Laptop keyboard. Credit: DarkSideX/flickr
By Alex Schlotzer:
The Internet filtering ‘debate’ is pretty much dead in the water.
However with the announcement of the mandatory ISP-level internet filter proceeding, the web’s nearly melted down. Australians on Twitter and Facebook began decrying the further erosion of our civil liberties. But just as quickly began an erroneous debate about what to name the ‘hash tag’ for online censorship resistance illustrating just how fragmented the debate is – further eroded by some labelling it a debate about a ‘brand’.
All of the fury being demonstrated on Facebook, blogs and Twitter is well and truly missing the mark. (I haven’t seen any sustained discussion of the announcement on places like MySpace, Orkut or Bebo) It’s no longer about Conroy. It’s entirely about the response; as they say “the ball’s in your court”. Way back in April this year I had predicted that Senator Conroy (VIC), the one that helped Family First Senator Steven Fielding to enter the Senate, would get his way and a mandatory net filter would be introduced. It may seem like a success prediction but anyone could have guessed the outcome.
Already outrageous claims have been made about how some Labor MPs will lose their seats at the next election, which of course is completely ignorant of the realities of electoral politics. Indeed various commentators have noted that the policy won’t result in any noticeable effect on Labor’s primary vote nationally.
The debate, if it is to be resurrected, must now be centred and focused on the response.
To effectively respond it requires a coordinated, concerted and sustained approach; with a plan for real political action. I don’t mean more protests and demonstrations. And I don’t mean sending more protest messages to Kevin Rudd’s Twitter account. At the time I of writing this piece, I had counted four (4) websites [see bottom of post for list – if there are ones not listed leave a comment letting us know] each campaigning against Senator Conroy’s proposed mandatory Internet filter scheme. This is far too fragmented to have any real impact; when there is not one particular message it’s easier for Senator Conroy to bury the issue; he can spend time demonstrating the disparity in positions rather than have to answer for the policy position. That he only announces Internet filtering matters in the festive season, surely points to the fact he knows that Australians really don’t support his style of state protection.
How to respond with real electoral clout?
While there is an apparent and concerted effort to develop a more coordinated approach with a singular focus to respond with political and electoral impact, this is not going to be developed in the short amount of time before the next election. Although there will be those, like the poorly named ‘Pirate Party’, that will try to make mileage out of the issue, entirely for the vain exercise of being vain. But the issue can be a way of generating some hysteria and paranoia among vulnerable Liberal and Labor MHRs (and no I don’t mean the likes of Tanner since this is not a vote changing issue) and Senators. And it is in generating this kind of hysteria where the real power is over Members of Parliament. If they think they’ll lose their seat then the squeakiest voter base gets the gravy train.
Those that oppose the Internet filter must put aside what looks like childish antics and focus on the main game. There must be no more rallies or protests or demonstrations until there is a focused message. The rallies and demonstrations can then be organised around the message; not the other way around. Bernard Keene’s piece in Crikey! last week about “writing” ministers was partly correct however, completely ignorant to the point of organising protest email campaigns. There must be coordinated efforts to lobby and engage ‘ordinary’ voters in marginal seats where such an issue has resonance. A list of MPs and Senators needs to be drawn up with a coordinated lobbying schedule, and that these meetings and any outcomes are reported back to be evolve the lobbying strategy. And this doesn’t necessarily have to be about lobbying Labor MPs; when there’s probably more point lobbying moderate (or wet) Coalition MPs. And would I even dare to suggest that lobbying the Australian Industry Group (AiG) and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) – perhaps even the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) – would do more to sway the Minister to drop the mandatory internet filter.
Has there been any consideration given to where (and whether) the issue has any political traction? Is it an inner city issue for the latte swilling, chardonnay quaffing set? Or is it something that has broader appeal – is middle Australia being impacted? Is big business going to be seriously disadvantaged or inconvenienced? If so, how many millions; billions or trillions of dollars of inconvenience is going to be done to the business community? What is it about the issue that is enabling Conroy to have a more profoundly supportive base? What are the insider language barriers preventing broader engagement; you know our obsession with using acronyms and in general being exclusionary because of an insistence on using a language with which most Australians are unfamiliar? Are the numbers of people ‘taking action’ by signing petitions and sending emails being counted to keep up the pressure on marginal MPs? Whose being identified to help with the lobbying or to help fund the ongoing campaign? What financial and human resources are going to be needed to maintain the campaign? Where are there friends and allies? How is the media (paid and unpaid) campaign being integrated into the overall campaign? Where is the money going to come from? Whose going to maintain the website and social media? How does the artwork get decided and when does the campaign reach different stages? Etc etc.
The kind of fundamentals a campaign needs to sort out before launching into the next wave of protest emails; electronic petitions and rallies.
This isn’t about a brand, marketing, customers or what halo strategy should be employed; this is about cold, hard politics. It’s about finding the right kinds of messages and ensuring a focussed, evolving and sustained dialogue with Australians so they either get on board and help make their marginal MPs paranoid and/or they change their vote. (The first is probably easier to do since an election makes all MPs a little paranoid at the best of times.)
Then there has to be a coordinated effort of engaging and organising concerned Australians through a combination of online and off-line methods. What happens online and off-line should compliment each other. It is truly amazing that for so-called Internet geeks and social media professionals that what matters politically is totally ignored in favour of the fancy, pretty approach and more banging on (analysis some will call it) about the evils and flaws of Conroy’s Internet censorship regime. A lot has to be done to make sure that the Government doesn’t use a victory in the next federal election, as fodder (read ‘mandate’) to push through with something that only serves to further erode and impinge on our civil liberties and human rights.
Who cares which of the 4 (to-date) anti-internet-censorship website looks the best or is the most plugged in to web2.0 or SM, when the basics for any political campaign are forgotten at best and completely ignored at worst.
So before the Australian Interwebs embarks on its next un-coordinated and ill-conceived round of ‘campaigning’ with poorly timed rallies, can there first be a single coordinating group formed, with a single focussed message and a real plan for political action?
Alas I’m afraid it will just be more about the ‘brand’ than the politics. There’s also a good piece at the ABC strongly urging those opposing the filter to coordinate.
Failure to take a coordinated and politically sophisticated campaign will see the Honorable Senator Conroy announce the setting in stone of the mandatory Internet filter in December 2011.
What do you think? Do you think the mandatory Internet filtering scheme is good or bad? Would you change your vote because of its introduction?
Current List of Websites Opposing the Australian Mandatory Internet Filter
- Somebody think of the Children
- The Great Australian Internet Blackout
- No Clean Feed
- The Gift of Censorship
Alex Schlotzer is a straight talker when it comes to politics and loves to vent his spleen. He is actively involved in Australian and international politics with a keen understanding of the dynamics of the political machine. Alex has a prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. He can also be found at his blog and his exciting online project Australian Politics TV.
Cool.. is there any more info on this matter How Conroy Has Won on Mandatory Internet Filtering | theangle.org Rgds … Rob Rasner IMDB
[...] Schlotzer from the ACTU and Greens Party has a similar concern about the campaign. To effectively respond it requires a coordinated, concerted and sustained approach; with a plan [...]
[...] for example: http://theangle.org/2009/12/23/how-conroy-has-won-on-mandatory-internet-filtering/ http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/01/06/the-no-clean-feed-campaign/ [...]
[...] How Conroy Has Won on Mandatory Internet Filtering (Alex Schlotzer, The Angle, 23 Dec 2009) Analysis that the current anti-filter campaign is too divided. That people need to think about the politics of the situation, and focus their efforts where they are more useful. This means selecting the right bodies to lobby. And getting the off -line public involved. Share and Enjoy: [...]
Coordinated effort or not, if only a minority stand against the proposed filter, the issue is moot. No electoral power will be brought to bear unless word is spread about why this proposed filter is bad news.
At this stage, I'll take whatever word of mouth offers if it manages to inform (and/or outrage) the masses. It would be nice if we were able to focus that message, but honestly getting any message out to the wider society without it becoming a game of Chinese whispers is at best unlikely and at worst an irrational expectation.
To gain any traction at all, some serious political heavyweights ideally need to get behind this anti-filter sentiment. A smart political operator would (should) see the opportunity here and ride the wave. If a reaction this strong can be raised in a (relatively) small minority, it could prove to be a major backlash, if properly directed – and supported.
I agree with you Rob about a serious political heavy weight getting in behind the campaign being a big boost. However, I think a bigger boost could be made to the campaign in some big business heavy weights were to get in behind the campaign.
[...] Schlotzer, an ACTU online campaign officer and senior Greens Party member has a good analysis of the No Clean Feed movement to date: The kind of fundamentals a campaign needs to sort out before launching into the next wave of [...]
Alex, there's no hope of it being an election issue that causes people to change their vote anyway. This is kinda something that scuppers your entire post.
The Internet in general is sometimes a vote changing issue for 18 – 30 year olds. It's not a vote changing issue for 30 – 50 year olds (at least not to the exclusion of anything else) and it's a complete mystery to most people over the age of 50.
The Polytics blog at Crikey had some interesting analysis. This isn't an issue that is going to cause people to vote against the government at the next election, and on that and a host of other respectable political analysts' reckoning as well as our own, we'd be foolish to attack the issue like that. What's required is to erode the support-by-silence of the 70% of Australians who are undecided or ignorant of the issue (with 15% of online savvy folks against, and 15% of religious or moral extremists for) to remove the impetus for the government pushing along.
As much as it's not a vote killer, it's not a vote winner either – if it was it'd already be law. The government's entire desire to proceed with the policy is based on how it stands to win the kudos associated with being seen to offer a safety benefit to national technology policy. When campaigning – including EFA's upcoming efforts, explains to "middle Australia" that it's not a safety option and has no real benefit, the government won't have a use for it anymore and it'll slide back into the surf.
You're quite to point out that this isn't a vote changing issue; and I'm trying to make that point as well. As an issue that people vote on, it's not even in the ball park – and it probably won't be a vote changing issue in the near future either. I fully agree with the assessment of many of the political analysts that have commented on the issue, as well as some of the industry experts' assessments.
However, the fact remains that if something is to be done quickly before the 2011 implementation date, then a coordinated political campaign is required. To "erode the support-by-silence" will take some time and isn't necessarily an easy or cheap campaign either. The most successful third party political campaign in Australian electoral history took nearly 3 years to reach the pinnacle of support it had going into the 2007 federal election. From what I've read and heard, it sounds like the "campaign" hasn't yet worked out what the target audience is other than to suggest "middle Australia", which is quite varied and diverse. Surprisingly you might find that the issue might resonate more with mature voters who remember the country fighting for our civil liberties. Let alone the research showing that the fatest growing age demographic using the Internet are Australians 45+ years old.
In addition, the "campaign" and its disparate leaderships/groupings have had at least 2 years to work on the campaign. Senator Conroy announced the government's intentions to introduce the filter in December 2007; and it was well known the current government supported the Howard government's filter proposals. Really there has been no excuse for the campaign to not be in full swing; instead of an un-coordinated campaign.
Unless there is some way for the campaign to actually make this a significant issue, which is general enough to galvanise the broadest possible groups of people (read voters), a "grassroots" effort is a secondary part of the campaign. There has to be some real work done in identifying whose friends with whom and who has what influence. With a looming deadline and an Opposition that supports the filter, it seems to me that the wet Liberals and big business are the most obvious choice to lobby.
I sure hope the EFA, with Peter Black on board, are able to bring a more coordinated focus to the campaign and map out a political strategy that, at the very least, causes the government to indefinitely delay the introduction of the filter.
I don't think we're afraid of complicated or expensive campaign elements. Despite one extreme religious group's assertions that we (and the adult entertainment industry) oppose censorship because we have a financial interest, it's at times like these, when bad technology policy is on the table, that support (and therefore resources) are at their highest.
The reason that the "campaign has disparate leaderships/groupings" is because it is not one campaign. Despite the fact that EFA are respected experts in the field of online rights, we can't "own" any particular movement although we can, and I assert do, show leadership in this area. To expect us to show the type of ownership that both yourself and other bloggers are asserting we should, we would need to have some sort of monopoly on lobbying against bad ideas and we simply don't. Your post came across as sounding like "there'll never be fair labor laws because there are so many unions, look at all the union websites!". There's lots of situations in which disparity and diversity are weaknesses, but I don't think this is one of them, and if it is then it's certainly not the type of softening that warrants a title like "how Conroy has won…."; even if we've had the added challenge of two years worth of high-speed goalposts to deal with, with constant changes in policy objectives and intended approaches. This is another reason why I think your post misses the mark, it trivialises a complicated issue by setting it out as the type of thing which is similar to painting a fence – if it's not done after two years you haven't done enough or you aren't doing it right. There's lots of painters and the fence keeps getting knocked down and replaced with a wall or a hedge.
Peter will bring some needed focus to our particular efforts, and our efforts are redoubling and redoubling, but of all the things that are slowing us down the most at the moment, the derision from people seeing the entire situation in the wrong light is probably the most frustrating.
Alex – Conroy only announced a NON-mandatory filter in December 2007 – not a mandatory one.
It was in October 2008 that the mandatory filter was announced.
Both the ABC and Kate Lundy (ALP) provide evidence that the filter was never a mandatory one in 2007:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/212…
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/21/further-th…
Thanks for those links Richard but reading the ABC's item quite clearly states in the second paragraph:
"Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material."
Only further down does it state that if people don't want uncensored Internet then those people have to opt out. This is a very big difference. It is mandatory unless you specifically opt out meaning you would have had to actively seek to opt out and know when the filter is turned on to have done so.
Kate Lundy spends her post debating semantics while reconciling ALP policy with Conroy's filter scheme. While it's excellent she's prepared to blog about it she maintains the party line.
Alex, ‘mandatory’ – in the minds of anti-filter advocates – has only ever meant one thing; no opt-out option.
Whether it is mandatory for ISPs to ‘offer’ a filter is irrelevant – ISPs are ALREADY forced by law to offer/provide PC filters. So that would be a relatively insignificant change in policy.
The problem has always been that the government changed their policy to remove the opt-out option for users.
The policy only became mandatory censorship of ‘users’ in October 2008. You will also find that there was no sustained or major opposition to their policy until October 2008.
It was not in December 2007 as you claim.
There is a great deal of animosity to the filter out there, but "out there" seems to be predominantly confined to the heavy Internet users.
The filter will re-surface later in the year, particularly now that Peter Black from QUT has been signed up by Electronic Frontiers Australia to head up their campaign. However, unless there is some serious political work done in the meantime it has little hope of being an election issue that causes people to change their vote.
Hey Alex,
Point well made. It also shows there is a great deal of animosity to the filter out there. Do you think it will resurface later in the year as an election issue and if so, will the disparate opposition find some unifying factor.
Rich
I have just discovered two more websites opposing the government’s mandatory Internet filter scheme. Further proof that there is no coordination whatsoever of the campaign.
The sites are:
Block the Filter
Stop Internet Censorship
Of course there is no coordination – it's a classic grassroots (or if you prefer, netroots) protest. (And GetUp are too up themselves to do it.)
http://www.nointernetcensorship.com
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442
http://leavethenetalone.wordpress.com/
http://defendingscoundrels.com/
http://broadbannedrevolution.blogspot.com/
http://chairmankrudd.com/
and of course http://www.stephenconroy.com.au
Amnesty International have spoken out against it http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/19915/ as have Google – and the EFA and Libertus.net sites are also good.
Thanks for noting those additional sites to check out. The one site I follow for this is EFA's as my preferred source of information.
Here's a few more sites I've just found:
http://www.dlc.asn.au/
http://bluebutton.org.au/
http://nocensorship.info/main/
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by sremmah: Just published: Conroy victory in the mandatory Internet debate: #Conroy #filter http://su.pr/2Xj4uI...
[...] prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. … Read more here: How Conroy Has Won on Mandatory Internet Filtering | theangle.org Share and [...]
You are spot on Alex, do you have any intention to support the no mandatory filter campaign as an organiser?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by globaleye and globaleye, sremmah. sremmah said: Just published: Conroy victory in the mandatory Internet debate: #Conroy #filter http://su.pr/2Xj4uI [...]