My enthusiasm for new Prime Minister Julia Gillard lasted for one day. Her assertion of her atheism was obviously anathema to the christian loving policy goons in the ALP, who quickly urged her to announce her perpetuation of the Rudd rejection of gay marriage to restore the moral equilibrium.

Then Gillard repeated Rudd’s false, misleading and deliberately divisive propaganda about internet censorship. So she’s just another fear-monger displaying her ignorance.

The media is just as bad. The Australian newspaper repeats fundamental falsehoods such as ‘RC broadly consists of illegal content‘. Err, no, it doesn’t. You don’t understand what you’re talking about. You morons make me sick.

There is no such thing as ‘illegal content’. It’s a phrase designed to imply illegitimacy. Content is not refused classification because it is illegal. Content is refused classification because it does not fit within the limits of acceptability defined by the federal government.

In many instances these limits conform to common social values, but in some cases, particularly in relation to sexuality, the classification values are significantly different to common social values. The classification values about depictions of some forms of sexual behaviour, such as consensual BDSM, do not reflect social values about that behaviour or its depiction in media (commonly known as pornography).

RC content is illegal to import or sell in Australia. It is not illegal to possess, or to view within private property. Content is not ‘illegal’ in itself if it does not depict illegal behaviour. Content is only illegal if it represents illegal behaviour. Content depicting fetish sexual behaviour, for example, can be both refused classification and entirely legal.

An enormous amount of pornography, as well as community generated sexuality discussion content and some sexual health information, exists in this legal limbo. The government refuses to acknowledge that this situation exists. It does not view sexually explicit content as legitimate.

Any discussion about sexual behaviour in written form, such as on a web site or online forum, creates written content. Images, audio and video recordings are also content. As I have previously explained, anyone who contributes content to an online community dedicated to a form of fetish sexuality may be creating content that would likely be refused classification, entered onto the secret blacklist and blocked by the proposed internet filter.

The root of this problem is the uncontrolled, uncontrollable freedom enabled by the internet. For the first time in history citizens have become able to communicate individually and communally without the control of the state and its agents (in the pre-modern era the church and more recently multinational corporations).

Governments are terrified by this freedom and are retrospectively trying to undo it. In censoring content about sexuality, the government is effectively censoring or controlling communication about sexuality and thus sexual behaviour itself. As with sexually explicit content, the government does not view sexually diverse behaviour as legitimate.

The following diagrams illustrate the difference between what the clueless deluded government thinks it is saying, and what it is actually saying. First, this is the government’s position as reported by commercial media.

porn1 the ALP and the government fear and hate sexuality

Second, this is the legal consequence of the words used by the government.

porn2 the ALP and the government fear and hate sexuality

The government doesn’t acknowledge that most of the content they are trying to censor is pornography. They rely on the fact that the sexual shame and hypocrisy that is common in Australian society will prevent most people from publicly stating that they enjoy consuming porn.

There is much confusion between the content and the behaviour it depicts. The straw man argument used by politicians to justify the censorship filter is disgusting and defamatory. Gillard is reported in The Australian as saying:

I’m happy with the policy aim and the policy aim is if there are images of child abuse, child pornography … they are not legal in our cinemas, you would not be able to go to the movies and watch that … you shouldn’t … no one should want to see that.

You’re not able to go to the movies and see those kinds of things why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that that’s the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this.

No again. None of the civil libertarians, free speech advocates, internet experts or media analysts are asking to be allowed to view images of child abuse.

Images of child abuse are illegal because they document illegal behaviour. The behaviour is illegal because the sexual abuse of children is a gross violation of their physical integrity and human rights.

Images of consensual adult sexual behaviour are legal because they document consensual adult sexual behaviour. No one is being abused in depictions of consensual fetish, kinky or BDSM sex. Pornography is fantasy not reality.

Literate adults in Australia are capable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality. They can tell the difference between fantasy violence in films like James Bond and real violence. Is sex any different?

The reason why images of consensual adult sexual behaviour are being banned has nothing to do with protecting children or families and everything to do with the conservative political agenda to repress and control sexual behaviour and media representations of it.

Banning sexual content is in effect banning sexual behaviour. Talking about sex is a form of sexual behaviour. Expressing an interest in a particular example of sexual behaviour, such as spanking, and sharing that interest, is essential for people to find suitable sexual partners.

Communicating via the internet has enabled many people to better explore their sexuality. The sex-positive community will not allow the government to undermine this freedom.

the ALP and the government fear and hate sexuality

2 thoughts on “the ALP and the government fear and hate sexuality

  • 9 July 2010 at 6:33 pm
    Permalink

    What senator Conjob doesn’t tell us is that his filter proposal will be completely ineffective with dealing with peer to peer groups dealing in child porn. To admit to the filter’s ineffectiveness in filtering internet child porn is to admit that this filter will only serve to restrict our freedom.

    Reply
  • 14 July 2010 at 10:17 am
    Permalink

    There’s a partial solution to this as Victorians. We need to put Conroy and Fielding at the absolute bottom of our Senate preferences and make sure we vote below the line. Voting above the line is how we got Fielding in the first place instead of a Victorian Greens Senator as the Victorian Labor Party were too scared of how many Green Senators there would be if they preferenced the Greens (unlike every other state, which did).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *