Alex White has posted on what he describes as soul searching in the campaign against internet filtering about its direction. White’s post is replete with useful links, and is well worth a read. He disagrees with the focus on censorship, arguing that there are few points of connection with the lived experience of the public to shift opinion.
I’m not sure I agree.
White’s alternative messages focus on the ineffectuality of the filter, and its expense. However, that’s not, in my view, a persuasive theme for a public campaign. A lot of what the government does is ineffectual and expensive, and pointing this out also doesn’t necessarily create a public. It’s really just akin to the everyday niggling of oppositions and newspapers.
Any campaign does need an overarching theme, and this angle should be a subsidiary message.
The other question that needs to be posed is that of the audience. It’s no doubt right that few votes will shift in the right places to enable an argument to be made about an adverse electoral impact on Labor. White cites Possum and Bernard Keane. More broadly, findings from the AES over many years suggest that even the biggest issues only account for a few percentage points in vote switching at elections. For instance, the final data on the impact of WorkChoices (an issue which connects with lived experience, if there was ever one) on 2007 voting patterns hasn’t been fully analysed, but it’s unlikely to have been worth more than a couple of percent of the vote to the ALP. Labor strategists and pollies are well aware of this sort of thing.
The actual target for the No Clean Feed campaign needs to be non-Labor Senators. There, the issues of civil liberties and censorship are well chosen for their resonance with small l Liberals and The Greens. It’s also necessary to demonstrate that concern exists in the community beyond those who are active in the campaign itself, but this doesn’t need to be a clincher argument about seats falling in droves, which no one would believe. Rather, a point of connection with the messages particular parties want to send is necessary, and the best way to find that theme is to test it via polling and focus groups rather than speculate in a vacuum. The dilemma, though, that this causes for the campaign is that the most germane themes may not be the ones that resonate with activists in the campaign itself. So that needs to be balanced as well.
It’s a bit of a case study on the limitations, as well as the benefits, of crowdsourced campaigning.
Just a quick heads up to some sessions at the Brisbane Ideas Festival later this week which might be of interest. I’m speaking on a panel called “The Future of the Magazine”. It’s part of the “Think Do Tank” program targeted towards high school students. You can access the times and places (1.30pm Thursday and again at 1.30pm on Friday) via the links in 

Recent comments
Ville, joe2, Mercurius, Kersebleptes, adrian, Gummo Trotsky [...]
joe2, Jamo
anthony nolan, jules, anthony nolan, Legal Eagle, jules, Geoff Robinson [...]
Darryl Rosin, Sam, Paul Norton, Sam, Paul Norton, anthony nolan [...]
Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford [...]
joe2, Zorronsky, Liam, el oso, Fine, Pavlov's Cat [...]
informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea, informally yours, Chris, informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
rumrebellious, RightHandThread, Nabakov, rumrebellious, Nabakov, RightHandThread [...]
Mark, Saint Furious of Ikea, Luke Walladge, Mark, Paul Burns, Bert [...]
Mark, Paul Burns, PinkyOz, Paul Burns, Lefty E, PinkyOz [...]
Paul Burns, Fran Barlow, CMMC, Gummo Trotsky, Guido, pablo [...]
BilB, Peter, BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter [...]