Taking control of the campaign against internet censorship

So there has been considerable handwringing about what to do with the plethora of sites and messaging against mandatory internet censorship.

See for example:
http://theangle.org/2009/12/23/how-conroy-has-won-on-mandatory-internet-...
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/01/06/the-no-clean-feed-campaign/
http://alexwhite.org/2010/01/no-clean-feed-campaign-needs-to-drop-their-...
http://www.pointlessreally.com/?p=87

Even when we started this site, which we never really expected would heat up until the new policy lands (soon!), we had criticism that it was just another site and there were already too many. I disagree.

While it would be nice to have one consistent site and have all web traffic go there, the fact of the matter is that this is a net roots campaign. Little bits pop up all over the place. And that's fine.

Aside from the misstep of diluting the twitter hashtag #nocleanfeed with #openinternet - and if you are not on Twitter then you won't have the foggiest what that means anyway - there is absolutely no problem with having hundreds of websites on the issue - just helps if they are all linked to each other.

#nocleanfeed is an internal audience campaign - making those in the technology industry and serious online users aware of the issue. For an internal audience the use of the term clean feed is not problematic at all - it’s only problematic when you are talking to people who don't know what the clean feed is.

No Internet Censorship is our campaign to an outside audience. We specifically used that, rather than something like 'Democrats against Clean Feed' because of the 'clean' connotations commentators seem to have only realised in the last month or so. Censorship is bad. So to even the most casual observer it's easy to grasp that we're opposing something bad.

The messaging here is designed for people that don't know much, aren't aware or familiar with the issues and the debate - which is most Australians. We'd use even more basic language in offline material. We currently lack the funds to push it as offline as we'd like to, but we're working on it. (If you'd like to help - please donate at http://www.democrats.org.au/donate/)

Coordination is required - largely because the only way to really cut through on this one is to have the capacity to both raise money and use it effectively. Are the Australian Democrats the best vehicle to do that? Probably not.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to say 'yep, we'll do it' and take all the donations - but given the disparate nature of it and the fact that there are (assuming the Greens return to their base and clarify their position on the issue, and I'm being generous towards the sex party) 3 competing political parties on the same side of this issue, that would be counterproductive. All have different reasons and motivations - and all will rip each other to shreds before they allow any one to take the lead.

This is not dissimilar to how the campaign to free David Hicks began. One of the reasons that was successful - and this one will be too - is that there are so many organisations that are willing to get involved. The sure way to have this fail is if it becomes one organisation pushing their agenda.

What is required is a new body - an organisation established specifically for the purpose - with representatives from each of the organisations involved on a board or management team. How that comes about largely comes down to who calls who... and I understand that conversations have already taken place. I, and I'm sure the Australian Democrats, look forward to working with any organisations that want our help in getting the message out.

(And a special leak for actually reading this blog: The Australian Democrats will be taking part in the Great Australian Internet Blackout http://www.internetblackout.com.au )