Anti-Censorship protest

[EvangelionZeta]

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.

[ninwa]

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 (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.

[/0]

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.

[minilunchbox]

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?

[ninwa]

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.

[excal]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Noblesse]

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....

[TrueLight]

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

[excal]

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"

[EvangelionZeta]

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

[TrueLight]

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

[EvangelionZeta]

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.  =(

[xXNovaxX]

hmmm, for those who think you can bypass it....

Look how fast mini nova went down.....98% of content removed in one day....

[Collin Li]

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".