“Nailing Jello to the Wall”: A discussion on the implications of state control on virtual identity in communities and networks

24/04/2010 Pete.M 27 comments

Peter Mullen

Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet — good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail Jello to the wall. But I would argue to you that their effort to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they threaten the status quo.
Bill Clinton (2000)

Although Bill Clinton was specifically speaking in regards to a trade agreement between China and the United States of America (USA), it could be argued that his comments ring true whenever some form of state control is attempted. The impact that this control has on the actions of an individual is as varied as the individuals involved. Some examples of this control can be for a perceived good for the individual, such as controls on pornography, however they can be controls that the state has for itself and not the individual. In this essay I will discuss the way that several states have attempted to control individual and group identity in an online environment, using specifically the approaches by the Chinese and Australian governments. I will attempt to answer the question “is it the state or individual need that is paramount?” In doing this, I will also discuss various issues surrounding identity, both individual and/or as part of a larger community, and its impact on the internet. Additionally I will look at some of the plethora of work that has been created for identity, self and virtual community environments and show that state control may not only be onerous, but can be positive based on the sense of community developed (Bakardjieva, 2005). Although most states are attempting to implement various levels of control (Goldsmith and Wu, 2006), this issue will remain topical as individual versus state need has raged for as long as states and individuals have had different views.

“As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion” (Dezell, 1996) is a ringing statement that, without setting an international precedent, has received differing levels of implementation and interpretation by a number of nation states since then. Dezell was specifically commenting about a legal argument in regards to the USA’s Communications Decency Act. Although this Act (The Communications Decency Act, 1997) was specifically targeted towards the burgeoning amount of pornography available on the internet, it showed the way that the state desired to control the use and propagation of the internet. This specific action addressed a much wider debate on the effect that the internet has had on the social fabric of society. Katz and Rice (2002) discuss, and partially quantify, that the internet is neither all bad – the “dystopian’ view, or all good – the “utopian” view. It can be termed a “syntopia” view or a combination of these opposing views. Although this paper will not attempt to quantify these terms further, they will be used to help with the understanding that if the internet is viewed as being synoptic, then it is the individual and their community, and not the tool (internet) that can bring about this spirit of self and communality. In their book on the Internet in everyday use by Wellman and Haythornwaite (2002, p. xxvii) they comment that:

No population that seeks to govern itself can hope to do so for long without good information and widespread debate about how to address the issues of the day.

Good information and advice, when married with a syntopia view, should then allow individuals and communities to be able to develop their own identity in a virtual community sense. This view then supports the hypothesis that it’s the individual, with their group and/or self experiences that shape their interpretation of a virtual identity. This virtual identity is normally expressed using some form of Digital Social Environment (DSE), (Nabeth, 2005, p.1) normally using their social or peer to peer network, such as Face book or LinkedIn. Some of the tools that allow individuals to express their individuality, such as Blogs, Wikis or Instant Messaging (IM), allow individuals to transpose their identity or community across geographical boundaries and borders. If these transactions occur, an interesting legal argument then arises with who has the right to control or impose restrictions on these transactions. The concept of ‘right’ for this paper will be deemed to be the state right to provide protection, structure and control for its ciitizenry (Kalathil & Boas, 2001). States action this right using tools such as law or governmental statutes, guidance or guidelines for usage through to content filtering or specific site restrictions. Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu, in an article titled “Digital Borders” (2006) discuss how various states are using their own national and international law to attempt specific and nationalist control of the internet. They use the celebrated case of Internet Service provider Yahoo and the Le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, a French trial court to show how national interests can be used to force control on internet providers. Yahoo was successfully sued for allowing hate material to be advertised within specific state boundaries, in this case France, where the court ordered Yahoo to block or filter content specifically within state boundaries.

After a trial fought on state, business and, in the case of senior Yahoo managers, ego grounds, plus the discovery of how the internet can be filtered, Goldsmith and Wu in their seminal work “Who Controls the Internet? illusions of Borderless World” (2006) postulated that there are two main fallacies of previous understanding and belief. The first is that it will simply remain difficult to maintain ‘control’ over the internet from a state, community and individual perspective. Secondly, that the World Wide Web and the Internet allowed for a simpler political, and political governance, landscape. This last point is the more compelling of the two made by Goldsmith and Wu, as it implies that there is some form of control mechanism and rules that can be applied. “But what type of rules and who makes them?” (Mueller, 2006). However, if there were no rules, would this be better than anarchy? Although there has been a large volume of work that either refutes or supports the work of Goldsmith and Wu, theirs challenges the reader to consider the argument of state control versus individual needs and requirements. This balance of state control versus individual needs will be an ongoing exercise over an extended period of time, and can be best shown by an example of the recent interactions between The Peoples Republic of China (China) and the USA based Internet search engine, Google. In late March of 2010 Google made the business decision to close their search engine service based in China and relocate it to an uncensored site in Hong Kong (Helft & Barboza, 2010). This was caused by concerns that Google, had over state intrusions on censorship control and hackers. China had requested a specific site filter, with Google also charging that hackers based in China had accessed source code as well as viewing the Gmail accounts of Chinese citizens (Helft & Barboza, 2010). This was in addition to the struggle that other .com companies such as Yahoo, Amazon and EBay have had in China previously.

The New York Times also reported that “many students and professionals said they feared they were about to lose access to Google’s vast resources” (Helft & Barboza, 2010). If the state can control a business by the simple control of its use, then it is not unreasonable to argue that the right of the individual then is also controllable. In most authoritarian states or regimes, this control can be achieved by the control of end use by filtering content through or self-censorship (Kalathil and Boas, 2001). While China subscribes to this model, even while enforcing draconian censorship by Western standards, it still encourages widespread use by its citizens. As the internet is a medium of and for mass communication across time and space boundaries, it is also a tool for citizens to communicate across state boundaries. Can this widespread use be sustained? As this communication is a form of community, it falls within the symbolic interaction criteria and can be described as part meaning and thought. Additionally if this community is thought of as being in the same geographical locality and not a virtual locality where time and space are issues, it can allow easier understanding of how régimes such as China can control the individual identity in virtual communities.

As individuals strive to be part of their regional, cultural or ethnic groupings, identity and community have become more important. As individuals can be part of the community of borderless communities due to use or access of the internet, so they can become part of their local community both virtually and geographically. Manual Castells, (2010, p. xxiii) in his work “Power of Identity”, discusses how the “data shows how time and time again that the more the world becomes global, the more people feel local”. Although China has imposed controls on internet activity within its borders, the people of China still want to be part of their local and national community, in this case either virtually or geographically.

When people need to expand their community, they refer to their nations, their Islands in the global ocean of flows of capital, technology and communication. (Castells, 2010, p xxiii)

If the individual Chinese are seen as wanting to be part of the ‘global village’ (McLuhan, 1962), and they can do this using the internet and connectivity tools that are provided by their state, they are no less part of a individual and community involvement in their view of the global village than if they are part of a western view. Most commentators and researchers appear to map their work against a view of western ideology and place the Chinese experience as a negative one. When compared to states such as Cuba, where the internet is controlled by the simple practice of limiting the usage and access (Kalathil and Boas, 2001) China has an enlightened approach.

In Australia for example, the attempted state control of the internet has sparked debate. The Sydney Morning Herald, on 31 Mar 10 commented in an article titled “Censorship fears over Australian net filter” that:

[The] government’s proposed internet filter has landed Australia on a global watch list for internet censorship, prompting one industry figure to note that Australia’s policy could be used by authoritarian regimes to justify internet restrictions.

Should the Australian government allow additional content filtering, as opposed to the experiences of France and China as previously mentioned? Currently Australia has content filtering offered by the various Internet Service Providers (ISP). If the content is deemed to be not in the best interests of the public or offensive, any Australian based content/material or site can be ordered to be ‘taken down’ via a takedown notice issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA., The ACMA is the federal organization empowered to review content on the internet. If the material is hosted ‘off shore’ it is added to a black list of blocked sites that need to be actioned by the various ISP’s.

This content filtering by the ISP’s in Australia is also under consideration as part of a larger package being considered by the Federal government, where various content will be blocked by a filter provided by the state, as done by the Chinese. In China the filtering is done to prevent anything subversive to the state or state apparatus, in Australia the filtering is being done to provide ”greater protection to children from online pornography and violent websites” (ABC, 2010). Currently the Australian Government has expressed its desire to keep this list secret, however an article by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2009 stated:

(…) about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

Even though Australian and China have different political apparatus, governmental styles and different demographical audience, both countries however use internet control for their own ends. In this essay I have discussed the way that several states have attempted to control individual and group identity in an online environment, using specifically the approaches by the Chinese and Australian governments to answer the question “is it the state or individual need that is paramount?” Although the stated aims of both governments are different, based on current information, there is little to separate them. Both have a large uptake of internet use and users, a developing sense of self as part of a virtual identity and a population that has a highly developed sense of community. Both governments wish to impose rules and controls that cannot but impact on continued development of self and community in a borderless and virtual world. It is a case of trying to nailing jello to a wall.

“Censorship always defeats it own purpose, for it creates in the end the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.” Henry Steele Commager

Whether the individual or state need is paramount, this specific argument will continue to be debated, as individual and state need changes and states become used to accepting a virtual environment where its citizens can express themselves. As this debate is still in its infancy it is important for the debate to occur as states start addressing “a radical transformation of the demographics of the user population, and consequently of the usage: a significant portion of the population is now integrating the Internet directly as part of their life (to get informed, to communicate with others, to shop, to learn)”, (Nabeth, 2006. p.4)

References

Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. (2010). Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children. Retrieved April 04, 2010 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet Society: The Internet in everyday society. London: SAGE Publications.

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Methods. Berkeley, CA: University of California press.

boyd, d. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Bryceson, D., Okely, J., Webber, J. & Ardener, S. (2007). Identity and networks: fashioning gender and ethnicity across cultures. Berghahn Books:Oxford, UK.

Clinton, B. (2000).http://www.techlawjournal.com/trade/20000309.htm. Viewed March 29, 2010

Castels, M. 2010. The Power of Identity, 2^nd ed. West Suxxex, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Commager, H. ThinkExist.com Quotations. “Henry Steele Commager quotes”. ThinkExist.com Quotations Online 1 Mar.2010. Retrieved April 04, 2010 from http://einstein/quotes/henry_steele_commager/

Sydney Morning Herald. (2010). Censorship fears over Australian net filter. Retrieved April 04, 2010 from http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/censorship-fears-over-australian-net-filter-20100312-q463.html

Sydney Morning Herald. (2009). Leaked Australian blacklist reveals banned sites. Retrieved April 04, 2010 from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html

Communications Decency Act, 1997. Retrieved April 01, 2010 from http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cda-up.htm

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge. Retrieved April 01, 2010 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Everard, J. (2000). Virtual states: the Internet and the boundaries of the nation-state. Routledge: London

Goldsmith, J., and T. Wu. (2006) Who controls the Internet? illusions of a borderless world Oxford University Press: New York, NY

Goldsmith, J., and T. Wu. (2006). Digital Borders. Retrieved March 25, 2010 from

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp

Helft, M., and Barboza, D. (2010). Google Shuts China Site in Dispute over Censorship. The New York Times. Retrieved April 04, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html

Howard, P., and Jones, S. (2004). Society Online: The Internet in Context. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hughers, C., and G. Wacker. (2003). China and the Internet: politics of the digital leap forward. New York, NY: Routledge Curzon

Kalathil, S., and Boas, T. (2001). The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved April 02, 2010 from http://carnegieendowment.org/files/21KalathilBoas.pdf

Katz, J., and Rice, R. (2002) Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Massachusetts, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ladner, S. (2007). What Designers Can Learn From Facebook?s Beacon: the collision of ?fronts?. Retrieved October 4th, 2009 from http://copernicusconsulting.net/2007/11/30/what-designers-can-learn-from-facebooks-beacon-the-collision-of-fronts/

Lynch, D. (1999) After the Propaganda State: Media, Politics, and ‘Thought Work’ in Reformed China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press; Toronto/

Mueller, L. (2006). The New Cyber-Conservatism: Goldsmith/Wu and the Premature Triumphalism of the Territorial Nation-State A review of Goldsmith and Wu’s Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a

Borderless World. Retrieved April 05, 2010 from http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MM-goldsmithWu.pdf

Nabeth, T. (2006). Understanding the Identity Concept in the Context of Digital Social Environments. Retrieved April 24, 2010 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.73.1133&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Reymers, K. (2002). Identity and the Internet. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from http://people.morrisville.edu/~reymers/infospace/identity.html

Smith, A., and Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. Routledge: London, UK.

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1). Retrieved March 22 from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wellman, B., and Haythornwaite, C. (2002). The internet in everyday life. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publications.

Provided by website-hit-counters.com hit counter site.

“Nailing Jello to the Wall”: A discussion on the implications of state control on virtual identity in communities and networks by “Nailing Jello to the Wall”: A discussion on the implications of state control on virtual identity in communities and networks is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

Identity in Communities and Networks ACMA, Australia, bordless world, China, community, demographics, identity, online, state control, syntopia

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by ted mitew about 2 years ago.

Hi Peter, very good paper and fascinating how you manage to pull off comparing Australia and China in terms of net censorship. I like your point that essentially there is not much difference when the State censors ‘for your own good’ (because it knows better), or for ‘the social good’. In both cases the outcome is the same, and you have done well, I think, to emphasise this point.

On a related note, I spent last December and January traveling through provincial China and was constantly amazed how much more informed in global affairs ordinary Chinese people are when compared to most Australians.

Cheers
Ted
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Thanks for your comments Taraeta

I did have a lot of fun researching this and sorting out what my own position was/is. I’m still a little uncertain what and where my thoughts lie. I suppose that that is what one of the purposes of this papers are about – not only to learn, but to challenge our own positions.

Pete
Written by Taraeta about 2 years ago.

Hi Peter

Thanks for the interesting read. I also follow the internet censorship debate and for a bit of fun in a previous paper argued that the Australian Government should be allowed to filter the internet. Whilst this isn’t my personal point of view it was interesting to consider the debate from an alternative point of view.

The Australian Government started to offer free internet filter software and Foo, 2008 quoted Senator Conroy, “With less than 150,000 filters accessed or downloaded and only 20 percent of these still in use, the program has clearly failed.” This is interesting as it demonstrates that individuals, in particular parents, failed to even filter the internet in their own home.

It also interested me that we Australia was one of the first countries that could say that filtering of the internet was a democratic decision of the people for internet filtering to be implemented. (Bambauer, 2008).

It is certainly an interesting topic and thus something that I will continue to follow.

Taraeta

Bambauer, D. (2008) Filtering in Oz: Australia’s Foray into Internet Censorship. Retrieved Oct 1, 2009 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1319466

Foo, F. (2008) Internet Filter to go to Test Phase. The Australian, p.29.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Louise

Thanks for your comments. Its been great following some of the papers with this as most touch on censorship issues. I’m the same as you in that I have found the debate about filtering very intriguing – a lot of discussion on the mechanics of making it happen, little in the way of why and controls. It raises a lot of questions that I didn’t quantify (although your paper raises some of them). The debate around this is something that I’m looking forward to, I tend to think at times we do need protection from ourselves, however who is the best judge of what an individual can see or not see in this virtual world of ours.

Pete
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Thanks for your comments. All the talk appears to be about the mechanics of the filter and not the actual – what really will it do, not how will it work. I think the debate needs to move past protecting some to look at bigger picture areas. I’m not sure thou that the government or even us as a society are up to that yet.

Pete
Written by Louise about 2 years ago.

Hi Peter,

It was really interesting to read you paper since I talked a bit about China and Australia’s own censorship debate. I find it interesting that we both took the topic in different directions, but both ended with a similar conclusion; that censorship isn’t the way to go.
As I’ve been watching the filter debate, I’ve been thinking about the demographics of each argument. I am yet to encounter anyone – online or in person – who actually agrees with the filter, but I think this is because most people I know are regular internet users. So I have to ask, are all these people who are supporting the bill people who either use the Internet infrequently or not at all?
I think part of the problem is that the negative aspects of the Internet are such media worthy stories. We regularly see the commercial networks running stories about old men trying to lure teenage girls through false identity or how “our kids” are making weapons using online tutorials. However, when I was doing research into how the Internet is actually improving and assisting us, I came up with relatively few articles from Australia’s mainstream media.
Written by BromwichR about 2 years ago.

The federal budget delivered on Tuesday (11/May) provided some insight on the tpic of the ‘nanny filter’ – my take is that it is still a goer, but delayed until after the election so to aviod protests by geeks, oldies and other ‘sectional’ groups. Four Corners did a story on the filter recently and Senator Conroy’s main argument seems to follow Mrs Lovejoy’s “will someone think of the children?” cry.

Overall, a good take on the subject.
Written by Hans about 2 years ago.

Peter,
Like you I am also not sure as to when the needs or wants of an individual out weigh the needs of many. I was watching Q & A on the ABC last night (10 May), when the filtering issue was raised. I thought it may bring some light to the argument, but it left me still as confused as ever.
In fact I think that our politicians are equally unsure as to what they really want to do. In the end it became more about the technology (whether the proposed filter worked or not) than about what content should be censored.

But there was one interesting statement that stuck in my mind. I think it was Kaiser Kuo who asked the question. Why do we see the internet as being different to any other communication mode?

The inference (and indeed the reality) is that internet communication in all of its forms is a real part of our everyday life and thus should be treated as such and not put on a different level.

I am sure that the debate of censorship will go on ad infinitum, in the meantime I will decide what I want to see and encourage parents to filter out what they do not wish their children to see.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Yes a ongoing issue, and one that I feel will become heated. I can remember when my folks attempted a bit of TV censorship many moons ago with a show called “Cant’ see around corners” or “The Mavis Bramston Show”. Both were not deemed suitable for youth, however I used to seek a look at them. Same will apply with internet control – if you want to see something bad enough you will, the issue them becomes one of law I think. Am I seeing something that is unlawful – breaches privacy etc.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Hans.

yes it is interesting to see what ‘time’ does to issues of the day. I can remember the brohaha that occurred with the “Little Red Book’ or even the banning of “Clockwork Orange”. It is all a bit bemusing with time, however relevant then (I suppose).

What is on the filtering list and how will it be applied, importantly who will make these decisions – same bat time same bat chanel

I agree that the internet has allowed this to be nearly impossible to enforce, what it will become is the relevant question I suppose. Are we OK to coast and have these types of decisions made for us by states or is it as an individual basis – when does the needs of one out weigh the needs of many? I can see both sides and still am confused!
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

agreed
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

I suppose it is true that we need protection from ourselves – that is what the majority of laws are in place for, after all. But most laws are also largely about keeping others safe; for example speeding, burglary, carrying weapons are all potentially dangerous to other citizens. In the case of the internet, however, I’m not convinced that being able to access unfavourable websites is significantly damaging to others. Some kinds of content that the filter is specifically targeting is mostly shared over “peer-to-peer networking, instant messaging, torrents, direct emails and chat rooms” anyway ¹, which the filter will not be able to regulate. So at the moment, it is my opinion that the supposed safety benefits of a filter are not worth the pitfalls of this system.

I agree with you that politicians should spell out their intentions before elections. Unfortunately, what political parties say before an election and what they say after they are elected is not always the same. One of Kevin Rudd’s election promises was that he would increase the availability of fast broadband ², but now he’s backing a filtering system that will drastically slow down the web ³.

Short term, I think that the issue of internet censorship will continue to have mixed reactions, from fear regarding the loss of freedom, to hailing it as a solution to child safety on the internet. It’s also possible that the issue will be used by political parties to manipulate public opinion in their favour. Either way, the discussion and implementation of the filter is sure to continue inciting suspicion unless the “transparency measures” discussed by the Conroy legislation are implemented.

¹ Cussen, E. (2010). Top 10 internet filter lies. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/top-ten-internet-filter-lies/

² Gartrell, T. (2007). Kevin07: Youth Campaign. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.younglabor.com.au/YouthCampaignA4.pdf

³ GetUp! (n.d.) Save the Net. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442?gclid=CLuW98TMxqECFQMXewod9mAzpg
Written by Hans about 2 years ago.

Peter.
Thanks for a great read.
My first reaction was “Nanny State”.
But this lead to further thought of how communities seek to regulate themselves according to their own ethics and morals. As an example, the Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission requires its employees to “formally undertake to support the Catholic ethos of the school as a requirement of their employment agreement”(Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission, 2006).
There are other requirements in the employment agreement, but in general these are consistent with those of most other employers and relate to dress code, use of equipment and the like.
Governments are elected to among other things create rules as to how its citizens behave, e.g., anti discrimination legislation, road regulations and dare I say censorship.
I remember growing up and the novel Portnoy’s Complaint was actually banned in Australia, but freely available overseas. Needless to say the country was flooded with copies. I did manage to read it as a young twenty year old. Today, it would not raise any eyebrows.
In my opinion the Government’s proposed net filtering is likely to go the same way. If content is available outside our borders, it will be available by one means or another.

The internet has made it nearly impossible for governments to enforce the some of rules that they wish to enact in regard to what content is available to its citizens. As you say it’s like nailing jello to the wall.

Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission. (2006). Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.ceo.hobart.catholic.edu.au/documents/CODEOFCONDUCT.pdf.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Emily. Sorry about the tardy response. Thanks for you comments, it was and is a challenging area to review and write. At times we need protection from ourselves, and this is normally in the form of a body that we give that control to. In the case of Australia, we need to have our pollies spell out what they are for in advance of an election I feel. Some of these ares have come upon us be stealth without open and transparent dialog. In the case of China (or more extreme Cuba), do they have it wrong – only if we still look at their rational through our western glasses.

I’m, even after writing and researching this, not fully convinced that either module is correct, however I now want to be part of the debate. The Conroy (2009) comments are interesting in that who will make the final decision that on what is/not allowable and will fringe elements dictate (“The RC Content list will be compiled through a public complaints mechanism”) what is/not suitable content. I’m looking forward to seeing what comes out re this as part of the federal election later this year. I thought that we may seen some commentary here in Tas for our last state, however it was all around cable access and connectivity. Trying not to view that as a form of smokescreen -time will tell I suppose.

How do you think it may impact short term here?

Pete
Media Release: Measures to improve safety of the internet for families. (2009). Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
Written by Emily about 2 years ago.

Hi Peter, your topic is a really important one and one that I feel not enough Australians are taking seriously. Your viewpoint – comparing the proposed Australian censorship to the existing Chinese one – is quite a refreshing break from the politics behind our own censorship debate. In addition, you’ve opened my eyes to the difference between our governments – I have always thought the internet censorship in China to be draconian, but now I realise that China is a different country, with a different form of government, and thus the citizens of China have a different viewpoint than we observers do.

But in the case of Australia, I totally disagree with internet censorship. We are a democracy, and one of the basic liberties we enjoy is freedom of expression – if the internet filter goes ahead, this freedom will be taken away. Even if the filter is targeting content that is immoral and illegal, it cannot possibly be perfect, and websites that are perfectly okay will be blocked as well; as demonstrated by your quote from the Sydney Morning Herald. And, to me, the internet filter is not just about the practicalities or what will or will not be blocked – it is also about the simple fact that one of our freedoms is being threatened, and the people of Australia are being treated as if we can’t make our own moral decisions regarding internet content. The legislation supporting mandatory filtering is entitled “Measures to improve safety of the internet for families” ¹ – can’t families be trusted to decide what content is suitable for their children, and implement their own measures accordingly?

I also think your question “Is it the state or individual need that is paramount?” is very interesting. In the case of China, the state’s need (to protect itself from defamatory material) is obviously being favoured. But in the case of Australia, the internet filter is supposedly to protect us, the citizens. So then, is the proposed internet filter a state need, or a need of the individuals of Australia? If it is the latter, then shouldn’t it be ultimately up to us to decide on the fate of our internet?

¹ Media Release: Measures to improve safety of the internet for families. (2009). Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Thanks Clyde. I struggled a bit with what to write for this paper, and while I was reviewing something from a previous unit (I was actually looking for some inspiration) I started to think of the lack of difference between supposed Eastern and Western views on internet control.

I agree with you about the loss of local culture. When I read some of the work for my paper, I really had my awareness raised that we are entering a roller coaster ride in the coming years as this issue is addressed. In particular Everard (2000) and Goldsmith & Wu’s (20060 article on “illusions of a borderless world” are well worth a read.

Pete

Everard, J. (2000). Virtual states: the Internet and the boundaries of the nation-state. Routledge: London

Goldsmith, J., and T. Wu. (2006) Who controls the Internet? illusions of a borderless world Oxford University Press: New York, NY
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Thanks Janette

Your more difficult/more challenging got me thinking about some of the papers on hackers and how they fit. Our involvement I think will be the most challenging – one of the things that I’ve taken away from my own paper and research is that we don’t know enough to be fully informed. Some of the blogs coming out of Iran for example with the attendant governmental control points to what can/can’t be controlled.

Pete
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

The censorship debate is intriguing and time will tell the eventual outcomes.

People have thus far seem to have managed to find ways around imposed restrictions, both legally and illegally. The more difficult, the more challenging

Thought provoking topic and something in which we all need to actively involved.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Peter,
What a good read on a topic that is so important to Australia’s internet future.

As you stated, there are different political apparatuses at work within democratic Australia and the People’s Republic of China, and I believe that in the context of ‘right’ as you discuss in your paper, it is that very political difference that in my view makes Australia the bigger criminal of the two regarding internet censorship.

I also agree with your view that we are also sometimes blinded by our western ideology. Labelling the Chinese Government as a ‘regime’ only highlights our intolerance to others nations governance. Take Singapore for example, when judged by first-world standards, Singapore has an authoritian government with a reputation of severe restriction of feedom of expression – yet a survey conducted by management consulting firm Accenture in August of 2007 on how Singaporeans rated their governments performance showed that 88% of Singaporeans were ‘satisfied’ and more than two-thirds of those surveyed rated it as ‘very good’ or ’excellent’.

The rights of individual over State is a good question Peter, there would be a clear winner if we didn’t have to witness the continued loss of ‘local culture’, often exchanged for individualism.

Cheers, Clyde
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

Peter, very good points of evidence, but I think this is a little more scary than I first thought. I found it interesting, but not surprising, Chinese hackers would get into the system to free up the filters. I don’t really know if at this point of time the Chinese government has given up but obviously as more sites slip into the screens of the Chinese, it is likely state control will tighten, but in some way, there might be resignation not much can be stopped. As your title says nailing jello is a great metaphor for what is happening over there and I would say in other repressive regimes.
Written by TrinaW about 2 years ago.

Thanks for the link Peter. It definitely was a very interesting read and I can see why it sparked your interest.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Trina

This is an issue that I’m looking forward to following over the coming years. The article by Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu on Digital Borders address this issue well, and it was the initial text that started my thoughts on this paper. What ever the specific ‘agendas’ are will be difficult to ascertain I feel, however all states will have this agenda issue.

Pete

Goldsmith, J., and T. Wu. (2006). Digital Borders. Retrieved March 25, 2010 from
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_goldsmith_janfeb06.msp
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Thanks Paula. I’m pleased that I gave you some thinking points as this issues is still inits infancy, with all states having to address it. Agree that there is potentially a lot that we don’t know and understand about hackers etc and the why and where, however this is more about the control issue. I was using various state controls in my paper to help awareness that this is more broad than first thought. When I started to put my thoughts together, I was surprised in the way that most researchers had viewed from a western viewpoint. We are what we are when comfortable I suppose….. Hope that this essay helps with your understanding.
Pete
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Chris and thanks for you comments. I feel that this is a much bigger issue than that presented by various state organs. There would be little to separate Labour/Liberal in this, and agree with you that it is a much bigger issue, especially when Australia is compared to China. I was attempting to draw parallels between the actual control and not the politics. As you have alluded to, it is very difficult to.

A question for you, don’t think of China and Australia in terms of politicial, think of them as organisations attempting group control. If looked at in that light is there any difference?

Pete
Written by TrinaW about 2 years ago.

I found very interesting your comment about the fact that whilst China is attempting to filter what its citizens see it is encouraging them to use the internet whilst other stricter regimes (by western standards) are restricting access either physically or by usage.

I disagree with Chris’ view that Australia and China cannot be compared.

Our government is (supposedly) filtering the internet according to the acceptable social standards of the Australian community.

The Chinese government is (supposedly) filtering the internet according to the acceptable social standards of the Chinese community.

I think we can all agree that both governments will have more than one agenda behind their support of filtering the internet. However what we tend to forget is that China is a different culture to Australia and what we consider acceptable social standards will be different to theirs. I read an article once by an academic (sorry I can’t remember the reference) who visited China and spoke with a lot of blue collar workers in one of the larger provincial cities. Most of these workers believed in the idea of communism and liked the idea that the State protected them despite having been educated and being aware (at least in general terms) of the freedoms that occur in Western Society. Whilst I would personally be very unhappy with the filtering and level of oversight that China would impose on me if I lived in China, how many of the local citizens who use the internet (not just the students and academics) are really unhappy with the filtering that Chinese government attempts to undertake?
Written by PaulaB about 2 years ago.

Peter,
Your topic for paper requires a more of reader’s focus that it involves legal and political issues. China’s political movements have been complicated right from its history. Communism controlled China for long time and its fragments still remain with China’s people – so they are getting used to have obstacles in gaining freedom in many aspects of their live. Internet is no exception, it is about individuals having power over communication between people. Also another fact is known that many experts engaged in illegal activities using Internet are based in China. Suppose this may be contributed to population statistics as well but there might be more then that. My point here is that despite freedom restrictions, illegal internet activites (e.g hacking) from China are noticed and felt across the world.

I personally do not see ‘filtering’ in Australia as permanent solution to presented problems. The cyberworld is nowdays complicated and sophisticated environment that is populated by almost anything and everyone. Filtering would be another attempt to control but not ultimately and with accuracy. I believe in prevention than control. Hmmm, not easy one.

Your paper gave me some good points for thinking…
cheers
Paula
Written by Chris Johnson about 2 years ago.

Peter
The Internet filter for Australia is more about Labours support form the Family First Party. Comparing what happens in Australia to what happens in China has very little to do with each other. We are an open democracy who has liberties that is not in China.

We do set our own public standards here in this country and the promotion of Christian beliefs.

Its is some what more sensitive in China as the regime attempt total control over all its people.

However we do have the right to speak out about censorship and debate the topic openly.

Australian are more in fear of what control we allow our government to have over our lives.

I did enjoy your paper and I have a huge interest in your topic.