Alcoholics call it a moment of clarity. Oprah calls it an “ah-ha moment”.

And I said unto my fellow man - FTW

Whatever you call it, a penny dropping is a wondrous thing, and yesterday amid the rabid brouhaha of Stephen Conroy’s Clean Feed catastrophe, I banked some vital coin.

Perhaps I’m slow, perhaps I’m a bit thick, but it wasn’t until reading the key findings of Catharine Lumby’s document on the proposed Internet filtering, that I realised I was operating under the false assumption that the web should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other creative product.

Alas I was a fool and had overlooked an important point, the importance confirmed to me by it being written in italics.

It read:

The Internet is not a medium. It is a whole new media environment

Ah-ha.

You know what, the Lumbinator is right.

Though the Internet may contain films, it is not a movie.

Though it may contain articles, it is not a magazine.

The Internet is not a medium, it’s an environment. A delicate geekosystem.

And what this environment lacks in flora and fauna, it more than makes up for with people.

People like you and me. People like SexyJuggs48, Emoz4Life!!1, and @TheChadinator. Real people with real feelings, real lives, and who desire, nay, demand their basic human rights be met.

So my dear netizens, what I propose is an Online Constitution. An Internet Bill of Rights. We are many VOIP’d voices, all joined by the common thread of having access to a computer and the ability to use our fingers, and WE HAVE RIGHTS!

But where to begin? Who will stand and pledge their allegiance to this sacred domain of domains? You? Me?

Surely there is no better way to form this document of digital democracy than to carve it from the very values and behaviour displayed by all of you, our own living breathing keyboard mashing forefathers, since dot com immemorial. So God bless you all, and more importantly God bless the Internet.

The Internet Bill Of Rights

We the people, in Order to form a more Perfect Social Network, establish Blogs, insure Wireless Connections, provide for the common User, promote Goatse, and secure the Blessings of Online Anonymity to ourselves and to Google, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Domains of the Internet.

The right to download

The right to download, like, SHITLOADS

The right to tell d00ds to STFU, and tell n00bs to RTFM

The right to assume no identity, or adopt a false one, yet still demand to be treated with integrity

The right to incite, inflame and insult others without fear of repercussion or social responsibility

The right to hate on idiots, and for idiots to hate on us back, like whatever

The right to take content without offering remuneration, and to argue the toss on the difference between downloads and theft as if it were some sort of existentialist conundrum or valiant political activism

The right to assume other people’s mothers are whores

The right to call every woman who isn’t a “perfect 10” a pig or a lezza who you wouldn’t sleep with, even though you’re a fat balding man in his late 40s

The right to stick captions on cats

The right to type LOL, even though nothing amusing has been written

The right to say to someone “your an idiot”, and fail to recognise the irony

The right to argue without clarity, knowledge, reason or respect, including the abstract construction of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks

The right to call any argument you don’t fully understand an abstract construction of straw man arguments or ad hominem attack, whatever that means

The right to Photoshop and call it expression and not deception

The right to claim expert knowledge on foreign cultures just because you downloaded Google Earth

The right to be proven wrong and continue to argue the exact same point but in UPPER CAPS

The right to be a dick

The right to say “I’m not racist, but”, and then say something completely racist

The right to be offered an unsurpassed wealth of free content and services from the private sector, yet erupt with self-righteous indignation when said content and services are threatened to be taken from us

The right to be an expert on any topic, whether expertise exists or not

The right to fill the infinite void with banal musings about your cat/dog/kids

The right to take everything at face value, read only headlines, and call it “truth”

The right to Rickroll

Most commented

56 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Humbug says:

      05:36am | 18/12/09

      Lost me at the first shout, pal. Your caps lock key is sticking.

    • Mr P A Rodie says:

      05:56am | 18/12/09

      Mr Deal, your an idiot. As soon as I read the headline, I knew this would be full of left-wing garbage. I’m not racist, but really, only a whitey could come up with such fatuous nonsense.

      You should watch this video and WAKE UP to your SLOPPY JOURNALISM.

      LOL!!!1!!!1!!!eleventyone

    • Nigel says:

      06:21am | 18/12/09

      *    The right to post meaningless drivvel under the guise of a legitimate opinion piece.  I want the five minutes of my life back.

    • monkeytypist says:

      06:51am | 18/12/09

      Oh wow, touche.  I bet everyone on the Internet is taking a Good Hard Look at Themselves right now.

      There’s stupid content on the internet.  There is stupid content everywhere offline, in fact.  And ridiculing and trivilaising legitimate concerns about censorship by resorting to cheap stereotypes is a very good indication that someone doesn’t have a substantive argument.

      What about the idea that information *should* be available to everyone for practically nothing?  What exactly about that is so heinous?  I bet when vaccinations were invented there were plenty of people going around saying “oh, don’t hand them out willy-nilly, fatal diseases are character-building”.

    • Kym Suttor says:

      07:48am | 18/12/09

      Wasn’t there a time when the silly season in journalism was reserved for flying-saucer stories?

    • Dave Rock says:

      07:55am | 18/12/09

      I want to know who the christian conservatives are that are behind Conroy and pushing net censorship on us. I also heard that Senator Conroy and Abbott are both in the powerful secretive Opus Dei cult. Can we expect the same theocracy agenda from the policyless Abbott?

    • John A Neve says:

      07:58am | 18/12/09

      Chris,

      Did you really take payment for writing this?  If your answer is Yes, shame on you. How ever little is was, you were over paid.

    • n00b says:

      08:02am | 18/12/09

      I actually had to look up RTFM. I’m such a n00b.

    • Alexandra says:

      08:32am | 18/12/09

      monkeytypist - you are so right, information should be free. Can you go out into the world for me and gather the planet’s news and put it all up on a giant free website? I’ll pay you in comments.

    • mid says:

      09:02am | 18/12/09

      “the web should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other creative product”

      Good comment, under this censorship plan it won’t. There will be material which is quite legal for an Australian to obtain on other platforms that we will have blocked for us from the internet.

    • G says:

      09:08am | 18/12/09

      Wrong wrong wrong… on so many levels.

      The internet is meant to be free of restrictions as mentioned above.

      @the punch

      What is going on in there, is David Penberthy directing writers to post articles with this type of sentiment?  Its a regular occurrence, why do you despise your readers so much?

    • mid says:

      09:16am | 18/12/09

      @G: It’s a News Ltd Site, check out your local branch of News Ltd paper and try to find any mention of internet filtering. Took me a while to find it on the telegraph, and it was a bit of a puff piece. Speaks volumes I think.

    • Liz says:

      09:18am | 18/12/09

      and how about the right of all Flickr users to become tourists in the lives of others no matter what their circumstances?

    • chuck says:

      09:20am | 18/12/09

      I love the comments section at the Punch. It’s where one can come to feel the love.

      Do the staffers at the Punch sit round of an afternoon and compare notes on who got the best hating of the day ? Love it.

    • cletus the cracker says:

      09:23am | 18/12/09

      LOL!!!1!

      Oh, wait. . .

    • Alexandra says:

      09:26am | 18/12/09

      G. Who “meant” the internet to be free of restrictions exactly? The giant free speech internet gatekeeper God guy?

      The entitlement generation shrieks ever shriller.

    • Light says:

      09:31am | 18/12/09

      caps lock is cruise control for cool

    • monkeytypist says:

      09:37am | 18/12/09

      @Alexandra I would direct you to en.wikipedia.org, but I suspect you are being sarcastic.  On a more serious note, the web is big business - enormous business - so much so that it is bankrupting media organisations that don’t adopt to it and create new structures.  That may be bad news for them but the advent of the printing press was bad news for monks in monasteries as well.  Printed material was vastly more difficult to censor than handwritten manuscripts, but that didnt’ stop the “entitlement generation” of 16th century Europe revolutionising every facet of their understanding of the world.  The advent of this new medium has indeed spawned a whole bunch of worthless garbage, but the head-grabbing horror of people who don’t understand the new environment and how it operates will leave them, and their business models, behind in favour of new ones.  It’s not good or bad, it’s what is happening.  Meanwhile journos like Chris cope with the process by making cheap gags.

    • Jezza says:

      09:58am | 18/12/09

      Friggin’ ‘eck maaaate!! Did you actually go to Uni…....or even school….or are you ‘avin’ it off with the boss??

    • Tim Roberts says:

      10:11am | 18/12/09

      THERE ARE ALREADY RULES… You didn’t research this topic thoroughly enough. Go look at the rules of /b/ (4chan.org) - You either didn’t do any research and tried to be ‘REALLY FUNNY’... or you read the rules of /b/ and ripped them off in order to try and help your lack of fans understand it.

      I for one would be proud to give The Punch a run for its money.

    • Vince Snetterton-Lewis says:

      10:20am | 18/12/09

      Mr Deal,
      I resent your personal attack on men who judge the aesthetics of women on the internet. I may be fat, I may be in my 40s, but I am certainly not balding.

    • G says:

      10:20am | 18/12/09

      @Alexandra

      I am happy for you.  Everyone here is permitted to write and express themselves.

      History is littered with attempts to limit freedom and bring in the suppression of words or ideas that are considered “offensive” on some level, by imposing their personal, religious, political or moral values on others.

      From what are considered the most worthless of comments, to the middle or the far right crazies, or even the elitist ranting of Penberthy and his crew attempting to ‘teach’ their poor poor simpleton readers on internet etiquette, they should still have a right to express it.

    • tom_h says:

      10:42am | 18/12/09

      “The right to assume no identity, or adopt a false one, yet still demand to be treated with integrity”

      bulls-eye!
      as illustrated by some of the comments above

    • Formersnag says:

      11:46am | 18/12/09

      This Australia, is or was, supposed to be a democracy. We all have the right to be wrong and learn from each other’s mistakes. I have noticed that even the staunchest leftards & rightards, will initially reject “inconvenient truths” that are presented to them by mainstreamers like myself, but, their rhetoric on later, comments and days, will be softer.

      Blogging on sites like this & “talk back radio” is far more informative and educating than the front page or 6 o’clock news ever were. The sooner they die and idiots like the author of this article are told to “pull their heads in & get with the program” the better off, we will all be.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      11:54am | 18/12/09

      Actually if we had the right to stick captions on cats that would be rather cool.

    • Nathan Barley says:

      11:59am | 18/12/09

      Well said preacher man!

    • Shane says:

      12:42pm | 18/12/09

      The thing about the internet is that it give every idiot a voice…you certainly used it today.

    • monkeytypist says:

      12:44pm | 18/12/09

      @tom_h so what you’re saying is that the validity of what someone is saying depends on who is saying it?  That’s a novel theory of truth, but I thought modern society moved away from that idea when prophets and holy writ went out of style.  Frankly I don’t need to know somebody’s name before I “treat them with integrity”, whatever that means.

      Please feel free to read some of the many studies about how people construct identity online (just a taste: it’s a complex process, which is both similar and different to the ways that people construct identity offline).  And then have a think about the fact that you didn’t post a photo of your driver’s license or your credit card number in your comment and reflect on whether this affects your right to be “treated with integrity”.

    • Lachlan Gilbert says:

      12:58pm | 18/12/09

      @monkeytypist, what is it that prevents you posting under your real name, anyway?

      If you’re going to be dictating what people should or shouldn’t think, at least have the guts to be seen. Or are you scared of what people think of the real you?

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      01:03pm | 18/12/09

      Satire is such a difficult genre. Everyone on the blogosphere is an expert.

      The right to be an uninformed CRITIC.

    • Lee Mazengarb says:

      01:03pm | 18/12/09

      Yep more crap from our politicians, more shovelled down our throats and we dont even get a say…....all we can do in the end is revolt, do work arounds etc. The net is full of work arounds. Cannot stop the signal….....

    • G says:

      01:06pm | 18/12/09

      @ Tom H

      No no no

      No bulls-eye for you…

      Why shouldn’t someone be treated with integrity if you do not know their identity?

    • Chris Deal says:

      01:12pm | 18/12/09

      @monkeytypist

      “Meanwhile journos like Chris cope with the process by making cheap gags.”

      Come on man, “delicate geekosystem”, that’s a top gag. And I should know, Readers Digest are considering publishing two of my jokes.

    • monkeytypist says:

      01:27pm | 18/12/09

      @Lachlan Gilbert I don’t understand what relevance “the real me” (?) has to whether my opinions are good ones or not.  Personally I don’t know Chris Deal from a bar of soap but surely you’ll grant me the right to say what I think about his work.  Or maybe you won’t?  Maybe I have to have my signature witnessed by a JP?  Maybe I can only say something insightful if I’m a Level-VII Thetan?  Whatever arbitrary bar you choose to set before listening to someone is your business, but as I and others have said, I live in a world where it doesn’t really matter what someone’s name is when we’re discussing whether they’re entitled to be treated with “integrity”.

      Lachlan, revealing or not revealing my “real” name has nothing to do with “guts”, any more than the shirt that I chose to wear this morning.  On the internet, as in real life, people have the right to choose how they present themselves.  You know me as a commentor on a blog, and you respond to me on that basis.  I know the name of Tiger Woods but I can’t claim any special insight or knowledge into his personality and habits (I’m not paid to write columns for tabloids, after all).  No matter how much information you were able to accumulate about me, it would still only be a portion of the whole, and the power to determine what I reveal and what I don’t is something that I (and most people) take very seriously.

      The presentation of a person’s online identity is complex.  People judge you by your choice of words, by the picture you post as your avatar, by who your friends are, etc. etc.  You have a high degree of control over the presentation of that information.  Like I said to tom_h, you chose not to reveal your Driver’s License or your credit card number in your post.  Was that an issue of “guts” or an issue of conscious personal choice?  If you knew my name, would it give you some magical insight into what I say that you previously didn’t have?

      @Kevin you’re absolutely right, satire is tough.  It’s tough because people are at complete liberty to find things funny or not.  But the good thing about satire is the funniness is also related to how perceptive the insight is.

    • monkeytypist says:

      01:27pm | 18/12/09

      @Chris, I will pay you that one smile.

    • tmodz says:

      01:37pm | 18/12/09

      geez you get a lot of whingers commenting here.

      i thought it was funny! well done.

    • Chris Deal says:

      01:55pm | 18/12/09

      Thanks tmodz, I appreciate it. And thanks monkeytypist for at least giving me a small glimmer of guffaws. Not a complete loss eh.

      I did want to take this opportunity to say to everyone that I’ve read all your comments, taken them on board, but unfortunately, and it pains me to say it, it really does, but your all idiots, and I hate you all. lol.

    • Jonathan says:

      02:10pm | 18/12/09

      Good thing you added that lol, Chris.  Otherwise I would’ve thought you hated us.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      02:25pm | 18/12/09

      The internet: Facilitating hate and captioned cats since conception.

    • meh443 says:

      02:35pm | 18/12/09

      And to think that the author of this article got paid for writing such garbage. There is no constructive discussion or analysis in the article.

      The Internet is what enables people around the word to keep the bastards honest. (The bastards being politicians and ignorant journalists such as the one who wrote this article.)

      This author wants Internet Censorship. This opens a big can of worms that will lead to all sorts of legitimate content being blocked.

    • icanhazkeybordz says:

      02:38pm | 18/12/09

      you are the awesome. gold. i will sign up after i stop lolling.

    • Jonathan says:

      03:07pm | 18/12/09

      Someone at the punch has something against Nathan Barley.  Apparently referring to a game based on the ever popular paper/scissors/rock is a no-go zone, even though this article is reminiscent of the social commentary of the erstwhile Dan Ashcroft.

      And to meh 443: you are an unfettered genius.

    • Chris Deal says:

      03:11pm | 18/12/09

      @meh443

      “This author wants Internet Censorship.”

      Mate, you’ve done me. That’s clearly what I’m saying. Thought I could pull the wool over you all, but I’ve ashamedly been caught out.

      Except for the small part where in no way have I mentioned supporting censorship, hinted at supporting censorship, constructed any lines to read between that may lead you to think I’m supporting censorship, or stopped anyone arguing or disagreeing with and of the constructive discussion or analysis that is, as you say, so sorely missing from this ignorant attempt at journalism.

      Apart from those minor flaws in your argument, I totally agree with you.

    • DanO says:

      03:48pm | 18/12/09

      You made a grammatical misteak.  Where you wrote:

      “your all idiots, and I hate you all. lol. “

      I think you meant:

      “yor all idjits, & I h8 u. Laff out loud.”

    • Izzy says:

      03:57pm | 18/12/09

      Chris from one geek to another loved it. Hope you get the chance to write more posts on here!

    • Gavin says:

      04:37pm | 18/12/09

      Chris Deal, I think you hit a nerve…

    • Gavin says:

      04:41pm | 18/12/09

      Monkeytypist, every opinion, idea, dearly held belief or faith and mannerism is entitled to have the piss taken out of it. Everything is open to satire and ridicule. If it’s done cleverly, it is quite entertaining. If it’s done in a way that lacks wit, sublety and sharp observation, it’s lame.

      But nothing should be safe from a good ol’ piss take - including this opinion.

    • Mother of Perth says:

      04:51pm | 18/12/09

      How about Bill of Rights for all Australian citizens first,
      then the Internet.

    • Dr Gonzo says:

      09:02am | 19/12/09

      The right for columnists to make an ironic statement about the way people use the internet and then have the correspondents on this forum lash out because they took it seriously and didn’t realise it was meant to be ironic.

    • Andy says:

      03:52pm | 19/12/09

      When you voted for rudd didn’t he promise to make australia better? Guess he was full of hot air (how ironic, will the ets be applied to his broken promises?).  Australians are going nowhere fast under this government!

    • mcwasd says:

      08:43am | 20/12/09

      ‘your an idiot’ is a meme, its largely done on purpose

      lrn2 internets, n00b

    • phil says:

      01:42pm | 20/12/09

      Let’s just get a general Bill Of Rights! Before it’s too late.

    • Heather says:

      09:17pm | 20/12/09

      You forgot the enforcement of Rule 37. Or was it 34? i always get those two mixed up.

    • alex says:

      06:46am | 22/12/09

      Upset webusers need to develop an argument why we should have societal rules for the road, for media publishers, for public behavior standards and even for phone companies, but none for the internet. The govt might have gone a crazy with its filtering rules, but angry webusers (who seem to represent only a tiny minority anyway) should come up with a better model and make their pitch. BTW, there will be an election 2010 so they can rally themselves then - the web is apparantly about democracy isn’t it?

    • Joe says:

      02:08pm | 22/12/09

      Rubbis article but some interesting comments here also.
      The internet with all its flaws is an amazing store of information available to anyone with a pc. If knowledge is power then it is best that the power resides with the people and not an elect few who would tell us what and how much we are allowed to know. Those who control the knowledge base and the media can easily sway the population in any direction they choose and what may be good for them will not necessarily be good for all.
      There is no need for the proposed censorship, the police and the judicial system already have the mechanisms to deal with what is generally regarded as undesirable in our society.
      I subscribe to individual responsability for what my family and I research on the internet. If people don’t want the internet then they shouldn’t have it in their homes or else they should buy a filter but don’t deny the rest of us real access because you can’t be bothered to police yousself or your family.

    • Lisa says:

      02:54pm | 31/05/12

      Posted on   I’ve been absent for a while, but now I reemmber why I used to love this site. Thanks , I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Officers "flooding the streets" after 40 EDL members ran at police following the #woolwich killing http://t.co/sjhMVVONzQ

Paul Colgan

RT @ImaanHMazari: Sick terrorists beheaded a 20-year old British soldier in London are giving Islam a bad name. You aren't Muslim. Stop def…

Paul Colgan

RT @BusInsiderAU: 'We Want To Start A War In London Tonight': Machete Attacker's Words To Mother After Street Killing - http://t.co/l9lpWAG

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @bectoria16: @drpiotrowski I've got the surname but sorry no news background. #cantbetoomanyinoz

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter