The solution to the problem of children accessing pornography, without giving unlimited powers to the Government to secretly censor the Internet may, in fact, lie in Clive Hamilton's own works.

I recall that in "Growth Fetish" he wrote that we simply need to slow down the pace of work. Perhaps we could even return to having only one wage earner per household as was the case until the 1970's.

As it was possible to support ourselves in this way once before it should be possible to do so again.

Of course our ability to buy and consume material items (manufactured by destroying humankind's endowment of natural capital) would be reduced, but given the extra time we would have to spend with each other and with our children, our quality of live would surely dramatically improve.

As parents would be around their children a lot more, it would be far easier to supervise children and prevent them from seeing unsuitable material including porn. This could be complemented by Internet filters installed at home.

If this were done, there would simply be no need to give governments the vast additional powers that mandatory net filtering would provide.

---

david f,

I think you will find that the P.O.U.M., of which George Orwell was a member, was, in fact, socialist and not anarchist. The English translation of its name is Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Marxist_Unification).

The P.O.U.M. did, in fact, defend the anarchists when they were suppressed by the Communist Party dominated Republican Government in May 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days) but they were not themselves anarchists. After the anarchists were suppressed, Andreu Nin the leader of the P.O.U.M themselves was arrested and executed.

George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/books/homagetocatalonia.htm http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html) includes an excellent narrative of these events.

Also, if you read George Orwell's somewhat critical "Reflections On Gandhi" (http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell) it seems clear that neither Orwell nor Gandhi were anarchists in the true sense:

"Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed (Gandhi) for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines."

daggett

"The solution to the problem of children accessing pornography, without giving unlimited powers to the Government to secretly censor the Internet may, in fact, lie in Clive Hamilton's own works. I recall that in "Growth Fetish" he wrote that we simply need to slow down the pace of work. Perhaps we could even return to having only one wage earner per household as was the case until the 1970's."

While the prospect of internet censorship doesn't concern me as much as it does you, I agree with your thinking that a winding back of the ratrace that is our current mode of living would indeed be the ideal solution to this and many other of society's problems.

It seems a long way off at the moment, but the momentum of climate change, over-population, peak oil, resource depletion and mental illness will I think eventually converge to force us into settling for a much simpler and saner way of living. It would be nice to think that the recent bursting of the Wall Street bubble, and the ongoing ramifications rippling throughout economies around the world, will prompt many to start reassessing their priorities in life.

In the meantime, I still think we need to halt the rampant proliferation of any pornography which is exploitative of either animals, children or women (which wouldn't leave much!) I have yet to see a compelling argument anywhere as to the benefit this type of pornography has for society.

This debate seems to divide largely along gender lines. It often seems that the fiercest defenders of the right to access pornography are men. I would suggest there is a much smaller number of females agitating on this issue.

I see some merit in Pelican's suggestion of a two-tiered internet system, and being able to choose either the protected or unprotected version. But personally, that doesn't go far enough for me. The rights of women, children and animals will always, in my view, be compromised while ever this pernicious and degrading pornography proliferates and influences the minds and attitudes of boys and men.

Just because others live sheltered, hollow lives doesn't mean anyone should. As I said, many people simply need to admit they do, and stop imposing their faux morality on others, because they are so frigid and close-minded on the issue (could be a sign of age(old) or religion(christianity/islam/feminism) beliefs, doesn't really matter)

"In the meantime, I still think we need to halt the rampant proliferation of any pornography which is exploitative of either animals, children or women (which wouldn't leave much!) I have yet to see a compelling argument anywhere as to the benefit this type of pornography has for society."

bronwyn, there is a compelling argument for neither you nor the government determining from what i can reasonably derive pleasure or meaning. or do you simply want to ignore the frightful and farcical history of censorship?

the majority of oh-so-horrible-it-must-be-banned "pornography" from 60 years ago is either harmless now (bare breasts), or is considered literature (lawrence). i don't consider your certainty of the threat of current "pornography" as anything but the modern version of the same moral panic, and i don't give it any more evidentiary weight.

Hi billkerr. The EFA link you provided will also lead you to the opinion piece written in 2003 refuting Hamilton's argument.

However, stakeholders should update the details in the following excerpt:

"While Dr Clive Hamilton of The Australia Institute remarked on ABC Radio National on 6 March 2003 that it is easy to find pornographic material and one only needs to type sex pictures into a search engine (Hamilton, 2003b), it should be noted that blocking all 3,200,000 pages that result from such a search on e.g. Google (as at 17 March 2003) would also block, for example, newspaper articles reporting Dr Hamilton's remarks." (Electronic frontiers Australia)

Many may be delighted to learn that googling "sex pictures" now provides not 3,200,000 pages but 17,500,000 pages (in English) as at Sunday 30 Nov. 2008.

I am wrong in calling the P.O.U.M. an anarchist group. As Daggett pointed out they were a group that defended the anarchists.

However Daggett also wrote:

Also, if you read George Orwell's somewhat critical "Reflections On Gandhi" (http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell) it seems clear that neither Orwell nor Gandhi were anarchists in the true sense:

"Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed (Gandhi) for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines."

I had written:

When a person openly refuses to obey a law on the grounds that the law is unjust that person is committing an act of anarchy.

Henry Thoreau wrote his "Essay on Civil Disobedience" after reflecting on the meaning of his being put in jail for refusing to pay a tax to support the Mexican War which he thought was unjust.

Thoreau influenced Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. King led people in refusing to obey the unjust laws requiring segregation of people by race, and Gandhi led people in refusing to pay the Salt Tax required by the British occupiers of his country.

The above does not label Gandhi or King as anarchists. It claims that their civil disobedience was acts of anarchy. I don’t know what a true anarchist is, but their civil disobedience remains acts of anarchy.