The Secretary

Senate Select Committee on Community Standards

Suite 1 S 59

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Australia.

My name is Heath Gibson and I am an honours level economics student. I have been an active participant on the internet for four years now and I would like to share with you my thoughts and experiences as an ordinary 'netzien' (internet citizen).

The Internet and on-line community is probably the most and multicultural community that exists anywhere in the world. It is made up of cultures and communities more divergent than any geographic locale. It is a place where ordinary citizens are empowered with the capacity to express themselves to a global audience, something which previously only large business , with millions of dollars could do.

Attempting to apply the 'community standards' of any one country to a global community like the internet is inappropriate. What standard does one apply to the internet? Should it be the standard of Muslim nations and prohibit images or any women not appropriate covered. Should we adopt the standards of communist nations and deem as inappropriate discussions which advocate free market economics? Should we adopt a Christian fundamentalist view and ban information on abortion - even in the context of medical and philosophical discussion? - the answer is NO!

The success of the internet is based on its diversity. If we accept that the adult community is intelligent and capable of choice - then the choice of which content to view should be left up to the individual - and individuals should be left to freely speak their minds.

Filtering systems have many problems. I would suggest that you seriously consider the arguments put forward by Electronic Frontiers Australia in relation to this issue. Mandatory rating of web pages is unworkable and inappropriate - it is a move which disempowers the individuals ability to communicate with the rest of the on-line community.

With respect to the protection of children from 'inappropriate' material. This is best undertaken by adequate supervision by parents and teachers. The internet is not just a child's playground - it is a whole city , a whole world and experience. Some area's are suitable and others are not. But only parents have the right to determine what is appropriate and how much freedom they give their children. Parental supervision of net access is the solution - not government enforced paternalism and sanitizing the internet so that they only people who will want to use it are children.

I would strongly suggest that if the members have not read the judgement in the original CDA case ( ACLU v Reno ) , that they do so. Not for the lesson in US law, but for the explanation of what the internet is and why free speech is so important to the those of the internet.

Although we do not have a constitutional protection of free speech such as the US 1st amendment - I believe that if we are to call ourselves an advanced liberal nation then the quote below is worth considering.

"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our

liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech

the First Amendment protects."

_ACLU_v_Reno_

These are my thoughts as an ordinary netzien. I am an adult and a free thinker - and the ability to communicate without the fear of censorship is crucial not just to my studies but to my communication as a human being.

Thank you for your time.