All mainstream opposition to this had been pragmatic and not based on principle.
Here’s a recent example:
Ayn Rand said, “the moral is the practical”. And I have thought for some time that she was right on that one. There’s no reason to think that behaving ethically should put you at odds with what is good for your life and your values, and good for everyone else if you accept that the standard of morality is your life.
Moral principles can be understood on a fundamental level and no amount of pragmatic statistic bending or precautionary BS can dispute moral principles especially in the clear cut example of Australia wide government forced censorship.
It’s easy to be misled by short range pragmatic or utilitarian arguments that do not consider moral principles. It’s very difficult to account for all practical consequences. One common mistake is to assume surrounding circumstances will remain constant and only the issue at hand will be altered. eg/ a politician may wish to raise the minimum wage to “help out” workers, without considering the unemployment this will cause.
If only people understood that it is not just impractical but immoral for the government to censor it’s citizens – because censorship denies us our individual right to act on our volition and therefore the right to our lives.
Human life will stagnate and die when the ability to act on one’s decisions is denied by government.
The only exception is if the actions from your descisions forcefully stop others acting on their descisions. ie: The principle of initiation of force.
Government are clearly initiating force against the innocent in the case of an internet filter. This is immoral and is exactly the opposite of our government’s rightful function.
A message to K Krudd: Stop violating our rights and start protecting them!