Matthew Warren

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore Australian public and stakeholders views towards the regulation of the Internet and its content. The federal government called for submissions addressing their proposal, and this paper analyses these submissions for themes and provides clarity as to the Australian public and stakeholders key concerns in regards to the proposed policy. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a qualitative approach to analyse the public consultations to the Australian Federal Government. These documents are coded and analysed to determine negative and positive viewpoints. Findings – The research has shown, based upon the analysis of the consultation, that there was no public support for any of the measures put forward, that the Australian Federal Government in its response has not recognised this public feedback and instead has only utilised some of the qualitative feedback obtained through the public consultation process to try to justify its case to proceed with its proposals. Research limitations/implications – The study is focussed on Australia. Practical implications – The paper analyses a proposed national approach to filtering the content of the Internet and discussed the public reaction to such an approach. Social implications – The paper looks at how different parts of Australian society view Internet filtering in a positive or negative manner. Originality/value – The only study that directly looks at the viewpoint of the Australian public.

This paper evaluates the ethical consequences of the use of marketing techniques in the child adoption process within England and Wales. Since 1995 the political climate in the UK has seen a reassessment of the manner in which the state organises care for children who are within its legal guardianship. Successive UK governments have acknowledged the under‐utilisation of child adoption as a moral and efficient means of child‐care. However, the presentation of child adoption in a more active fashion involves concerns about the manner in which child adoption has been organised. Increasingly child adoption organisations and social work professionals are being made accountable through the language of customer service and performance measurements. The use of commercial techniques such as marketing is justified on utilitarian grounds. However, any utilisation of marketing within the child adoption process is forced to ensure that the child is not de‐centred. Legislation requires that the needs and welfare of the child are the first consideration for the adoption agency. Here we begin to see tensions between the humanitarian project that is child adoption, and the unease produced by viewing the child as human ‘product’. This invites analysis via critical theory. The use of marketing in child adoption raises issues related to the objectification and commodification of the child and prospective adopters. Within child adoption it is assumed that we must engage with the child as ‘face’ . But will these assumptions stand the encroachment of marketing techniques into this very sensitive area?