socialscapegoat.com

“Censorship reflects society’s fundamental lack of confidence in itself.  It truly is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” – Potter Stewart U.S Supreme Court Associate Justice.

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything.

Once again I have become disillusioned to the point of lethargy and inaction with the state of this world, and the state of this government.

In the upcoming election Australia will soon be given the choice between a borderline narcissist who spends his time in office writing children’s books and hating The Chaser, and a pro-life fundamentalist Catholic who prioritises the potential death of future children over the actual deaths of millions of children in the third world.

And just when we were confident that the days of McCarthyism were truly in the past, witch-hunts, blacklists, censorship and indoctrination rears its ugly head.

Any day now a bill will pass through the Senate and the internet will be censored for us, by the government, under the guise of child protection, (without telling us what it is that they are censoring).  What threat political satire websites pose to child protection, I can’t say, but as days have passed, we have already seen the government shut down any websites or organisations who in any way question or try to lend transparency to government policy.

Who knows, this one may be next.

The future looks bleak.

I didn’t want to start out 2010 this way.

I was going to write about the ten things I look forward to in 2010 (and who knows, maybe I still will), but I can no longer sit by and try to deliberately ignore on principle, the fear and outrage that is being incited in us which would permit the rise of this ludicrous nanny state.

I don’t like using the rhetoric of fear, but aside from anger, it is the only emotion I am feeling at the moment.

The only way I know to fight this outrage and fear, is by subverting it.

I want you, readers, to stop and ask yourself – what happens when a government censors a society on behalf of the people, without its permission. And where does it end?

Censorship is not a foreign concept. It is not vague, and it is not new.

This is not America in the 1950s, this is not South Africa in the 1960s, and this is not China in 2009. This is Australia, and this is a democracy.

It started out small, but the theme of what it means to be Australian has been hanging around like a bad smell this past year and I can’t help but suspect that the motives behind Rudd’s escalating role as a media commentator is more suspect than we are being led to believe. It’s clear that what began as manufactured outrage over the array of offensive sketches by The Chaser, John Safran, Gordon Ramsay and Hey Hey It’s Saturday mutated into an informal but nonetheless assertive argument for government intervention in the media.  Our Prime Minister has set about through clever use of rhetoric, pacifying the Australian public into allowing the government to censor without knowledge or transparency, whatever web sites they deem offensive.

Australia Day is next week, and the media is bountiful with rumours of plans to scrap it altogether, and talk show hosts engage in long and serious discussions about what it is to be Australian (or un-Australian) with the help of David Penberthy of The Punch (who I shall call ‘Cadbury’ from now on, for surely a man who can hold his beer wouldn’t be bitching about how Australia Day has been hijacked by big drinkers and bogans).

On New Years Eve 2009, we saw the governments first attempt to ban all public consumption of alcohol – even in areas that are not usually alcohol free zones. A week from now, pubs will be encouraged to serve light beer only, and no spirits.

And all of this would be fine except that all of these decisions and “temporary” laws deliberately admonish the role of personal responsibility, and now the government controls what and where we drink, what websites we go to, even what we read.

The problem with nanny states is that it minimizes the role that every single Australian – hell every single person world wide, plays in embodying the country we believe in. And with every decision our government makes for us, we become less responsible for its creation.

Which leads me back to the question (and possibly the answer) as to why  Australians are passively accepting, or just flat out ignoring, the freedoms which are under threat?

And so the cycle continues.

The Federal Government is pushing forward with its plan to force internet service providers to censor the internet for all Australians.

Aside from the fact that (despite all contrary arguments), this filter isn’t about ‘cyber safety’ – this plan will waste millions of dollars to not make anyone safer. It won’t stop children from seeing inappropriate content like R rated and X rated websites (which they could already be prevented from seeing if only their parents knew how to use a computer). And no, it also won’t prevent the distribution of illegal material in chat rooms where this pornographic content is most often found.

What’s more – we will have to pay to censor ourselves. The cost of this ineffective solution will be absorbed into the charges for consumer and business broadband (without any regard for the disadvantageous effect it may have on a high-speed broadband network). Besides, can you imagine Telstra footing the bill for anything? Several hundred thousand dollars have been wasted on testing already – which in their early months were reported as being utterly ineffective. (Testers have since been encouraged to ‘talk-up’ (and by ‘talk up’ I mean manipulate and possibly even fabricate statistics regarding the reliability of internet filtering).

Most importantly: Internet censorship sets a very, very dangerous precedent. If the Federal Government goes ahead with this decision, Australia will join a small group of countries which practice centralised internet censorship. These countries are China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. “This secret blacklist may be limited to “Refused Classification” content for now, but what might a future Australian Government choose to block?”

And this brings me back to my point: Australia – a passive public is one that has been censored, and a passive public will never act, whether in its own interests, or another’s.

I am as guilty of it as the next person, in letting myself believe that I can’t make a difference.

I guess what I am saying dear readers is it’s time to wake up.

Politicians were elected to serve us, we were not elected to serve politicians.

I’m awake, and I’m angry.

Because we have a press we can no longer trust, and a government we can no longer trust.

I don’t know who I’m going to be voting for in the next election, but it’s time to start thinking about what we need and what we want as Australians.

And I’m not even saying you should trust me, or any of the writers at Social Scapegoat – (in fact I’m fairly sure you shouldn’t). But what you should do, is read what we have to say, and then talk about it, write about it – do something about it, whether you agree or disagree.

So before Social Scapegoat is added to the blacklist – I say we make the most out of the time that’s left for the internet as a democratic forum of ideas.

Here is my pledge – I promise that Social Scapegoat will be a place for all ideas.

I promise to get angry and stay angry. I promise that enough will never be enough. I promise to keep writing.

And I encourage you to never stop questioning, never take anything at face value, question motives, and challenge conventions.

I promise that if you have something important to say, as long as this website stays online, there will always be a place for you here. The community of opinionated tossers like myself will take what you have to say seriously. Wewill joyously rip shreds off you if we disagree, and we will unite behind you if we agree.

When I started this website I promised that it would be a forum for ideas and debate.

So let the great debate begin!

Here’s to a hopeful 2010.

Follow us on twitter:

www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
www.twitter.com/ClaireRConnelly