ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: excal on December 20, 2009, 09:16:22 pm
-
THE DETAILS
Location: TBC
Date: Saturday, 30 January 2010
Time: 12:00 - 15:00
The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force Internet Service Providers [ISPs] to censor the Internet for all Australians. This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.
You will not be able to Opt-Out of this filter, as was previously claimed.
Despite being almost universally condemned by the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is determined to force this filter into your home.
What do we know so far?
* Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country.
* The clean feed will censor material that is "harmful and inappropriate" for children.
*All "fetish" pornography will be blocked.
*All games intended for people over the age of 18 will be blocked.
* The filter will require a massive expansion of the ACMA's blacklist of prohibited content.
* The Government wants to use dynamic filters of questionable accuracy that slow the internet down by an average of 30%.
* The filtering will target legal as well as illegal material.
* $44m has been budgeted for the implementation of this scheme so far.
* The clean-feed for children will be opt-out, but a second filter will be mandatory for all Internet users.
* A live pilot deployment is going ahead in the near future.
What we don't know is just as important.
* What age level is the country's Internet to be made appropriate for? 15? 10? 5 years old?
* Who decides what material is "appropriate" for Australians to see?
* How are lists of "illegal" material compiled?
* Who will maintain the blacklist of prohibited sites?
* How can sites mistakenly added to the list be removed?
* Why can't we, as Adults, choose what we want to see?
All of us want to see children protected from content that could be disturbing or harmful. The clean-feed filter is not a good way to go about this, and could actually reduce the safety of children online.
Website: http://www.blockthefilter.org
Victorian division: http://www.nocensorshipvictoria.org/
Facebook event is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=200213317223
-
I'm also curious to know what people think about the filter in general, so feel free to pipe up!
-
excal, put venue/date/time in bold at the top
I will be there for sure.
This is madness beyond belief. There's an even more stunning opinion piece here which really opens your eyes to what's going on:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx
-
Please don't hurt me :(
I am risking karma to voice this =(
But I am happy with like 90% of the idea.....
If it stops children from viewing sex....why not?
Games which are R+ etc and are illegal ANYWAY in australia....why not
Fetish pornography.....why not, some of the stuff is weird man (if kids are protected and stuff, and it can discourage the "trend")
HOWEVER, I do not like the idea of it being compulsory, and it adds on to the thread I made, where the Gov is having MORE control over our lives.
In regards to the cost, I don't really care/mind, the Government has BILLIONS, a few million doesn't equate to much (remember the $44 BILLION broadband network)
I think the issue is, the Government is keeping too much secret and so RIGHTFULLY we should suspect them.
In regards to slowing down the internet, the company behind it recently said they have a technology which does nto AFFECT speeds at all.....and even if it did slow it down a TAD, we're going to be getting fibre optic, and most people have ADSL now anyway....
=( Don't hate me
-
I think that in terms of principles, this filter plan is a-ok. Despite the filter probably affecting some of the websites I visit (?), on the whole there's enough research to suggest that excessive violence and particularly degrading pornography isn't helpful at all for a society. At this stage, I'm still in favour of the filter; once it's in practice, however, things may change (depending on what actually does get blocked and whether or not the internet does in fact become far slower).
-
Wait....I go back on my argument....
I just can't stand Big Brother, internet filter for the "safety of children" NOW
Internet filter for "bagging the Government, for knowing info about the Government" LATER
Just you watch, it's like China during the Olympics, when it blocked google, facebook etc.
And like Iran and the "Twitter"war" when the election was rigged
Like I am FOR it in general, kids these days are being exposed to so much FILTH, but I don't see why it has to be MANDATORY, since when does the Government care more about OUR kids, then their FAMILY.
I just know one day the Government will take advantage of the filter.
Does anyone know what broguht this change? Why isn't the Govenrment happy with EXISTING filters such as "Net Nanny", and didnt John Howard introduce FREE filters for parents if they want?
-
I thought this was quite interesting, from enwiabe's link
They went on: "Refused classification is a broad category of content that includes not just child sexual abuse material but also socially and politically controversial material - for example, educational content on safer drug use - as well as the grey realms of material instructing in any crime, including politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia." Google reminds us that being homosexual was a crime in Tasmania until 1997, and information about it could have been (and was) Refused Classification, ripe for banning by Conroy's rabbit-proof firewall.
-
Like I am FOR it in general, kids these days are being exposed to so much FILTH, but I don't see why it has to be MANDATORY, since when does the Government care more about OUR kids, then their FAMILY.
I just know one day the Government will take advantage of the filter.
Sure blocking kids from filth is good but isn't that more of a family issue not a government issue? What about other issues that are equally as important if not more important? Things such as chat rooms, stalking etc. is this going to block entire protocols as well?
Word on the street is nobody gets to see what sites are blocked so from the get go we got no idea what is blocked and what isn't.
-
Did any1 see the BLACKLIST? It leaked earlier this year, I read some of the blocked sites on the Herald Sun ><
And I agree with you Gerrysly
It's also "convenient" the Gov introduces this...it's the one thing they don't have control over...the internet
-
I guess it all comes down to how responsible we feel the government is. My advocating the filter is only if it is utilised strictly to remove harmful content; if the Australian government starts banning anti-Rudd websites or something, then we've got a problem.
-
If it stops children from viewing sex....why not?
Because it is not the best way to prevent children from viewing it. Protecting children from explicit adult content should start in the home. The government is taking over the role of parents.
Anyway, isn't normal pornography allowed past the filters? (not sure on this)
Games which are R+ etc and are illegal ANYWAY in australia....why not
Most (?) of those games are R because they are overly violent / contain too many drug references etc... whereas a lot of the stuff on the blacklist is of a sexual nature.
Fetish pornography.....why not, some of the stuff is weird man (if kids are protected and stuff, and it can discourage the "trend")
Because it is infringing on the liberties of those who may be into those fetishes. As long as it's not hurting anyone else, they should be free to indulge, no matter how "weird" you (or anyone else) think they are.
And who decides what constitutes a "fetish"? This is a dangerous line of thought... it leads to cases like R v Brown, where the English House of Lords ruled that a group of homosexual men practicing sado-masochistic sex, in the privacy of their own home, with full consent from each member, were still committing criminal assault. It was frightening to read their judgments and see how much their own personal prejudices influenced their decisions. This was a 1993 (OVER 15 years ago!!) decision which was widely condemned; yet the personal prejudices of those in government are now similarly affecting how everyone else in Australia lives.
-
I seriously think that censorship should have occured ages ago. - Children, as young as 5, are accessing the internet and god knows what sites. This push will end child corruption and restore much needed closure. I would like to ask all of you this question: how embarrassing is it when you're showing something to your parents and some picture with a naked person comes up due to advertising?
-
I guess it all comes down to how responsible we feel the government is. My advocating the filter is only if it is utilised strictly to remove harmful content; if the Australian government starts banning anti-Rudd websites or something, then we've got a problem.
I wouldn't trust any government to control information. As history has shown, there will always be corruption.
-
Children, as young as 5, are accessing the internet and god knows what sites.
That is the fault of some parents. Should every Australian be punished for the negligence of a minority?
This push will end child corruption and restore much needed closure.
1) How?
2) What is child corruption? Do you mean child exploitation?
I would like to ask all of you this question: how embarrassing is it when you're showing something to your parents and some picture with a naked person comes up due to advertising?
That has never happened to me. So now the personal liberties of Australians must be restricted because some people get... embarrassed occasionally?
-
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/spoof-conroy-website-protests-at-internet-filter-plan-20091218-l1bn.html
A net prankster has taken advantage of Conroy's failure to reserve his own domain name by registering stephenconroy.com.au and turning it into an anti-censorship protest site.
I can't access stephenconroy.com.au...
Did they... shut it down?
Note that this article was written only 2 days ago
-
I think that in terms of principles, this filter plan is a-ok. Despite the filter probably affecting some of the websites I visit (?), on the whole there's enough research to suggest that excessive violence and particularly degrading pornography isn't helpful at all for a society. At this stage, I'm still in favour of the filter; once it's in practice, however, things may change (depending on what actually does get blocked and whether or not the internet does in fact become far slower).
But why apply it to everyone? Surely, parents can make that choice for themselves. There are plenty of products on the market that are probably more effective than what this filter will be. If there must be any incentive, the government can provide money for this. It will probably be cheaper than building one from scratch.
Besides, why must 75% of the Australian population suffer a loss of freedom for the perceived benefit of the minority especially over a issue that really can be dealt at the family, rather than national, level?
There are other concerns that I have about this filter including:
- the secrecy of the blacklist
- the ability of people who want to access 'prohibited' content to bypass the filter with very simple (and free) tools
> these tools also encrypt traffic, meaning that the government will have no idea what data is being moved 'around' the filter
- the performance concerns of dynamic (rather than static) filtering
- testing methodology that Conroy relied on for his positive result - load testing rarely picks up the issues of when you're scaling to the size of Australia
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- why I won't be able to read material that isn't necessarily harmful to children (things such as homosexuality if we were a few years backwards, euthanasia and fringe political groups) particularly if the reading is for innocuous purposes (for example, research)?
- the fact that ISPs will be forced to absorb the costs of this filtering (note: this is a mandatory filter); smaller companies might just find that their business is no longer sustainable as a result
among many others.
On that last point, I noted that quite a few links from Wikileaks (a whistle blower site) were on the blacklist - particularly the leaked blacklist itself. Do I sense a bit of 1984 here?
-
I AGREE with the need to protect children but yeah the Government as 0/ said is prone to corruption, so I dont support it
I really don't think its a minority, with so many people in Australia unable to use a computer, let alone INSTALL software to protect their children, the Government has to step in to "help".
By corruption I think MathsMethods is simply trying to say, stop the creation of spolit, slutty kids.
As rude as I sound, the amount of those kind of kids growing up is shocking by world standards, there are no "morals" and "culture" anymore, all sex, sex, sex.
But yeah, sorry if im really blunt, but I really don't know how else to put it.
-
how embarrassing is it when you're showing something to your parents and some picture with a naked person comes up due to advertising?
;_; Once when I was in grade 4 or 5, I was surfing the net and whatnot and a pop up appeared with a video of naked women eating each other's crap on a beach. I tried to 'x' out of it but the video stayed on the screen and I ended up pulling out the power cord for the computer. omg, scarred for life.
Despite that, I'm completely against this. Isn't there already things like 'Net Nanny' to help filter out sites for children?
-
how embarrassing is it when you're showing something to your parents and some picture with a naked person comes up due to advertising?
;_; Once when I was in grade 4 or 5, I was surfing the net and whatnot and a pop up appeared with a video of naked women eating each other's crap on a beach. I tried to 'x' out of it but the video stayed on the screen and I ended up pulling out the power cord for the computer. omg, scarred for life.
Despite that, I'm completely against this. Isn't there already things like 'Net Nanny' to help filter out sites for children?
Sure is, and they provide better protection.
-
Yeah thats what I mean minilunchbox and excal, why is the Gov all of a sudden "caring"....John Howard handed free filters when they were in power....
Ok, Rudd is a guy with deep Christian values, I don't think HIS Government will use the filter in a "bad way", but just wait a few more years, a Gov will come along and shut down anything that speaks against them, they will be able to add sites AT WILL. And eventually make a law saying it's illegal to by-pass these sites etc
-
I AGREE with the need to protect children but yeah the Government as 0/ said is prone to corruption, so I dont support it
I really don't think its a minority, with so many people in Australia unable to use a computer, let alone INSTALL software to protect their children, the Government has to step in to "help".
By corruption I think MathsMethods is simply trying to say, stop the creation of spolit, slutty kids.
As rude as I sound, the amount of those kind of kids growing up is shocking by world standards, there are no "morals" and "culture" anymore, all sex, sex, sex.
But yeah, sorry if im really blunt, but I really don't know how else to put it.
Ahem! my name is "methodsboy" not "mathsmethods" - i laughed when i read that hahaa
-
Yeah thats what I mean minilunchbox and excal, why is the Gov all of a sudden "caring"....John Howard handed free filters when they were in power....
Ok, Rudd is a guy with deep Christian values, I don't think HIS Government will use the filter in a "bad way", but just wait a few more years, a Gov will come along and shut down anything that speaks against them, they will be able to add sites AT WILL. And eventually make a law saying it's illegal to by-pass these sites etc
And that's what I'm concerned about. Assuming that the leaked list was legitimate, which is the general consensus, there are already sites on that blacklist that are not harmful to children nor illegal; they are merely politically sensitive...the filter isn't even implemented yet so god knows what else will end up on this secret list.
I suggest you all pay a visit to WikiLeaks and search for the blacklist (I won't link it directly as it's illegal, apparently. Don't even need to say how I feel about that issue either!)
-
Yeah thats what I mean minilunchbox and excal, why is the Gov all of a sudden "caring"....John Howard handed free filters when they were in power....
Ok, Rudd is a guy with deep Christian values, I don't think HIS Government will use the filter in a "bad way", but just wait a few more years, a Gov will come along and shut down anything that speaks against them, they will be able to add sites AT WILL. And eventually make a law saying it's illegal to by-pass these sites etc
I think of Rudd as socially conservative, so I have no trouble believing that he would ban any sites that go against "family values".
If someone more progressive were in government, they wouldn't have allowed internet censorship in the first place.
-
Because it is not the best way to prevent children from viewing it. Protecting children from explicit adult content should start in the home. The government is taking over the role of parents.
Anyway, isn't normal pornography allowed past the filters? (not sure on this)
What about irresponsible parents (ie. many parents)? I don't have any statistics, but I've hardly heard of households where there is actually an internet filter of any kind.
Most (?) of those games are R because they are overly violent / contain too many drug references etc... whereas a lot of the stuff on the blacklist is of a sexual nature.
I know this is going to make me very unpopular, but I don't see why excessively violent games shouldn't be banned. There is enough psychological research to suggest that playing games like that make performing violent deeds IRL easier, to the point where playing overly realistic war games triggers the same psychological response which armies utilise in training soldiers to shoot humans.
Because it is infringing on the liberties of those who may be into those fetishes. As long as it's not hurting anyone else, they should be free to indulge, no matter how "weird" you (or anyone else) think they are.
I'll agree here. In regards to censorship, I like to appeal to John Stuart Mill's harm principle; so long as something is causing harm to individiuals, it should be eliminated. Otherwise, freedom of expression.
That is the fault of some parents. Should every Australian be punished for the negligence of a minority?
Again, we need some hard statistics. What percentage of the parents actually moniter their children's internet behaviour?
2) What is child corruption? Do you mean child exploitation?
I think he means the destruction of children's innocence. Is it really healthy to have a generation of kids raised on porn from the age of 7?
But why apply it to everyone? Surely, parents can make that choice for themselves. There are plenty of products on the market that are probably more effective than what this filter will be. If there must be any incentive, the government can provide money for this. It will probably be cheaper than building one from scratch.
Perhaps, but my problem is that as it stands a lot of these products simply aren't used. Whilst I can understand that forcing it on everyone is annoying, it's probably better than having a whole generation of troubled humans raised by negligence.
The other question is what there is to be gained from NOT having this filter. Does our society really NEED half of the sites which will be blocked? There have been various appeals to freedom, but really, what advantage is there in being "free" to view websites containing child porn, bestiality, etc.?
- the secrecy of the blacklist
This I can agree on. Whilst I can understand the reasoning (people will actively try and find ways to get to the stuff on the blacklist if it's made public...), I think it's probably better for society's intellectual development to know what's being prohibited and what isn't. If this does go ahead, I'm pro for making the blacklist at least semi-public.
why I won't be able to read material that isn't necessarily harmful to children (things such as homosexuality if we were a few years backwards, euthanasia and fringe political groups) particularly if the reading is for innocuous purposes (for example, research)
In this case, I think ideally universities should be allowed to overcome the filter with express permission from the government.
I guess I should just add that I realise my points are probably become further and further removed from the reality of the filter; my main point is that fundamentally, I think the government has the right idea here.
-
Strongly opposed. As previously mentioned, this move infringes on the rights of people who wish to view material without hurting others.
Also can someone confirm, "regular" porn isn't going to be censored?
-
By corruption I think MathsMethods is simply trying to say, stop the creation of spolit, slutty kids.
As rude as I sound, the amount of those kind of kids growing up is shocking by world standards, there are no "morals" and "culture" anymore, all sex, sex, sex.
Everyone's morals are different. Nobody should be able to inflict their own morals upon others.
Also, I don't see how viewing pornography creates spoilt or slutty kids =S
-
By corruption I think MathsMethods is simply trying to say, stop the creation of spolit, slutty kids.
As rude as I sound, the amount of those kind of kids growing up is shocking by world standards, there are no "morals" and "culture" anymore, all sex, sex, sex.
Everyone's morals are different. Nobody should be able to inflict their own morals upon others.
Also, I don't see how viewing pornography creates spoilt or slutty kids =S
neitehr do I ><
Um, Evangelion summed up my words perfectly with;
"I think he means the destruction of children's innocence. Is it really healthy to have a generation of kids raised on porn from the age of 7?"
>< slutty has nothing to do with it ><
-
Also, I don't see how viewing pornography creates spoilt or slutty kids =S
Perhaps not spoilt or slutty, but imagine: a kid is the son of a prostitute. Every day, he sees his mother have sex with strange men. Kid grows up severely messed up.
Not too "out there", right?
Now try this: a kid is the son of negligent parents. Every day, he sees random people having sex on the internet.
Maybe not as bad, but I can imagine there being effects.
Everyone's morals are different. Nobody should be able to inflict their own morals upon others.
Ah, moral subjectivism. So does this mean we weren't justified in condemning the holocaust? Hitler had his morals in believing that Jews were evil.
-
^ Wish I could multiple karma you, will do 2morrow
Great points!
and LOL, at Methodsboy, i realized after u said it ><
-
Also, I don't see how viewing pornography creates spoilt or slutty kids =S
Perhaps not spoilt or slutty, but imagine: a kid is the son of a prostitute. Every day, he sees his mother have sex with strange men. Kid grows up severely messed up.
Not too "out there", right?
Now try this: a kid is the son of negligent parents. Every day, he sees random people having sex on the internet.
Maybe not as bad, but I can imagine there being effects.
Everyone's morals are different. Nobody should be able to inflict their own morals upon others.
Ah, moral subjectivism. So does this mean we weren't justified in condemning the holocaust? Hitler had his morals in believing that Jews were evil.
This thread took 2 pages to meet Godwin's Law
-
This thread took 2 pages to meet Godwin's Law
I realised it as soon as I posted. :p Should have used "was the Romans' killing and crucifixion of Christians justified?" instead.
-
What about irresponsible parents (ie. many parents)? I don't have any statistics, but I've hardly heard of households where there is actually an internet filter of any kind.
Why restrict the liberties of all of Australia because of the irresponsibility of a minority ("negligent" parents)?
I know this is going to make me very unpopular, but I don't see why excessively violent games shouldn't be banned. There is enough psychological research to suggest that playing games like that make performing violent deeds IRL easier, to the point where playing overly realistic war games triggers the same psychological response which armies utilise in training soldiers to shoot humans.
Different topic :P (maybe should start a thread on that haha) but can you provide a link to this research?
I play Counterstrike almost every day and I've yet to feel violent tendencies. I was obsessed with GTA and I've yet to solicit a hooker then beat her up to get my money back.... etc. I really doubt the veracity of these sorts of studies, being a (wannabe?) gamer myself.
I'll agree here. In regards to censorship, I like to appeal to John Stuart Mill's harm principle; so long as something is causing harm to individiuals, it should be eliminated. Otherwise, freedom of expression.
Again off-topic I know but have you read his On Liberty? ^_^
Again, we need some hard statistics. What percentage of the parents actually moniter their children's internet behaviour?
Even more importantly - what percentage of Australians are actually parents with children under the age of 18?
I think he means the destruction of children's innocence. Is it really healthy to have a generation of kids raised on porn from the age of 7?
I think that's being a bit over-dramatic. What do you mean by "raised on porn"?
Once again, as mentioned before, there are far more effective solutions than imposing a country-wide, hidden blacklist.
Perhaps, but my problem is that as it stands a lot of these products simply aren't used. Whilst I can understand that forcing it on everyone is annoying, it's probably better than having a whole generation of troubled humans raised by negligence.
Again, bit over-dramatic. The status quo hasn't yet produced a generation of "troubled humans". And if you're worried about parental negligence, why stop at an internet filter? Why not make it mandatory for roads to have a child-barrier, in case children run onto the road? Never mind the absolute inconvenience to the rest of the community...
Side point: in the law of negligence, parents cannot be held legally liable for an omission to act (e.g. if your child is injured by running onto the road and your only fault was that you omitted to prevent this happening). This is because the law recognises that no parent can be attentive and non-negligent 100% of the time.
The other question is what there is to be gained from NOT having this filter. Does our society really NEED half of the sites which will be blocked? There have been various appeals to freedom, but really, what advantage is there in being "free" to view websites containing child porn, bestiality, etc.?
Those are not the only sites on the blacklist. Surely as a reader of John Stuart Mill you would understand the concept of liberty as long as it does not harm others. Okay, I concede that sites like those for child pornography and bestiality should be blocked, but not at the expense of a whole other long list of legitimate, legal websites. They are legal for a reason.
If this does go ahead, I'm pro for making the blacklist at least semi-public.
Why only semi-public? What would you advocate should the public not see?
In this case, I think ideally universities should be allowed to overcome the filter with express permission from the government.
What about other institutions - scientific research, legal, medical? This would just create a whole lot of extra red tape.
What about those who want to do their own private research at home? Government should not control what I am interested in.
-
Also, I don't see how viewing pornography creates spoilt or slutty kids =S
Perhaps not spoilt or slutty, but imagine: a kid is the son of a prostitute. Every day, he sees his mother have sex with strange men. Kid grows up severely messed up.
Not too "out there", right?
Now try this: a kid is the son of negligent parents. Every day, he sees random people having sex on the internet.
Maybe not as bad, but I can imagine there being effects.
Hmm ok, so you're saying pornography should be banned in its entirety?
I know this is going to make me very unpopular, but I don't see why excessively violent games shouldn't be banned. There is enough psychological research to suggest that playing games like that make performing violent deeds IRL easier, to the point where playing overly realistic war games triggers the same psychological response which armies utilise in training soldiers to shoot humans.
Research is still inconclusive. This topic is still a fierce debate, which has yet to be resolved. While some people say these violent video games will influence RL, others see violent video games as a way of venting anger.
It would be nice if you could supply a link to the research though.
-
Strongly opposed. As previously mentioned, this move infringes on the rights of people who wish to view material without hurting others.
Also can someone confirm, "regular" porn isn't going to be censored?
"I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn."
The internet isn't a childcare centre. Also things would go back to how it was in the good ol' days before the internet where children would just look through their parent's/older sibling's porno mags instead.
But if we're going to censor the internet, then what about books and television?
-
Everyone's morals are different. Nobody should be able to inflict their own morals upon others.
Ah, moral subjectivism. So does this mean we weren't justified in condemning the holocaust? Hitler had his morals in believing that Jews were evil.
Oh come on, reductio ad absurdum?
I was referring to situations such as those where Christian morality condemns homosexuality, whereas my own accepts it.
-
Because it is not the best way to prevent children from viewing it. Protecting children from explicit adult content should start in the home. The government is taking over the role of parents.
Anyway, isn't normal pornography allowed past the filters? (not sure on this)
What about irresponsible parents (ie. many parents)? I don't have any statistics, but I've hardly heard of households where there is actually an internet filter of any kind.
Then they should be dealt with in the same way as those parents who neglect their children in general. There is no need to push this onto to everyone.
Most (?) of those games are R because they are overly violent / contain too many drug references etc... whereas a lot of the stuff on the blacklist is of a sexual nature.
I know this is going to make me very unpopular, but I don't see why excessively violent games shouldn't be banned. There is enough psychological research to suggest that playing games like that make performing violent deeds IRL easier, to the point where playing overly realistic war games triggers the same psychological response which armies utilise in training soldiers to shoot humans.
There is also research that suggests otherwise. However, responsible adults should be permitted to make choices (and obviously face the consequences of their choices should they arise). There is already a framework that prevents minors from accessing these games, why not just enhance that?
That is the fault of some parents. Should every Australian be punished for the negligence of a minority?
Again, we need some hard statistics. What percentage of the parents actually moniter their children's internet behaviour?
That is irrelevant - just because someone (read: minority) isn't doing something they are supposed to do does not mean that the government must punish everyone for it.
2) What is child corruption? Do you mean child exploitation?
I think he means the destruction of children's innocence. Is it really healthy to have a generation of kids raised on porn from the age of 7?
Again, it is the parent's responsibility to decide what material is appropriate for them to view at the various stages of their development.
But why apply it to everyone? Surely, parents can make that choice for themselves. There are plenty of products on the market that are probably more effective than what this filter will be. If there must be any incentive, the government can provide money for this. It will probably be cheaper than building one from scratch.
Perhaps, but my problem is that as it stands a lot of these products simply aren't used. Whilst I can understand that forcing it on everyone is annoying, it's probably better than having a whole generation of troubled humans raised by negligence.
Again, parent's choice.
The other question is what there is to be gained from NOT having this filter. Does our society really NEED half of the sites which will be blocked? There have been various appeals to freedom, but really, what advantage is there in being "free" to view websites containing child porn, bestiality, etc.?
It's not necessarily about what is being blocked at the moment, but the fact that some sites may only be controversial (rather than obscene) which opens up a slippery slope as discussed earlier.
why I won't be able to read material that isn't necessarily harmful to children (things such as homosexuality if we were a few years backwards, euthanasia and fringe political groups) particularly if the reading is for innocuous purposes (for example, research)
In this case, I think ideally universities should be allowed to overcome the filter with express permission from the government.
Universities aren't the only ones who do research. Consider private researchers, journalists, investigators and other private citizens with an interest in the topic.
I guess I should just add that I realise my points are probably become further and further removed from the reality of the filter; my main point is that fundamentally, I think the government has the right idea here.
I don't disagree that children should be shielding their children from this sort of material - hell, I'd prevent my kids from looking at this sort of stuff. However, there are much better ways of approaching the problem; this solution will not work due to societal and technological barriers which simply can not be overcome.
-
I'm extremely proud of you guys that the debate has been so heated and yet so civil, I just want to remind people reading that if you do get hot under the collar about this stuff to be mindful of your wording and to be respectful of differing opinions. It can be difficult sometimes, but please endeavour to do so!
My own $0.02 is that this system is draconian. The people supporting it tend to be lazy and want the government to solve all their problems. Few realise that they can achieve a level of filtering which is better than that of the government's with commercially available products such as NetNanny, and may filter the internet however they please for themselves.
I simply do not understand how people can trust the government to decide what content is appropriate for them to view when 1) The governments change every 3 years and may not be the party you voted for, 2) Political parties have keenly vested interests and I would not put it past them to abuse the system, and 3) it is not illegal for me to view websites such as www.fulltiltpoker.com (a website which is on the list), so why should I be prevented from accessing it?
I will be marching on 30th January. This is madness.
-
Filter is absolutely disgraceful, I find the fact that the leaked list is considered illegal to be incredibly scary.
I may just attend this thing...
This is madness.
Must....resist....
-
omg this is what makes my blood boil.....
this is the worst thing that can happen!
sooner or later, more and more sites that are politically sensitive will be blocked!
why are we following China's lead?!
im very strongly opposed to this!!!!!!!
this will lead to more illegal activities going on....to try to bypass the filter
-
The way we're going, this site will probably get blocked for having this discussion at all.
I can see it now: "Discusses potential circumventions and undermines the integrity of the 'Clean Feed' filter"
-
Why restrict the liberties of all of Australia because of the irresponsibility of a minority ("negligent" parents)?
I'm (ahahahaha JSM) a utilitarian; if it's for the greater good, so be it.
At this stage, I think I'll just declare that I've shifted my position a bit; you guys are right in saying that there are some kinks in this filter which definitely need to be worked out a bit. I don't endorse censoring all porn (there's your question answered, /0), but I think the people in general need to have some sort of filter which is a lot more "immediate". Perhaps a pre-packaged internet filter which can be switched off (if you read the manual...) would be good, so long as there is a more active "shielding" of questionable content in general.
Different topic Tongue (maybe should start a thread on that haha) but can you provide a link to this research?
Nope, but it was supplied to us in an exam at school. I can ask my teacher to send it to me if you really want. :p
Again off-topic I know but have you read his On Liberty? ^_^
Bits of it. I know his general contention as well. ^_^
@anything related to over-dramaticism, I'm a rhetoricist. Glad you can see through it. xD
The status quo hasn't yet produced a generation of "troubled humans". And if you're worried about parental negligence, why stop at an internet filter?
I think in this case we don't have enough evidence yet. Internet pornography and so on is definitely far more prolific than children being run over by cars, and it also hasn't been around long enough for there to be any real research on its effects on people from a young age. I guess it weakens my case too (since I'm dealing with hypotheticals...), but I hope you can appreciate that the potential for danger at least makes sense.
Okay, I concede that sites like those for child pornography and bestiality should be blocked, but not at the expense of a whole other long list of legitimate, legal websites. They are legal for a reason.
Definitely, hence why I say the list should be made at least semi-public (or public; to answer your other question, I don't actually know what difference it would make, but I figured semi-public sounded safer). That way, if the government is overstepping its boundaries, we can go eat them or something.
What about other institutions - scientific research, legal, medical? This would just create a whole lot of extra red tape.
What about those who want to do their own private research at home? Government should not control what I am interested in.
I concede defeat here. I endorse a built-in censor for adult material which can be easily turned off, as well as a mandatory censor which blocks content which directly harms people.
The internet isn't a childcare centre. Also things would go back to how it was in the good ol' days before the internet where children would just look through their parent's/older sibling's porno mags instead.
But if we're going to censor the internet, then what about books and television?
The problem is that the internet is a lot harder for people to physically control. Whereas you'd have to go out of your way to find porn on TV or in a magazine, on the internet it's as simple as a click or a Google search.
Oh come on, reductio ad absurdum?
I was referring to situations such as those where Christian morality condemns homosexuality, whereas my own accepts it.
Your language wasn't clear; I'll think about your qualifyng the original statement later. :p
-
these are some other threads that were opened earlier talking about this issue
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,8488.0.html
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,9091.0.html
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6193.0.html
-
That is irrelevant - just because someone (read: minority) isn't doing something they are supposed to do does not mean that the government must punish everyone for it.
So we should legalise marajuana then, because even though a minority will abuse it it doesn't mean that the government should "punish" everyone for it?
Ok, maybe this time I'm being particularly bad with comparisons (I know that these are two completely unrelated issues), but hopefully you see what I'm getting at here. Otherwise, I'll just cry in a corner. =(
-
hmmm, for those who think you can bypass it....
Look how fast mini nova went down.....98% of content removed in one day....
-
I was thinking about this in the shower.
I think there could be some kind of mandatory "Digg"-like layer placed over websites for socially organised approval and disapproval. Disapproved sites have a warning page, including comments left about the website.
Obviously depends on the cost and execution of the strategy.
Good policies provide a good default for people who are too stupid for themselves to hurt themselves, but give power-users (like those who want liberties) the choice to tweak and fine-tune their own decisions. Thaler and Sunstein call it "libertarian paternalism".
-
hmmm, for those who think you can bypass it....
Look how fast mini nova went down.....98% of content removed in one day....
Huh? They are completely different issues.
-
I concede defeat here. I endorse a built-in censor for adult material which can be easily turned off, as well as a mandatory censor which blocks content which directly harms people.
I think you're right about that. A censor which is automatically enabled but you can disable it if need be. That or no censor at all, anything else and I'm renting an ovh box and running all traffic through that.
My thought is that with the "hacker" community going at it, I'm sure there will be circumventions popping up all over the place for it
-
hmmm, for those who think you can bypass it....
Look how fast mini nova went down.....98% of content removed in one day....
Huh? They are completely different issues.
Im saying don't fall for the trap that some how if you agree to the plan, you can stop it, bypass it etc etc.
Who would have thought the Courts could bring down illegal file sharing (they haven't broguht it down compltely, but mininova was one of the most popular torrent sites)
The company was successfully able to evade the law by moving its servers from one country to another, but in the end they got brought down.
I was replying to several claims in the articles posted on here (well links) who said "we can bypass it"
EDIT: the above post exemplifies what I mean.
-
hmmm, for those who think you can bypass it....
Look how fast mini nova went down.....98% of content removed in one day....
Huh? They are completely different issues.
Im saying don't fall for the trap that some how if you agree to the plan, you can stop it, bypass it etc etc.
Who would have thought the Courts could bring down illegal file sharing (they haven't broguht it down compltely, but mininova was one of the most popular torrent sites)
The company was successfully able to evade the law by moving its servers from one country to another, but in the end they got brought down.
I was replying to several claims in the articles posted on here (well links) who said "we can bypass it"
EDIT: the above post exemplifies what I mean.
A quick Google search found me numerous ways to bypass Australia's (in particular) internet filter. You underestimate the power of the internet (I know that sounds lame).
Mininova was brought down because it was eventually successfully sued, and told to remove all copyrighted content, they had a fair while to comply, and therefore, it only appeared to disappear in a day because that is when they when enforced to comply.
-
LOL, I don't really know the technicalities of all this ><
But mmm, figured as much (that the internet is more powerful than I realise)
-
Why restrict the liberties of all of Australia because of the irresponsibility of a minority ("negligent" parents)?
I'm (ahahahaha JSM) a utilitarian; if it's for the greater good, so be it.
At this stage, I think I'll just declare that I've shifted my position a bit; you guys are right in saying that there are some kinks in this filter which definitely need to be worked out a bit. I don't endorse censoring all porn (there's your question answered, /0), but I think the people in general need to have some sort of filter which is a lot more "immediate". Perhaps a pre-packaged internet filter which can be switched off (if you read the manual...) would be good, so long as there is a more active "shielding" of questionable content in general.
What is the 'greater good'? Who defines what the 'greater good' is? Who ensures that the watchers are watched? Who watches them? I've always had a problem with people using this term to justify things like this.
My take on it? It's why we have a democracy you know. Majority rules; it's how our society was designed to work. The 'greater good', therefore, is anything that is good for the majority of people. This certainly isn't.
I still don't like the term, though.
What about other institutions - scientific research, legal, medical? This would just create a whole lot of extra red tape.
What about those who want to do their own private research at home? Government should not control what I am interested in.
I concede defeat here. I endorse a built-in censor for adult material which can be easily turned off, as well as a mandatory censor which blocks content which directly harms people.
What material 'harms' people? Looking at the list, apparently WikiLeaks can harm me. I probably won't be able to access sites that talk about anonymous browsing (e.g., Tor), as it might be used to bypass the filter even though the software is otherwise completely legal.
And it will probably all fall into the mandatory filter.
-
My take on it? It's why we have a democracy you know. Majority rules; it's how our society was designed to work. The greater good, therefore, is anything that is good for the majority of people. This certainly isn't.
You're assuming that a democracy is automatically a good thing. What suggests democracy is "how our society was designed to work"?
Second point, you haven't justified why "This certainly isn't". Under what principle is the act of censorship bad? If anything, you'd figure removing harmful content would...y'know...mean that society/the majority is safer.
What material 'harms' people?
Child porn leads to child abuse.
What material 'harms' people? Looking at the list, apparently WikiLeaks can harm me. I probably won't be able to access sites that talk about anonymous browsing (e.g., Tor), as it might be used to bypass the filter even though the software is otherwise completely legal.
And it will probably all fall into the mandatory filter.
I've addressed this in my "shifted position"; I agreed earlier that we should have the list on public domain so that people (ie. not just one figure or whatever in the government) can argue for and against keeping things banned. Ideally, stuff like "Wikileaks" won't be.
-
I never said anything about a democracy being a good or bad thing. I'm merely stating that we live in that social construct that is democracy as it stands. What I'm trying to say is that the implementation of the filter does not benefit the majority (or is seen to have a benefit to society as a whole by the majority), thus it can't really be seen to be the 'greater good' in this context.
And the principle of why censorship bad has been repeated so many times that I sometimes wonder if these pro-filter people get the message. It's simple really - freedom is the core fundamental right of any person in a democratic society. Just take a look at China and North Korea. I wouldn't want to live in a kind of society where the government controls what I can and can't see.
And sure, child porn is something that ought to be restricted. However, as we've seen (and I'm talking pragmatically), the list is used for purposes other than simply child porn.
Based on that past precedent, it would be unwise to trust the Government with filtering choices. I would rather software-based filters being distributed to all Australian families - they can then choose what they want / do not want their children to see online.
-
I quite like this quote:
"Parental responsibility cannot and should not be abrogated to government - if it is, our society will only become weaker ... Yes, illegal content should be banned from the web ... but it is wrong to give the government a blank cheque to determine what is appropriate for us to view on the internet." - Cory Bernardi
-
I quite like this quote:
"Parental responsibility cannot and should not be abrogated to government - if it is, our society will only become weaker ... Yes, illegal content should be banned from the web ... but it is wrong to give the government a blank cheque to determine what is appropriate for us to view on the internet." - Cory Bernardi
Exactly!! Perfect quote
Parents these days are icnreaisngly becoming the msot laziest, irresponsible, fat assed pieces of CRAP, I will not hold back in saying. They are becoming SCARED of their children, they LACK DISCPLINE, and let their children get away with so much rubbish (I saw a 9 year old smoking whilst waiting for a bus with his 7 year old sister.....has anybody watched "Super Nanny")
Lobbyists call for Govenrment to step in, Govenrment JUMP at the Opportunity for MORE POWER, MORE CONTROL.
Our society is becoming weaker because parents are not LEARNING, they are having the Government "take over"
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10418359-93.html
Coincedence I found this ><
It's about how "sex, porn and Jacko" top the most searched terms BY KIDS according to symantec
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10418359-93.html
Coincedence I found this ><
It's about how "sex, porn and Jacko" top the most searched terms BY KIDS according to symantec
sex showed up fourth on the list for boys and fifth for girls, following YouTube, Google, and Facebook as the three top terms.
-
Yeah, but thats really high up, like all the top 4 ones are WEBSITES, u would expect people to search them especially kids.
Porn is the FIRST PHRASE to be searched (not company). Thats what I tried to point out, and yes I did fall for the headline, until I read the article to see what you pointed out, stupid journalism =P
-
This was my issue for my oral presentation this year, i got an A+ for it =]
nevertheless if i want to watch fucked up fetish porn that is my choice and right as a citizen, i pay for the service [this doesn't mean i endorse cp in anyway]. It's like if i go to a hairdresser and they tell me i can only get a few selection of haircuts because other people think other styles are too offensive...
this is my 5 cents thank you for reading
-
Fuck the filter........its time to get my sword out.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/asia/18china.html?_r=1
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/asia/18china.html?_r=1
Huang Xiwei, the founder of BT China, criticized the move in an interview posted on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal. “Not just film and video sites are affected,” Mr. Huang said. “All Web sites owned by individuals will gradually exit the arena. All paths leading to a future have been blocked.”
$10 says that interview will be gone a week later
-
An open letter to Senator Stephen Conroy from a concerned parent!
Thank you Stephen Conroy! Thank you so much for keeping my family safe. By announcing that your new internet filter is a measure "to improve the safety of the internet for families", I feel reassured that you only have my, and my daughter's, best interests at heart.
But, I just have one question - I didn't know my family was at risk from the internet! I mean, my household has been connected to the web at increasingly fast speeds for the last ten years and my daughter has yet to be damaged in any way. Yet you say my child could be exposed to illegal sites featuring child porn, sexual violence and criminal instruction. Bloody hell! My daughter and I must have been incredibly lucky not to stumble across any of these sites up to now, especially if they are so commonly accessed by the average home user - as they must be for you to invest so much time, effort and money in this no doubt wonderful safeguard.
It's strange though. I was under the impression that Google and the other search engines filtered out such illegal websites from their search results, making it incredibly hard for us regular people to discover them by mistake. Instead of accidentally coming across a dodgy site in a search engine, people must be choosing to go there, so this filter is designed to target this deliberate behaviour. That would mean you are concerned my daughter may learn the specific url of such a 'dangerous' website and willingly type it in. Wow! My daughter isn't as well brought up as I thought she was! Thanks for pointing out how terrible a father I've been by not teaching her the basic values of our society. I bow to your superior experience of what goes on in my house and will immediately report myself to DOCS.
But wait - according to your press release, this is about more than just child porn and illegal websites; the filter will apparently apply to all 'Restricted Classification' material. Sure, that includes all those nasty bestiality, kiddie porn and illegal sites of one shade or another, but there are other reasons why a site might be refused classification. And, according to you, the "RC Content list will be compiled through a public complaints mechanism." Fantastic! If I merely don't like something, or am offended, I can complain and may end up getting the entire site banned! I'm sure the mechanism will require more than one complaint and would presumably have a review system similar to other complaints bodies, but some lobby groups are pretty good at getting heard if something offends their own world view. I bet there are a few groups already angling to submit complaints against atheist sites, political sites, or any 'controversial' topic that offends their sensibilities by merely existing and posing an alternative viewpoint. RC already applies to a website discussing euthanasia, a community organisation site advising drug users how to stay safe and a site for safe discussion of young gays struggling to cope with their sexuality, among others. If these sites are deemed objectionable or controversial enough to be refused classification - illegality is not the only target here. Posing awkward questions, providing unpopular information or contradicting current political ideologies can cause the filter to slam down.
That's great. at least I know my daughter won't be exposed to content that challenges the safe world view you would like us to have. Better she is not allowed to think too deeply about such topics as how society deals with old age and painful illness. Better she never learns how not to catch HIV should she ever take up drugs. Better she try her hardest not to turn out gay. It just raises too many difficult questions regarding current government policy. We know politicians don't like us thinking too hard about the more difficult topics as it makes us demand better answers from you and - depending on your responses - may make us less likely to vote for you in future.
As to those other sites that somehow wind up on the blacklist when it was leaked earlier in the year - you know, the bus companies, dentist and other legal businesses that found themselves blocked with no explanation why - I'm sure everything was done correctly. If it's on the list, I'll just assume that the dentist was in reality a white slave trader and the bus companies trafficking in cocaine. There has to be a legitimate reason why these otherwise legal websites appeared on the blacklist if you've got such a foolproof 'mechanism' in place. Right?
Then again, you've not said how this "public complaints mechanism" will work, so I'm not sure. And neither is anyone else. Tell you what - how about a button we can install on our web browser tool bars. We can call it the "Ban Button". Clicking the button when you're on a website automatically submits the site to ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority). It can work like Digg or Tweetmeme - if a page gets enough hits on the Ban Button, it goes on the RC list! Now there's a funky Web 2.0 social media thingy style idea that will get you props with the kids and the geek crowd! They love their social media voting buttons!
So thanks Senator Conroy. I can send my daughter to her room now without any fears that she'll be on the internet plotting the overthrow of the government or chatting to perverted old men in a chatroom.
What? You mean the filter won't prevent chatroom conversations? She can still be exposed to paedophiles grooming teenagers in social networks and messenging services? You say the filter won't prevent people spreading illegal content through BitTorrent or other file sharing services? You say we'll be blocked from sites I don't think we've ever accessed - at the cost of other legal sites getting caught in the web - while the crims and perverts still get to do what they do unhindered?
Well, I guess I may need to take some other action then if I wish my daughter to be safe. Like - oh I don't know - teaching my daughter how to use the internet, setting acceptable limits and behaviours, helping her to think for herself and understand right from wrong, and - crucially - knowing what she is doing when she is online. Maybe I can call this revolutionary strategy something catchy, like... I know! Parenting!
Source: http://www.atomiksoapbox.com/2009/12/an-open-letter-to-senator-stephen-conroy-from-a-concerned-parent.html
-
i hate stephen conroy
does this guy even expect to retain his sentate seat at the next election ?
-
So long as VN isnt blocked...
-
if we say enough bad things about the government they will get to us eventually :P
censorship starts off small, but it will get bigger *sigh*
-
LOL love the parent letter
-
A rather radical article, but still interesting...
Think of the Children: Parallels Between Australia and Totalitarian Regimes on Censorship
In the middle of December, an article was published by a senior News Corp executive in Australia that claimed among other things that those standing against censorship in Australia were “communists” who had no real understanding of history.
We’re not linking to an organization that purposely defames those who disagree with it, but the article claimed that there was no parallels between what is happening in Australia, and what has previously occurred in places like Nazi Germany, Iran or China.
“…the arguments being mounted against his plan – and specifically against him [Conroy], as for some unfathomable reason this has become a bitchy personal campaign – fall into three woeful categories. The historically inaccurate, the deliberately incorrect, and the morally ambivalent…..casually compare the conduct of the Rudd Government to the dictatorships in China, Iran, Burma, the former Soviet Bloc.”
I have to LOL at being called a Communist as it’s the first time I’ve been labeled anywhere moderately to the left of the center, but I digress because nothing speaks louder than facts to combat those who are so pathetic as to call those who disagree with them “communists.”
Won’t someone think of the children?
Censorship is always justified for a reason, usually on the grounds of protecting society from the content being censored. Children are usually somewhere near the top of the list.
Stephen Conroy
“It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material….The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material.”
“Online safety is critical for children to enjoy positive internet experiences, and to protect themselves from danger.”
Adolf Hitler
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.”
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
“Teachers and professors, you must be alert to watch your own colleagues to see if some of them are trying to teach deviating thoughts during their lessons to the children of our Islamic nation so that they can be stopped”
Lenin
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country….Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted….ideological talk and phrase mongering about political liberties should be disposed with; all that is just mere chatter and phrase mongering. We should get away from those phrases.”
Qin Gang, a Foreign Ministry spokesman for China on censorship
“If you have children or are expecting a child, you could understand the concerns of parents over unhealthy online content.”
When it starts
The broader history of censorship is full of examples where censorship is first introduced on a smaller scale, usually justified in protecting people, then over time becomes something far more sinister.
China quote
“Professor Jonathan Zittrain, of Harvard’s Berkman Center said: “Once you’ve got government-mandated software installed on each machine, the software has the keys to the kingdom… While the justification may be pitched as protecting children and mostly concerning pornography, once the architecture is set up it can be used for broader purposes, such as the filtering of political ideas.”
Once you have censorship, Government’s find extra uses, no matter what they say to begin with. Joseph Goebbels: “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion”
Nazi Germany
Of note to historians of Nazi Germany is the gradual increase in censorship from the beginnings of the Third Reich to its end. On the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda: “The Ministry grew steadily. It began in 1933 with five departments and 350 employees. By 1939, there were 2000 employees in 17 departments. Between 1933 and 1941, the Ministry’s budget grew from 14 million to 187 million Reichsmarks.” (ref.)
Conroy is boosting numbers in “cyber safety” including the hiring of an additional 91 police officers and an expansion of ACMA programs.
China
Of note in China is that formal censorship is more of a late bloomer in the country, with all press owned by the State in China until well into the 80s and 90s (hence it was controlled by political means.) Foreign works were censored during the cultural revolution, however a broad basis under law came later. Of direct parallel (and mentioned above) is China’s more recent crackdown on pornography in an effort to “save the children.”
Iran
Censorship in Iran has expanded in the past year following the student uprising in 2009. Where as Iran had a fairly liberal censorship regime (for that part of the world) Iran now monitors and blocks large chunks of the internet and other forms of communication (no reference needed, check Google or Wikipedia for the latest.) The censorship infrastructure in place, it was simply a matter of expanding its reach.
Australia
The risk in Australia is presented by the misplaced popularism of the Government, specifically in its false belief that the policy is wanted. All it takes is some targeted lobbying from groups who will deliver votes to the ALP, and Conroy decides to extend the filter.
Minister Conroy has waffled about what would and wouldn’t be included since coming to power, along with a double back-flip on the filter being compulsory or not; remember it was Labor’s policy at the last election that the filter would be optional NOT compulsory. That Conroy now states that the filter will never be extended is impossible to believe given that he has already clearly changed what he has said previously.
Conclusion
Given a full day or five this post could be far more extensive in its examples of how Australia’s draconian internet censorship policy has rich historical precedents in other countries. However the examples prove to a point that the rhetoric and current direction of the Australian Government on censorship does have parallels with totalitarian regimes past and present.
You might be able to argue the degree of similarities, but remember that when Conroy says that someone should think of the children, he follows in the footsteps of Hitler, Lenin and many other dictators over the years. When he says that censorship is protecting us from bad stuff, he follows in the footsteps of Iran and China who both use the same arguments when defending their censorship laws.
The internet censorship proposal from the Australian Government must be stopped; even if we concede that the chances of Australia turning into the next Iran are slim, that there is a chance now the door is open is a chance never worth taking. Free speech is far too important to risk on a throw of a dice, or as the case may be the words of a Minister who is proven to be a man who can’t keep his word.
Source (with working references): http://www.inquisitr.com/55091/think-of-the-children-parallels-between-australia-and-totalitarian-regimes-on-censorship/
Sorry about the Nazi reference :P
-
that article is brilliant
good quotes
censorship of the internet>loss of freedoms leading to a more totalitarian government
-
Various petitions:
Due to the governments plan to go ahead with imposing compulsory internet censorship on every Australian despite heavy opposition whether it be from the public or experts or businesses or online gamers, we are being ignored, this petition has been prepared, and will be tabled in Parliament to officially express our condemnation of the forthcoming legislation that imposes and infringes on our human rights and effects every user’s experience online.
Every signatures counts, as a democratic country we have the right and therefore the responsibility to resist censorship.
This petition has been prepared inline with the House of representative rules and is in compliance with the standing orders that apply to petitions.
The House does not accept petitions in electronic form and petitions must be on paper.
Each signature on the petition must be made by the person signing in his or her own handwriting.
Every signature must be written on a page bearing the request part of the terms of the petition.
Signatures must not be copied, pasted or transferred onto the petition.
Do your part download the petition
http://www.thecrowhouse.com/Documents/Petition%20Version%202.pdf
Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA)
http://www.efa.org.au/epetition/
-
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/521/cabb5711c08bae446c2cd81.jpg)
From The Canberra Times
-
im doing my oral presentation on this. :)
-
South Australia has removed the right to use a pseudonym on the internet:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26665381-5006301,00.html
-
South Australia has removed the right to use a pseudonym on the internet:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26665381-5006301,00.html
South Australia? Surely you mean Airstrip One there ninwa?
-
Atkinson backs down:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm?section=business
-
Interesting angle on this issue:
Conroy's internet filtering plan 'may lead to painful deaths'
THOUSANDS of elderly Australians who want the "basic human right" to have control over how they will die will suffer if the Rudd Government's proposed internet filtering law is passed later this year, says leading euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/conroys-internet-filtering-plan-may-lead-to-painful-deaths/story-e6frf7l6-1225821581936
-
My concise view on the matter:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2vwwcjs.jpg)
-
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/operation-titstorm-hackers-bring-down-government-websites-20100210-nqku.html
(i do not endorse this)
for the lulz
-
Anonymous are starting to piss me off. We get it: You're script kiddies.
-
Anonymous are starting to piss me off. We get it: You're script kiddies.
Hey, at least they're being heard and making the news. Our whining on a VCE forum is not.
-
Interesting angle on this issue:
Conroy's internet filtering plan 'may lead to painful deaths'
THOUSANDS of elderly Australians who want the "basic human right" to have control over how they will die will suffer if the Rudd Government's proposed internet filtering law is passed later this year, says leading euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/conroys-internet-filtering-plan-may-lead-to-painful-deaths/story-e6frf7l6-1225821581936
Australia has always marked euthanasia, and its related drugs, illegal. This is largely because of possible abuse of these drugs, they can cause death to people who don't want to die. It can also allow emos to do silly things to themselves.
That aside, the question we should be asking is, if something is illegal, does that mean information relevant to the illegal act should be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to make home-made explosives be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to hack a computer be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to euthanize be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to perform backyard abortion be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to download a song be banned?
Where is the line between crime and thoughtcrime?
-
Anonymous are starting to piss me off. We get it: You're script kiddies.
Hey, at least they're being heard and making the news. Our whining on a VCE forum is not.
That's true. But I still don't have to like their methods of getting on the news.
Meanwhile:
Fucking suck it Conroy.
-
What. The. Hell.
-
What. The. Hell.
1000 people? There are more students in some of the high schools around my area. Also if someone called me and listed those definitions as restricted material, I'd support it as well.
-
its 2 similar old articles but seriously ridiculous
sure its all about child pornography...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/australia-censo/
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/australian-government-adds-wikileaks-to-banned-website-list-585894
hm i hope it doesn't get through, they still debating this or its dead or they going through with it?