In his attempt to foist mandatory Internet censorship on Australians, Dr Clive Hamilton has resorted to fiction.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Story-telling can help illustrate problems and draw out unforeseen consequences and anomalies.
Clive’s literary style is rather racey. If you find sexually explicit language offensive, don’t read his story (below). Just glance at the headline and the photo…

Clive Hamilton's Grim Warning
..
I hope it’s not mean-spirited to say that I find Dr Hamilton’s cautionary tale unsatisfying. It just fizzles out. The reader is left to infer that the ending is most unhappy – but no details are provided. Perhaps they’re too gruesome to mention? Could it be that little Johnny, after finding porn on the Internet, turns into an axe-murderer?
Of course, anyone can make up stories – superblogger or not.
Here’s my own contribution to this exciting new genre, which I expect will become very popular as the ‘Debate we Apparently Have to Keep Having’ rages on (yawn).
Clive Hamilton & Johnny Normal – A Twisted Tale of Sex and Malice
Little Johnny Normal came home from school. His parents were both out.
Johnny glanced at The Australian newspaper, which was lying on the kitchen table. He wanted to check what was on TV.
The newspaper was open at a page with a headline: ‘Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians’. Johnny didn’t know what libertarians are, but thought they might play netball. He started reading.
Johnny had heard of ‘sex pictures’ before. “Maybe this isn’t about sport”, he thought. He carried on reading…
By the time Johnny got to the third paragraph, he was seeing words he’d never heard before. He was quite interested. It seemed to be a story about a boy, just like him, looking up words that had something to do with sex. A flush of pre-adolescent sexuality came over him. Little Johnny was fascinated.
Just then, Johnny’s mum came home from work. Johnny ran to give her a hug. While she made toast, little Johnny asked his mum about the funny article in the newspaper. “What does ‘dildo’ mean?” he asked.
Mrs Normal winced and asked Johnny where he’d heard that word. The grninning urchin showed her the newspaper. Mrs Normal started reading, then she blushed, aware of the innocent young eyes staring at her. “That jerk!”, she muttered under her breath, and put the newspaper away.
“It’s just a silly story by a silly man” she told Johnny. “And never you mind about dildos. I’ll tell you when you’re older. Get outside and play!
Later that evening, Mr Normal came home. After Johnny was in bed, the happily married couple chatted about the day. Mrs Normal talked about the article Johnny had found in the newspaper. They laughed about it. Then they went to bed and made love. Afterwards, they discussed Johnny’s sex education. They wanted to be sure he learnt about sex, but not too fast. That’s why Johnny was only allowed to use a filtered computer. But when do you tell a young boy about dildoes? They figured they’d work it out. Life is never boring…
The next day, Johnny came home from school early, checked he was alone – and headed for his dad’s study. He knew his dad’s password from looking over his shoulder. Johnny decided he’d get on the Internet and look up some of the words he’d found in the newspaper story.
What he saw made him blush – the same colour as his mum the day before. “Wow!”, he thought. Johnny soon learnt the meaning of the word ‘dildo’.
Because he had a little spare time, Johnny decided to browse his dad’s hard drive. He did a quick search for graphics files – and found an animated gif of The Simpsons doing things he’d never seen them do before on TV.

Bart is sexually abused (in Australia, cartoons are real people)
At school the next day, Johnny showed the funny Simpson’s animation to his friend, Boris. Unfortunately, Miss Shocked, the Librarian, caught them.
Johnny and Boris soon found themselves in the Principal’s office. “Where did you find this revolting, disgusting filth?” thundered Headmaster Harshman. He was very angry. A pupil had brought pornography into his school. Johnny wouldn’t say where he found the cartoon. Boris didn’t know. So Mr Harshman called the police. Johhny’s parents were called too.
When Mr Normal arrived at the school, he was alarmed to see two police cars parked outside. But once he realized what had happened, Mr Normal sighed with relief. He’d been worried Johnny might be in serious trouble. “Oh that!”, he said, when confronted with the rude cartoon. “Johnny must have found it on my computer at home. Come to think about it, I noticed him trying to read my password when I type it in…”
Sargeant Plod didn’t think this was a serious case, but he was obliged to call the Child Protection Squad, who searched the Normal household that evening and discovered more obscene animated Simpsons cartoons on Mr Normal’s hard-drive. As Lisa and Bart were featured in flagrante delicto, it was a clear case of possessing child pornography. They then searched Mrs Normal’s laptop and found a directory containing photos of nude couples engaged in sexual acts. One of the couples looked very young… they could easily be under 18. Taking no chances, they arrested Mrs Normal as well for possessing child pornography.
Johnny adapted, over time, to life with foster parents. He worked hard and got a university education. But he harboured a terrible grudge against public intellectuals, whom he blamed for wrecking his happy childhood.
One day, he met Professor Clive Hamilton, who had written the notorious article in the Australian all those years ago.
His first thought was to whack Hamilton over the head with a gigantic porcelain dildo, but he decided, on reflection, that would be too kind. So he devised a terrible plan.
Soon afterwards, when Professor Hamilton was at lunch, John Normal slipped into the famous man’s office. He inserted a DVD into the computer drive and put some files onto the academic’s computer. Then he left the office, as unseen as his arrival.
Two days later, the Child Protection Squad, acting on an anonymous tip-off, raided Dr Hamilton’s office and took away his computer.
Paradoxically, they found an article Dr Hamilton had just completed about the epidemic of child pornography cases – next to the folder where they also came across some of the worst material they’d ever seen.
It would cost the elderly academic his job and ensure his permanent inclusion on the Registry of Sex Offenders.
Hmm, how interesting. It seems Australian IT doesn’t want my comment. This is what I tried to submit earlier:
The Net may not belong to libertarians. But it doesn’t belong to scaremongering totalitarians like Clive Hamilton either. The key phrase in Mr. Hamilton’s ludicrous slippery slope argument is this:
“He types in a search for, say, ’sex pictures’.”
In other words, the hypothetical boy got exactly what he asked for. As Trent points, out, Mr. Hamilton’s example shows a complete disregard for the responsibilities of parents and individual moral responsibility. The web is an encyclopaedic resource – do we supervise children whilst they flick through the pages, or just tear out the bits we don’t agree with in case they get hold of it when we aren’t looking?
I find it revealing that despite the unquestionable moral evil of the examples cited by Mr. Hamilton, very few (with the exception of bestiality) are illegal under Australian law. Despite his protestations, what he is in effect asking for is a double standard, with the Internet being more tightly restricted than other equivalent media.
Software already exists to allow parents to regulate what their children can access on the Internet, and comes pre-loaded on many modern operating systems. These systems aren’t infallible, but neither are our society’s precautions to prevent pornographic magazines or films falling into the hands of minors. What Mr. Hamilton is effectively asking is that we ban all media not rated G.
Whether he understands this is another matter – he certainly doesn’t seem to understand how the Internet works, as evinced by this inane comment:
“…we have laws banning Australian ISPs from hosting the kinds of pornographic imagery I have described above, which all come from overseas sites…”
Internet Service Providers, of course, do not ‘host’ anything. The imagery in question, is hosted on the aforementioned “overseas” sites. ISPs are utility providers. They exist to deliver access to the Internet, which is an international network. The filtering system Mr. Hamilton is describing is a secret list of sites which are surruptitiously INTERCEPTED and made unavailable when requested by the Australian user. A “page not found” error message will be displayed, giving the impression the content does not exist. This is supposedly to prevent owners of illegal sites realising they are being blocked and simply switching to another host. However, because the list of blocked sites is kept secret (for the same reason) there is absolutely no accountability and nothing at all to prevent these crypto-government organisations censoring anything they want.
Mr. Hamilton would no doubt accuse me of ’scare-mongering’ for this, but the fact is it’s already begun. In the UK the Internet Watch Foundation caused uproar recently when it banned, not just an image, but an entire article on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, in the process accidentally blocking the entire country from editing the site. When Wikipedia produced an article on the controversy (without the offending image) they blocked that, too. The fact that the IWF felt enabled not just to censor the Internet, but censor all reference to their censorship, should give pause to anyone seeking to promote such a scheme in Australia.
To restate: Ample software solutions exist to enable individual families to restrict what their children can do online. Anything else is ultimately destructive to free speech and the liberty of the Australian citizen.
—
But I guess we know what Australian IT thinks about free speech.
ALloyd