Desensitised. by ayarti

T-Shirts & Hoodies

Clothing Style:
Available to buy on…

This is my work in progress entry to the Social Conscience challenge over in the T-Shirt Revolution Group. I am not entirely sure about the design, so feedback would be greatly appreciated.

My concept is based around the imminent censorship of Australia’s internet. If you haven’t heard, the Australian Government has put forward a plan to implement ISP level filtering of internet use, which cannot be opted out of.

The plan is supposed to tackle child pornography, which is of course a very important thing to do, but is this really the best way to do it? The filtering is said to slow internet speeds drastically and block harmless and legal websites. I read somewhere (but can’t find the source) that a website with information about breast cancer had been blocked by the test filters…

The filtering has been closely likened to China’s censorship, and is further painting Australia as a ‘nanny state’.

The whole thing makes me really angry, so i figured it would make a good topic for the challenge.

For more information, here is a useful link:

PS. The image i have used was part of a poster that was created in my honours project last year at uni. The concept of the image related well to what i wanted to do here, so i decided to re-use it.


I’m a young graphic designer from Melbourne with a passion for t-shirt design!

View Full Profile


  • Natalie Tyler
    Natalie Tylerabout 5 years ago

    Great design Ayarti. Love the description too. You can sense it’s something you’re really passionate about. Everyone wants to see problems like child pornography tackled effectively and efficiently but it seems like this idea has numerous flaws. I’ve been searching for some more info online … do you know if they’ve actually trialled this yet?

  • Thanks Nat. I believe they have been running on going trials on a selection of ISP’s. From what i’ve heard, the ISP’s allow customers to opt out of the trial if they wish. Fortunately, my ISP (iiNet), have decided not to take part in the trial because they don’t believe the filters are any good… Here’s an article if you’re interested…

    – ayarti

  • Naf4d
    Naf4dabout 5 years ago

    I like it mate… and I like what you’ve based the concept around; just another way of control by the people at the top. Makes me angry as well; in the UK we get the same sort of shite all the time – it’s all sold to us on the basis that it’s in our best interest and we’re treated as though we don’t really understand anything or we need these people making these decisions for us by our shitty, out-of-touch, MP’s.

    Sorry for the rant – I guess your work has done the trick! lol
    Good work BTW! ;-)

  • Thanks mate.

    Yeah, its so ridiculous… To protect children is one thing, but to tell adults what they should and shouldn’t look at is just madness… Of course, as i said in the description, stopping and blocking child pornography websites is a very important thing to do, but the way they’re going about it by filtering our internet is completely wrong.

    Another issue that annoys me is that Australia has a terrible classification system for video games… The highest rating is a ‘MA15+’, so any game that is deemed inappropriate for a 15 year old, it gets banned, where as other countries have adopted R18+ ratings. There’s one completely out of touch minister that is basically blocking any sort of debate, and action to change the policy, and make video game classification similar to movie classification.

    Once again, keeping violent games out of children’s hands is important, but the answer should lie in more parental supervision and responsibility, not banning content that is intended for adults.

    Here’s a bit of reading if you are interested in that topic!

    – ayarti

  • zomboy
    zomboyabout 5 years ago

    gone are the days of the Internet’s reckless youth, where people could do what they want when they want. I think there are always two sides to an argument, and I think it is necessary to have some sort of control on this beast.

  • I agree something needs to be done, but in my opinion, ISP level filtering is not the right action. From what i’ve read, the two main objectives of the filtering is to stop child pornography, and to protect kids from the nasties of the internet…

    The latter can be solved by personal filters that parents can install on their computers. The former is obviously a much bigger issue, and i won’t bother trying to come up with possible alternative solutions, but yeah… is filtering really the answer?

    Thanks for the comment.

    – ayarti

  • zomboy
    zomboyabout 5 years ago

    Yes filtering is the answer in my opinion. But that filtering has to be closely monitored by our watch dogs and the general public to ensure that it does not eat into our rights for freedom of speech, unedited publishing etc. In other words, keep it in good taste.

  • Well, filtering will stop people from looking at and sharing child pornography over the internet, but i hardly think its going to do much to stop the pornography from being produced in the first place.

    I dunno, i guess what’s got me really peeved is that its being forced upon us. The large majority of the population don’t have anything to do with child pornography, yet we are being slapped with slower, more expensive internet and will have websites that are deemed ‘unacceptable for children’ blocked from our viewing.

    The money they are spending on the system should be put into stopping the pornography at the source, rather than trying to cut off one of the smaller outlets.

    – ayarti

  • zomboy
    zomboyabout 5 years ago

    There is plenty of money currently being spent ‘at the source’ as you put it. Criminal Justice involves a variety of approaches. Currently there are investigations being conducted all over the world. Behind those investigations are teams of people working day in day out to locating and stopping ‘the source’. This costs tax dollars – a lot of tax dollars. This is helping to control this issue, but it is not enough. Having said this, your concerns are valid. It is people like you that present the other side of the argument and this will play an important role in formulating a solution. We dont want to lose useability of the Internet, but at the same time we want public safety. This is the fine balance of Justice. I doubt that filtering will slow the Internet down too much, Australia cannot afford to slow information and communication down, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

  • I guess for as long as there’s a means to share and distribute files and information freely, there will be those bad apples that abuse it.

    I certainly understand that a lot is being done ‘at the source’, its evident when you see clips on the news of police raids being undertaken world wide, and police hauling away computers.

    I don’t really have any more points to make, i yield! I just think there’s a better way!

    – ayarti

  • Danny
    Dannyabout 5 years ago

    Sometimes reading some of the stuff on the Internet and particularly on this site I think Internet censorship isn’t such a bad idea.
    Have you actually read some of the shit floating around the ether?
    Just look at my stuff … :)

  • Hahaha, good point ;)

    Well if they can make the filters block moronic people’s blogs, then i may be more for it!

    – ayarti

  • hwiddy
    hwiddyabout 5 years ago

    dude i like the concept however you will never, and i mean never, catch me wearing a shirt with your face on it. how very self indulgent. bahahahahahahaa

    could go in a series with the halftone pic of liam you used on that other shirt..?

  • I wish i had designed it sooner, then i could have bought it for you for your birthday.

    – ayarti

  • hwiddy
    hwiddyabout 5 years ago

    there’s always next year.

  • that is true. oh, and who are you to call me self indulgent! i’m not the only one using my likeness my own t-shirt…

    – ayarti

  • nofrillsart
    nofrillsartabout 5 years ago

    Some very cool work going on here.

  • Thanks mate.

    – ayarti

  • IWML
    IWMLabout 5 years ago

    re; the debate between zomboy and yrself: from what i’ve read, filtering will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to child pornographers. apparently it doesn’t effect peer-to-peer stuff, so child-pornographers will still be totally unaffected if they are using peer-to-peer mechanisms – yet the rest of us will be slowed down, restricted, censored, and have greatly limited access to information, art, knowledge, etc. so sorry zomboy – i love yr art, but i think in this area you’re just plain wrong. filtering is only the answer if it works – and from what i’ve read (and i concede i am no expert in this area, so am totally basing this on what i’ve read!) it WILL NOT WORK.

    there, that’s my 2 cents worth!

desktop tablet-landscape content-width tablet-portrait workstream-4-across phone-landscape phone-portrait