moderated by BOTH legislation and technical methods. The problem with pornography is that the producers of the material do not just produce the same material year after year, they seek to expand their share of the “market” with a progressively “improved” product feed. This means a slow progression from reasonably innocent 1960 to something substantially depraved NOW, and onto something that I don’t want to imagine in the future. There is a social drag effect that goes with this. I heard of a study of young people and sexuality which identified that an increasing percentage of young females believe that they should be available for anal sex, this being a new trend in pornographic material. Now it is a perfectly private matter how people use their bodies but the point that I would make here is that this is entirely new territory for our culture with, I believe potentially unforseen consequences for families. This is an invisible effect as peoples use of the internet is, and should stay, private. I argue that the amount of pornographic material should be reduced. It cannot be eliminated, and it is not desireable to eliminate adult access to pornography. As Tom Lehrer points out “let’s face it dirty material is fun”.
It is wrong to talk of the internet as a “cleanfeed” medium.
Oh. Well just to be contrarian I will point out anal sex does have a long cultural history for many societies; especially as a contraceptive. But at least you are thinking of the children.
More practically, it was proposed about a decade ago to make a xxx domain accessible only by an age-identified credit card for legitimate pornography sites. But then we will probably blame the internet for the spate of credit card thefts by children, interested to learn what adults see in sex and why we keep the very act of their creation hidden from them.
BilB – your observations about the changes in pornography may be correct. But will Conroy’s filter actual prevent or even slow the change given its a world wide industry? I very much doubt it.
It’s really only pro filter groups that talk about clean feeds. You can probably run a very restrictive white list system but it wouldn’t be very useful subset of the internet.
Incidentally I know some people who work in IT in schools and even those sorts of situations where they are able to implement quite draconian restrictions and actively block sites that allow you to proxy, they still have problems with students accessing inappropriate content (its not just age inappropriate sites which an issue for organisations but waste/cost of bandwidth to sites as well). There are so many proxy sites its not possible to keep up.
I don’t know, Chris, but I would like to see the debate discuss whether there is a chance to at least reduce the amount of material. Internet connection traffic is very different to email traffic which is filtered to good effect. But I imagine that a well thought out software programme could be constructed to scan the area of the webb from which the “free” material comes and constantly update the “block” list. Eventually the industry would be forced to negotiate with governments to create an operating zone which serviced societies legitimate sexual freedom needs. Children who are absolutely determined to find material always will, but the soft temptation factor for “average” computer users would be significantly reduced.
Rumreb,
Pornography is simply a stimulant for the machinery which resides within all of us. The trouble with stimulants is that they progressively become less effective over time. We all intuitively know that our machinery is there for a purpose. I think that premature overstimulation can lead to unnatural outcomes such as premature disinterest in ones life partner, perhaps. Sexual appeal is a delicate balance of pschological influences.
BilB,
Is there any science behind this assumption, applying this assumption to sexuality/porn, or any of the other assumptions you’ve posted?
Isn’t this a compelling reason to manage it at an individual level rather than blanket filtering for everyone?
If the internet filter were voluntary (opt in or out) and not mandatory I doubt there would be such uproar about it. That and the fact it won’t actually be able to filter out the vast majority of child porn (which is already illegal) which is what most people think this is all about means it’s destined to be a waste of tens of millions of dollars.
It’s shameful that things like this, the nationwide welfare quarantining for unemployed and single parents and the suspension of accepting boat people from Afghanistan & Sri Lanka are being done by a Labor government.
@24 – sg, I’ll take your comment as an expression of a different political position, but I do want to take issue with the claim that the end of Soviet Communism entailed no consequences for social democracy.
(a) It’s reasonably well established in the literature that the maintenance and extension of the welfare state and the balance of class forces in the West were effected by a bifurcated ideological structure between First and Second worlds, and that the end of Communism did produce an ideological climate more favourable to neo-liberalism, and to the adoption by centre-left parties of a softened neo-liberal stance (in the guise of the Third Way);
(b) The key point here is the exhaustion of any real desire to transform capitalism and to disturb existing social and economic relations which reproduce inequality – this goal is still articulated in the writings of social democrats as late as the 1970s and 1980s, but then pretty much disappears overnight. What we are left with is tinkering with the existing order – a more right wing and Labourist project – “Civilising Global Capitalism” as the title of Mark Latham’s tract sums it up quite neatly. Latham, incidentally, is a good indicator of what’s been going on because he was prepared to think ideologically in a way that other Labor politicians aren’t, and therefore spelled out the unstated premises of their practice. In particular, the authoritarianism of his communitarianism is telling.
bilb, pr0n is not an addictive substance to which one builds up a tolerance. The development of the industry is based on a desire to find new and creative ways of selling itself, which happens in all entertainment industries.
I see the diversification of modern sexual practice as a feature of porn (if indeed it is due to porn in any way). If young women are being pressured to have anal sex, that’s a problem of society, not of pr0n. I hear rumours that in previous generations women were also pressured to have v*gin*l sex, but I don’t credit them, because there was no internet pr0n, so how could young men have got the idea?
@12 – Matt C, I agree with a lot of what Fran Barlow says @21.
To express it in my own terms, I’m not a libertarian, but I think what’s central is two things:
(a) the degree to which the actions of individuals can do non-trivial harm to others, particularly others less powerful than each other or whose own decisions are not entailed in those whose actions are harmful or potentially harmful;
(b) the degree to which state action deprives individuals of the necessity or capability to form their own characters through the exercise of conscience, reasoning and cooperation with others.
Obviously, the application of those principles would be different in different circumstances and policy domains, but if I were asked to set out what I thought the principles should be, they’d look like that, and in general, I think there should be a bias against the drive to shape or dictate choice where it’s not absolutely necessary. My premise is that people are quite good at making decisions for themselves, and those whom their actions affect, and that the capacities to act and decide autonomously are capable of further development to the degree that that capacity need not be infringed upon by the state without sufficient cause.
Mark: I guess that my position has already been noted so, to everyone’s relief I am sure, I won’t bang on about what I see as the absence of any “left reasons” to oppose the filter …except for…category creep in the classification of banned material which I see as a real issue.
You are correct, in my view, to place the matter in the context of a dispute within liberalism between communitarian liberals and those I categorise as laissez-faire or ‘let it rip’ liberalism otherwise known as libertarians. You argue that the absence of a genuine capacity among social democratic parties to address real structural inequality produced by capitalism has seen a turn of political libidinal energy towards policing of the self or of the subjectivity of citizens. (I hope that this characterisation of your argument isn’t doing too much violence to your position).
I think this is a valid critique but would require some evidence for what you argue. In what other policy moves has the Rudd govt. shown, as you put it, “the desire to govern the soul”?
BTW: the Oz today stated that Passolini’s Salo is to be made available on DVD. Hooray.
@41 – anthony, I’m happy to accept that characterisation of my position.
I think that the degree to which the Rudd government engages in all this is somewhat limited by the fact that a lot of the areas in which this form of governmentality comes into its own are state responsibilities, but I’d cite a lot of the measures involved in Indigenous Affairs and welfare, among others.
Mark, I haven’t read Latham’s books (nor would I want to!) but interpreting the “third way” on its effects in public policy, I just can’t see how they can be squared with increasing “policing of souls.” The third way is more about choice and diversity than traditional labour activism, and the bits of British New Labour that construed as controlling or interventionist are generally referred to by English commentators as hangovers from the old left.
I just can’t see that you can reconcile this bit about policing the public’s reasoned choice, and authoritarian communitarianism, with all the talk about choice and personal risk that the third way do. I think your take on New Labour is wrong and, if I may be so bold as to say, perhaps overly affected by right wing ranting about “NuLab.” The reality is that in huge areas of ordinary peoples’ lives where risk really matters – school choice, hospital choice, access to doctors, superannuation, exposure to debt, and education – the third way has dumped this onto individuals.
And a lot of the right-wing bleating about New Labour interventions in private lives needs to be seen for what it is – pushback against significant legislation to improve the lot of ordinary people. I’m thinking here of things like the Human Rights Act, which really makes it a lot easier for people to make reasoned personal choices without fear of state intervention. It’s only under the most recent incarnations of social democracy that we have seen movements towards, for example, parity in partnering arrangements for gays and straights, support for working mothers, etc. – all things which free up individuals’ abilities to lead their lives according to their individual choice.
The only “private life” policing I can think of that New Labour have done that is clearly about controlling people’s personal choice has been to ban fox-hunting and smoking indoors. Hardly a tragic defeat for freedom.
Also, how do you square this nicely written tract with the previous “wingnut as she is spoke: personal responsibility” post. You seem to be arguing a nuanced version of that wingnutism.
sg, I’ll just comment that there’s no requirement for people who post on this blog to agree with each other, or for me to agree with the previous post, etc. Having said that, I thought I’d sufficiently explained my position to distinguish it from a right wing call for “personal responsibility”. I apologise for the quick reply – I’ve got a really punishing work schedule at the moment, I’m really tired tonight, and I don’t have much energy to think, or comment, at the moment. I’d like to take up the point about New Labour in the UK, and develop that at greater length, but it may have to wait.
I think you are confusing libertarian with libertine. I regard myself as a libertarian but I don’t oppose Internet filtering. In fact I think that ideally we would have lots of competing Internet filters and we could choose between them. In my home we currently use a filtering system from OpenDNS. The idea that the government should mandate a filter run by them is what is offensive. They are not qualified to do this and there incentives are misaligned.
@43 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-lead-liberty
I’m also thinking of things like ASBOs, making welfare payments conditional on counselling on how to parent, etc. Yes, sg, there is a dual movement here: on one hand the Third Way state makes individuals responsible for risk rather than socialising it, and on the other those who fall through the cracks or who can’t demonstrate acceptable responsibility are subject to punitive sanctions.
This whole approach is completely contrary to the goal of developing the autonomous capacities of citizens which I advocate, because that involves an equalitarian and horizontal articulation of that responsibility through collective action and common reasoning, rather than a vertical individualisation imposed by the state in a differential fashion.
Again, I’m knackered, so don’t have the time to develop this argument at great length, but I’d recommend Zygmunt Bauman’s Work, Consumerism and the New Poor for a good take:
http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/033521598X.html
How on earth would TerjeP’s dream possibly work.
presumably many peoples preference is to have no filter. So why would these people “choose between them”.
There is no market mechanism to block organised crime.
This just shows hoe utopian-libertarin theories just lead to a wasteland.
Another example of New Labour parternalism from today’s news: drinking banning orders – http://www.metro.co.uk/news/821990-laura-hall-given-drinking-banning-order-across-england-and-wales
Maybe Premier Brumby has caught this bug as well. I could not believe my eyes when this little plan, to force addicts into rehab., was announced on vic stateline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/19/2851151.htm?site=milduraswanhill
I think you are onto something with this Mark. It’s most interesting, thought-provoking, stuff. Though, I have no plans to invite Laura Hall to my next party to debate the finer details.
Agree with Jacques @37 – if there was an opt-in/opt-out option it would almost be a non-issue.
Personally I think the filter is a dumb idea that almost certainly won’t work, but to some extent I do also agree with Ginja’s comments (@6). There’s quite an amazing amount of sound and fury being generated online in opposition to this net filter – energy that doesn’t seem to be as prevalent on arguably more pertinent issues like climate change, and your bog standard education, health and transport.
There’s every chance the whole thing is going to fall on its arse anyway from a technical point of view, so if we should be concerned about anything, perhaps we should be most concerned about the inevitably failed scheme’s opportunity costs.
BilB @ 34 – an automated system would inevitably be full of false positives. Remember this is not just about sex related material – its anything that is potentially RC and context of the words used would be very important. Eg discussion of euthanasia vs information about how to commit euthanasia. You need a human to distinguish between the two.
Guy @ 49 – I see the internet filter issue as fundamentally more important than most of the issues you list – because the filter has the potential to stifle discussion about a whole range of controversial topics – both now and in the future.
Also in reference to Ginja’s original comment – a lot (if not most) of the content to be blocked by the filter is not illegal. It includes content not illegal to access, nor illegal to possess. It won’t be illegal to circumvent the filter to access that content nor illegal to teach someone how to access that material. Perhaps part of this is just the governments way of trying to ban material without having a discussion about whether it should be or not? Since the blocked list won’t be public we won’t even know what they don’t believe is appropriate for us to see.
@Chris Warren
Fixed that for you. Filters that one installs and configures oneself, for one’s own particular circumstances, are wonderful things in terms of speeding up internet access and for blocking spam and phishing sites. As well as for monitoring and limiting one’s children’s access to undesirable content.
Chris @51 – Possibly – but I think its already been ascertained that the filter is unlikely to work for social networking sites, for example. If websites start being banned that legitimately shouldn’t be banned, I am sure there will be quite a massive stink raised, and the government will be bludgeoned about the head for it in the media.
Maybe the print media if the online media is blocked.
Guy – they’re unlikely to be able to block social networking sites without a big backlash. But one of the problems with the banned list not being made public is that it makes it much harder for non technical people to work out if a site is banned or something else is wrong – eg is the server temporarily down, has the owner shut it down permanently, is something wrong with network in between where the person is and the site lives etc. Remember people ended up on the last list by mistake and the errors were only discovered when the list was publicly leaked.
As that dentist discovered if its a low traffic site even the owner may not realise they’ve been blocked – if overseas they might notice that there is no traffic from Australia. At the very minimum I think they should be required to notify a site owner if they have been blocked and the reasons for which they have been blocked (assuming there is no illegal content and no secret criminal investigation occurring).
Mark, drinking banning orders are an example of exactly why you are wrong. Drinking banning orders are brought by police after problem drinkers are initially barred from pubs in an area through Pubwatch, which has nothing to do with the govt (but a lot to do with the police and the pubs themselves). They’re enforced by the courts. The govt passed the legislation.
And why did New Labour pass this legislation? Because New Labour deregulated licensing laws for the first time in 50 years on the mistaken assumption that the Brits aren’t a nation of piss-heads, i.e. to put it academically, on the assumption that individuals could make reasoned choices about their own behaviour. Turns out they can’t, and there’s been national uproar over it ever since. So after years of community pressure they have extended the ASBO framework to incorporate drinking bans.
This seems like the essence of personal responsibility to me – we give you whatever choices you want, but if you insist on getting rat-faced and smashing your neighbours car 600 times a year, we’ll ban you from drinking altogether. Sounds like a fair cop to me.
I was in England until 4 months ago. Let me assure you, ASBOs and DBOs and surveillance systems were never better targeted than they are at British yobbos. Your average Aussie observer, watching the British govt struggling to get its act together, has literally no idea of how violent and screwed up large areas of the UK have become. If you watch any of the major panorama documentaries on British crime and anti-social behaviour from the last few years, you’ll see why they have these things. For example, 80% of fire attendances in Oxford last year were for mischief fires, in one of which a fireman died. It’s easy to talk about personal choices from this distance, but if you’re a housing officer getting daily hysterical complaints from a woman whose neighbour has her so terrified she can’t leave her home, what are you meant to do?
In addition to freeing up licensing laws, New Labour made it easier to move on offenders in public housing, so that they have to take responsibility for their bad behaviour; it introduced innovative programmes to target teenage pregnancy; it introduced over-the-counter morning after pills; it passed the Human Rights Act, so people can prevent others from interfering in their personal lives. It is now sinking under public disapproval of how it has unleashed “broken Britain.” The Human Rights Act is universally loathed, famously dubbed a “charter for grafters.” I just can’t see how you can claim that they are policing people’s souls, just because of a few necessary legal interventions like ASBOs.
“the assumption that individuals could make reasoned choices about their own behaviour. Turns out they can’t..”
“the essence of personal responsibility to me”
“Sounds like a fair cop to me”
“It’s easy to talk about personal choices from this distance”
“necessary legal interventions”
wingnut anyone?
One of the problems with a net filter is that if and when the infrastructure is in place, it can be extended far beyond its initial reach.
Spana and Billb may think it a great idea against pr0nography (whatever that is) to ‘protect the kiddies’, but suppose a future atheist Minster for Communications (or Restricting Communications) judges that a particular big religious organisation is a danger to kiddies because of its record and bans links to that organisation. Will Spana and Billb and other filter supporters think that is a great idea…to protect the kiddies.
After all, there are plenty out there that loathe that particular religious organisation – if they get their hands on effective filtering infrastructure, do either of Billb or Spana think they will hesitate to use it against that big religious organisation?
Hmmm, maybe I should just shut my big atheistic mouth. Roll on the filter.
It’s like being under the rule of the Taliban, or, if you consider the three strikes and you’re out law, the Tally-ban.
Marks @ 57: “One of the problems with a net filter is that if and when the infrastructure is in place, it can be extended far beyond its initial reach.”
Absolutely. This is my only important objection to compulsory filtering beyond speed issues, but as objecvtions go, it is final, non-negotiable and fatal. This is not a power that I want government to have, or to use.
After blocking the sites of anything that is already illegal, it will be far too easy for them to secretly block the sites of things that are sleazy but nevertheless legal, as well as sites that should be legal but that discuss activities that are not, such as euthanasia and drug use. At that point, serious and unacceptable damage is already being done to freedom of information flow and discussion in Australia.
You don’t have to extrapolate far before things get so over the top that anyone ought ot object. A few big media beat-ups about child abuse could indeed “justify” blocking of some major religious organisations and art-related sites. Focus on “terrsm” and a control-freak government could discourage objections if anyone finds out about the blocking of PETA, activist sites such as GetUp, The Greens, Nuclear Physics 101 courses on Uni WWW sites… and so on, in an ever more silly direction. People might notice, object, do what they could to work around secret bans that had been leaked, but neither major party would listen, safe in the knowledge that both sides liked things as they were.
I’m hoping that Electronic Frontiers Australia and internationally will be bringing pressure on Google to re-open the blocked blog of Cuban blogger Henry Ubieta which was summarily closed recently by that company. Named “La Isla Desonocida” (The Unknown ISland)the blog was closed and no explanation has been provided. It seems like a case of co-operative political censorship from Google but, without a public statement, who would know? Or does the EFA only campaign when there are dollars involved?
Chris @54 – apparently all ISPs in Australia would be provided with the black list so as to implement the filtering. Given the hostility with which some ISPs have expressed in relation to the idea, is it really that likely that the list would not be leaked almost immediately by someone?
I just think this whole thing is going to prove to be a self-defeating proposition.
eric, I think you may have misread my comment, just a little.
Hi Marks. I would defend the right to free speech should the filter expand to be used as a tool to oppress. I do not fear this. If we always feard the extreme possibility of what may happen then we would do nothing. I don’t regard blocking violent and degrading porn as oppression. I don’t care for people’s rights when it comes to viewing it. They don’t have a right to view it. As I have said before. If it is illegal on TV there is no reason why it should not be blocked on the web.
Spana,
The problem with that strategy is that you won’t know when it happens.
If you think that this filter is going to stop at pornography, you’re braindead. The government, whatever flavor, will continue to increase its scope until is blatantly political. A list of subjects that will more than likely wind up on the filter?
Euthanasia information
Islamic discussion forums.
Abortion information.
Studies on sexuality.
History.
The list will go on and on and on as the politicians realise they can kill debate in a subject simply by adding them to the list and starving them of oxygen.
But the main purpose of this legislation is to wedge the coalition. Not how silent they are on this issue?
All it has done for me is to make sure that my vote goes to the greens, and for me to campaign for them, on this issue. The greens will never allow this filter to be implemented, so giving them the balance of power will kill this filter.
Spana, imagine you’ve been appointed to the Classification Board. What would be your criteria for RC, and can you list a few examples of what you would regard as non “degrading porn”?
Additionally, you’ve received several hundred strongly written complaints about a website that grotesquely advocates for a woman’s right to quite literally murder her unborn children, and seeks to misinform and corrupt public opinion by peddling blatant untruths and cherry-picked statistics as facts – and even worse, openly markets itself as so-called educational material for impressionable teenage girls.
What would be your criteria, if any, for refusing classification or not to this website?
Back when Rudd was first elected, I suggested that he’d start to look distinctly like Tony Blair (without the charisma), and this internet filter business is the proof of the pudding. As part of this suspicion, I discussed ASBOs in some detail here. The post sets out the relevant legislation and explains how it works.
Pi, sadly it was Joe Hockey on Q&A last week who voiced his opinion that he disagreed strongly with a compulsory internet filter. As I can’t vote for a Labor party that routinely tries to out right-wing the Liberal party so if it becomes official Liberal party policy heading into the election I’ll be voting for the Libs.
I disagree that this legislation is about wedging the Libs. It’s about locking in the Christian vote. I’m not sure the Greens would die in a ditch over this given how the SA Greens rolled over on Michael Atkinson’s attempt to ban commentary on the internet here about the recent SA election unless your post was accompanied with your full name and postcode. Thankfully the storm the ban caused on the net lead to it being rescinded.
how’s that, skepticlawyer? He entered parliament with an agenda of social democracy tied to increased personal choice and risk-taking?
Jacques….
The liberal party’s leader isn’t hockey, it’s tony abbot.
Correct and he’s only been their leader for five months too.
For those of you who are in favour of the internet filter. You presumably agree cancer sufferers in the terminal stage of their disease can’t get access to euthanesia sites? (Putting a plastic bag over ones head when the pain gets too much, or throwing oneself under a train or even jumping off the Gap don’t strike me as pleasant ways to end my life) You would, as good anti-pron Xtans wanting to ban pron you can’t get on teh internet anyway, no doubt prefer I died in prolonged agony? Just curious about your Xtan compassion.
Jacques….
And Abbot got there by knifing the other moderate, who is now leaving parliament.
Paul @ 73, I realise your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but these fuckers don’t have any compassion (except, of course, for unborn blastocytes).
Indeed, David. Its many years I hope before my cancer gets that bad and apart from the book I’m working on at the moment I have at least two more books I want to write: a joint biography of the Oz literary school surrounding Bede Dalley, Henry Kendall and Marcus Clarke; and a joint bio of Richardson, Smollett, Cleland and the Fieldings, Henry and Sarah.
But to all the anti-pron internet censoring Xtans out there, I still, very genuinely, want an answer to my question.
@Pi – 65,
I thought the filter was going to be regulated by a third party and not directly by the government, to ensure that these things won’t happen.
Yeah,
And the Government of Texas isn’t going to ban the works of Thomas Jefferson from schools because he advocated the separation of church and satate.
Student@77 I heard Conroy blubbering on about how he would have someone, like a retired judge, come in every six months or so and check that the list was kosher and all.
The man is clueless. Just imagine how much could be closeted away by over diligent guardians in that time when the net moves so fast in just one day.
@joe2 – 79,
Yes, on the ABC he explained
How eloquent.
Conroy: living proof that we are drifting towards moronocracy. PLEASE, Kev, sack him?!
The fact that the list will be secret is really worrying. What is the government’s justification for that? What is the process for getting on the list? Who decides and how? How do you get off the list? Oops, that’s right, you won’t know that you’re on the list, in the first place.
Yep, it’s so reassuring that a retired judge is going to pop in occasionally for a look. Is Conroy so clueless that he thinks that appropriate?
a retired judge who will see eye to eye with Conroy, no doubt. A bit like never agreeing to a Royal Commission unless you’re sure of the result beforehand. Mr Conroy we are all very very stupid and we do believe you. Not.
Nick, we already have a classification system in Australia. If the current system bans it I support it being banned on the web. The web is not sacred. If it is not fit for TV, cinema or computer games I have no issue with it being blocked. It should not be one rule for the web and one for everythng else.
My question to you and all the others who do not want this degrading material blocked is do you support removing all classification and restrictions on free to air TV? If not why not?
Spana @ 84 – note that it is generally *not* illegal to possess refused classification material which the filter is designed to block – you just can’t sell it. Exceptions being illegal material such as child porn. For example with computer games in most states it is not illegal to possess games which are RC (people just buy them from overseas so they pretty much just stop local stores from getting a cut of the profit).
So we’re not talking about just banned material. And much of it would not even be purchased from overseas and accessed for free on websites. When it comes to accessing material on the internet it is a very different pattern to cinema or TV which is closer to a broadcast medium.
Spana @84; I have no problems with that; television will be dead soon anyways or at least the value of broadcast licenses will not be what they were. And I do think many of the regulations are pointless. Do you know a teenager who doesn’t watch Skins or know how to time or platform-shift?
But these are the guidelines that you are defending;
“They’re not designed as an anatomy guide… I think if you are concerned about your own anatomy you should probably do some research in some textbooks or research on the internet because you can see much more explicit depictions on the internet, and I think if this is the way you discover about yourself, then I think perhaps you might need to ask for some help.”
That was the Classification Board’s reponse to a question about whether the guidelines result in censorship in print that skews people’s understanding on what a vulva really looks.
Watch the whole interview.
Err, should be “what a vulva really looks like”.
If I can explain my frustrations – I literally do not get the preponderance of focus on pornography as the most disturbing content on the internet. It is not.
The other week, Wikileaks released footage of people being killed to wide acclaim, and worthy public discussion about effects of war.
Google pulled Youtube videos about the death of Olympic luger Nodar Kumaritashvili to little avail – and what if they had succeeded? Would there have been the same public discussion about the safety of the track if the footage had been limited to gate-keepers?
Episodes of the Brazilian television show Canal Livre are available as torrents and they might be evidence in a murder trial of real people. Is it possible to stop the online dissemination of content that was already publicly broadcast and already has thousands of legitimate copies for personal use in existence?
One of the world’s most famous photographs is of Kim Phuc when she was a naked Vietnamese girl fleeing a napalm attack.
The “Baby with Snake” video on Youtube quite possibly breaks a whole host of child and animal welfare protection laws in various countries; but is a valuable resource in seeing representations of realities past and present that might not exist in the future.
The issue isn’t the internets, its bloody reality. And consensual sex, and visual representations of it, should be the least of our worries.
If people could make a convincing argument the filter would actually reduce the problem of child pornography; or even make the internet safer for financial transactions and reduce money laundering, well I’d be listening.
But the application of our silly Classification guidelines to the internet? It would be an outrage click-bait nightmare. Let’s restrict the illegal content to stuff that results in actionable prosecutions the community supports eh?
Spana,
Why have you ignored my question about Conroy’s filter blocking euthenasia sites?
Paul, Spana has ignored your concerns because yiou’re an old person, and therefore your needs are not important. Not as important as blocking child pr0n!!!11!1 anyway.
DI (nr) @ 69,
I notice Spana hasn’t bothered to answer despite commenting on other threads, but I was giving she/he time. Seems Spana is more concerned with sex rather than life. Sad really. Such a narrow focus means you miss a lot.
Not letting you off the hook, though, Spana. I still want an answer as to where you stand on Conroy’s filter blocking the access of the terminally ill to information about euthanasia.
I’m not Spana, but I am lefty and not entirely unsupportive of the filter policy in principle, so here goes Paul:
I support how-to manuals of euthanasia being on the blacklist if equivalent material would be RC or otherwise illegal in print. I also strongly support the campaign to legalise euthanasia. I don’t think this is hypocritical, quite the reverse. It’s about consistency – while euthanasia is illegal in this country (which it sadly is), there is nothing wrong with a policy that prevents publication of how-to manuals and the like, as with other crimes.
Also Fine @ 82 – Conroy has repeatedly answered that question. He pointed out that revaling the names (which = addresses) on the list would function as an advertisement on how to find said matieral. It’s not a great situation (he himself admits), and I agree with you and others that the ‘occasional retired judge’ is WAY to small a sfeguard, but the reason itself is fairly straightforward.
I do have one question for you good folks: why is it that on this issue (and seemingly, this issue alone), teh left is all about ‘personal responsibility’?
You know a good moral panic trumps everything, Paul.
DI (nr) @ 91,
I would’ve thought old people offing themselves to avoid the pain and suffering of terminal illness, instead of offering their suffering up to God would’ve caused a huge moral panic. But evidently not.
It probably would if they gave it any thought, Paul, but they’re too busy thinking of the children!!!11!eleven!!
Anyway, I’ve already got a couple of painless exit plans worked out in case I need them, so I won’t need the internet. Forward planning is everything. Senator Conroy (and Spana) do your worst!
I like the idea of wandering off into the snow at night with 2 or 3 bottles of Southern Comfort, and quietly going to sleep, meself. But, hopefully, that will be many years away.
Always did like Southern Comfort.
Ditto, Conroy and Spana.
But Spana, why do you assume that the internet is analogous to TV, cinema, or computer games?
Is it not true that the internet is more analogous to telephone, fax or to postage through the mails? Are you in favour of telepohone, fax and mail filters?
Assuming it is desirable, how are you going to make it possible?
Well, Katz, we could create a whole new branch of secret police to monitor the Internet, open and read our private mail and bug our phones. Hell, they could even confiscate books and DVDs ordered from overseas they didn’t like. Oh, hang on, no! Wait a minute. That’s COMMUNIST CHINA (of whom I’m sure Spana does not approve). We live in Australia and Australia is [after me, boys and girls] a democracy! [That's right, boys and girls. You can have a gold star for that. Or would you prefer a koala stamp?]
Well, not really, its more like an elected oligarchy, but the fiction is comforting.
Well, Paul, at least Australia’s not a kleptocracy, like some other nominally democratic countries I can think of …
Conroy knows what all survivalist politicians know. Australia isn’t a democracy, it is a psephocracy.
Well, I don’t have any problems with that Katz, except it doesn’t sound nasty enough.
Coming in late. Agree with the article, other than the reference to alcopops. It may be that the proposal on alcopops came from a similar motivation, but it could easily be justified in other ways. Alcohol should be taxed by damage done, which in turn can be approximated by amount of alcohol. To have alcopops be taxed less than other forms of alcohol was a stupid loophole that needed to be fixed, either by raising the tax on alcopops, or lowering on beer and spirits. You can make a case for the latter, but doing the former is hardly proof of wanting to control people’s personal choices, certainly not in the way the filter is.