One of the minor irritants associated with the recent internet censorship debate has been the continual need to correct basic factual errors promulgated by the Government's supporters.

In my observation, it's obvious that the debate has polarised into two camps. One of them is largely populated bypeople who knowwhat they're talkingabout and who mostly oppose the ALP's censorship plan; and the other is dominated by woolly-headed adherents to the principle that it'll all be alright if you just close your eyes and wish hard enough.

One of the most common basic factual errors was repeated on these pages on November 4, when former Victorian Family First candidate and Australian Family Association researcher Anh Nguyen magically transmuted into a network security expert by suggesting that "ISP level filters are being trialled due to the difficulty of securing PC-based filtering solutions."

While I'm sure the writer has a deep understanding of the needs of his cause, he clearly doesn't have a grasp of the technology he's talking about. To put it simply: There is no security difference inherent in taking filtering from the PC and moving it to the ISP. In either case the systems work in the same manner and the same bypass methods are available. And yet, as the recent ACMA-commissioned report showed conclusively, the ISP version will slow subscribers down and reduce the ability of parents to adjust their filtering preferences to suit their own parental judgement about what is best for their children.

How is that better than PC-level filtering? And can we agree, for the purpose of future discussion, that everyone will be able to bypass it at will no matter what proponents come up with, and that anyone who suggests otherwise must immediately stop being taken seriously?

It's perhaps not surprising that a family expert who misunderstands technology could get something this basic wrong, because the Minister in charge has blazed a trail of such colossal blinding wrongness that it's probably difficult for listeners to distinguish truth from fiction.

I'm not talking about normal, everyday wrongness. I'm talking about the kind of wrongness that comes with its own theme music and marching band.

For example, on page ECA 76 of Senate Hansard on October 20, 2008, the Minister, a man who is paid a lot of money to know what he's talking about, emitted this stand-up howler in reference to other countries that have already implemented his proposed Australian system:



Senator Conroy--

Just to indicate the countries that have implemented along the lines that Abul [Rivni, deputy secretary, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy] is talking about include Sweden, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This is not some one-off excursion.



In actual fact, none of the countries Senator Conroy cited have anything like what he's proposing for Australia. With the exception of New Zealand, which doesn't filter and has no plans to introduce it, all of the other nations he's ever cited as examples to emulate offer voluntary, non-government, industry-sponsored, opt-in schemes very much like the one which the Internet Industry Association has already created in Australia. Indeed, the only countries which feature government-imposed internet censorship are nations which place more emphasis on opinion suppression than internet access, such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I know the Minister doesn't like those comparisons, but if the shoe fits...

As the Minister's marching band plays, the chorus repeats, and he inserts his factually challenged international comparisons into virtually every press statement on the subject, so much so that it's clear that he lacks even the most basic grasp of his own policy.

This isn't a unique event for the Minister either. On the same page of Hansard he also misleadingly implied that the ACMA blacklist, intended by the previous government to reference material unsuitable for children, is actually a list of illegal material. Senator Conroy, haven't you read your department's own legislation? Don't you have a duty to know what you're talking about?

To supporters of the Government's proposals, I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that Australian parents are so uniquely incompetent that we, unlike literally every other Western democracy on the planet, need to go down the ALP's proposed path to protect our own children? After spending 30 years proving that our nation can successfully raise children in an environment of ubiquitous access to uncensored online services, are you able to explain how profoundly Australian parents must have failed to justify this radical proposal?

And, while I'm asking questions, let me conclude with one more: When we're talking about this, can we acknowledge that although opinions can vary, the facts are inviolate. Is it too much to ask for you to get them right?

Mark Newton has spent almost 10 years serving as a boots-on-the-ground network engineer for Internode, one of Australia's largest ISPs. He has been an active participant in the online censorship debate since before most of its present day protagonists knew the internet existed. His opinions are his own, and not necessarily shared by his employer.