Australia does away with free speech

rabbitt

rabbitt

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html

Internet censorship plan gets the green light
The Federal Government has announced it will proceed with controversial plans to censor the internet after Government-commissioned trials found filtering a blacklist of banned sites was accurate and would not slow down the internet.

But critics, including the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam, said the trial results were not surprising and the policy was still fundamentally flawed.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said today he would introduce legislation just before next year's elections to force ISPs to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

The blacklist, featuring material such as child sex abuse, sexual violence and instructions on crime, would be compiled using a public complaints mechanism, Government censors and URLs provided by international agencies.

Senator Conroy also released results from a pilot trial of ISP-level internet filters, conducted by Enex Testlab, which he said found that blocking banned material "can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed".

"Most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet material which is not acceptable in any civilised society," he said.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material."

He said about 15 western countries had encouraged or enforced internet filtering, and there was no reason why Australians should not have similar protection.

It is not clear how - or if - the filters will distinguish between illegal RC material and that which is perfectly legal to view.

An earlier version of the Government's top-secret list of banned sites was leaked on to the web in March, revealing the scope of the filtering could extend significantly beyond child porn.

About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

"Given the pilot's modest goals, it was designed from the beginning to pass," said EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs.

"Although it may address some technical issues, what it leaves out is far more important - exactly what will be blocked, who will decide, and why is it being attempted in the first place?"

Similarly, Senator Ludlam said: "Nobody said that filtering from a static list of URLs was going to slow things down too much unless the list gets huge, so I don't think they've already proven anything that we don't already know."

The pilot trial report also noted that motivated people could circumvent any internet filters with ease, which Senator Ludlam and Jacobs said called the effectiveness of the proposal into question.

Ludlam said proving a technical case was not the same as proving the wisdom of going down the internet censorship track in the first place, which he said had always been two separate discussions.

"While the Government says that they will be relying on an evidence-based policy, we still haven't seen evidence that this is going to play any meaningful role in preventing children from accessing harmful material online," Senator Ludlam said.

Jacobs said: "Successful technology isn't necessarily successful policy. We're still yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help and why it is worth spending so much taxpayer money on."

Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, said he would be meeting with his members tonight to discuss the report before formulating a response.

Senator Conroy said the Government would immediately undertake public consultations, starting today with the release of a discussion paper on additional measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to sites being placed on the blacklist.

Some of the options raised include appeal mechanisms, notification to website owners of RC content and the review by an independent expert.
Click to expand...

You can always count on Australia to be at the frontier of limiting human freedom.
 
There should be an international assassins' group that assassinates bitchass government officials who do shit like this.
 
It totally sucks ass, but this will happen here, too. Conservatives are all for this kind of crap, which goes to show you how much they actually believe in the Constitution.

That said, I have my money on the online community in this one. I can't fathom that some of the people who roam the web couldn't counter the filters on a large scale.
 
Upon entering a website, there should be a popup displaying the amount of jail time you will receive for viewing this web page.

I mean you're looking at something and looking at something can kill.
 
Agreed with FtA: The Filters won't work. They don't work in China - what makes the Aussie government think they're better at suppressing the free will of their citizens than China?
 
Well I certainly wouldn't characterize it as doing away with free speech, since creating, hosting, and accessing something like child pornography is probably already illegal. I don't know about Australian laws, but in the US I don't think child pornography counts as free speech.

But it is a stupid and ineffective waste of time and money.
 
Fuuuuuuu

This means one of the sites I access that is located in Australia might go *poof*.

[quote name='SpazX']Well I certainly wouldn't characterize it as doing away with free speech, since creating, hosting, and accessing something like child pornography is probably already illegal. I don't know about Australian laws, but in the US I don't think child pornography counts as free speech.

But it is a stupid and ineffective waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]

It lists a lot more than childporn. The childporn thing I understand, some of the stuff is going overboard though.
 
[quote name='georox']It lists a lot more than childporn. The childporn thing I understand, some of the stuff is going overboard though.[/QUOTE]

I was only using it as an example. I don't know their full list nor their laws, but in this case I'd consider "going overboard" to be blacklisting things that aren't illegal in the first place. I don't support the idea because it's stupid, but it isn't suppressing free speech to stop someone from doing something that's illegal.
 
What Georox says. If it was *just* kiddie porn, I doubt there's be any vocal objections...

But about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.
Click to expand...
 
websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.
Click to expand...

But it's hilarious if you take that out of context and read it as though fetish, Christian, tour operators and a Queensland dentist are fringe religions.
 
Tell that to my dentist shrine I keep hidden in my attic. The wife would never understand...

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Austr...censorship_list_is_related_to_underage_images

Ms O’Loughlin —With the current breakdown at 30 April, 51 per cent were refused classification and around 32 per cent were child abuse material and child sexual abuse material.
Click to expand...

Here's what the dentist had to say about his blacklisting...
The dentist, Queenslander John Golbrani, was furious when contacted to inform him that his site appeared on the blacklist.

"A Russian company broke into our website a couple of years back and they were putting pornographic listings on there - [but] we changed across to a different web provider and we haven't had that problem since," he said.
Click to expand...

Nice....
 
[quote name='SpazX']So you'd support these filters if they limited it only to illegal activities then?[/QUOTE]

If the filters were blocking illegal activity, then, mostly, yes.

If the filters were blocking activity that, itself, was legal, but discussed illegal activities (i.e.: drug use, etc.) no.
 
Problem is that with blacklists like this, there is always going to be some site that ends on it when it shouldn't be. That or there will be disagreements over whether a site should be on it or not.

Stuff like this just opens a whole can of worms.
 
Child porn seems to be becoming so pervasive on the internet that in a lot of countries it's either going to come down to this, or having to build a whole new slew of prisons to house the hundreds of sickos that get arrested for that crap every week. I could easily fathom a government controlled and censored Internet in our lifetime, hell, within the next decade or so even.
 
I wonder how much child porn is generated by governments.

They generate most of the drug trade and international terrorism. How much worse is child porn than drugs and the murder of civilians?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']It totally sucks ass, but this will happen here, too. Conservatives are all for this kind of crap, which goes to show you how much they actually believe in the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

Then the conservatives you think you know aren't.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Then the conservatives you think you know aren't.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, actually. Bill O'Reilly is decidedly for it, as are many of his millions of viewers/listeners. My uncle, Captain Conservative, is for heavily regulating the Internet. So are most Christian conservatives. Republicans (most of whom run under the conservative banner) crapped all over the Constitution for the entirety of their six year reign of the House, Senate, and Presidency. Their current defense of the Constitution is a joke at best, and downright evil and disgusting at worst.

We can have a discussion as to whether the Conservative movement is actually conservative, but there is no debate as to their (in)fidelity to the Constitution.

fatherofcaitlyn: It's documented that the government has participated in cases of sending child porn to civilians. I can't speak for the size of that operation, but it exists on some level. Kind of funny how they can break federal law and arrest someone for... violating federal law.
 
This is insane. In today's world... It won't matter though. Australia acts as if they're actually going to stop people from visiting the sites they want. Were there's a will there's a way. And on the internet, there's millions of willing people.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Then the conservatives you think you know aren't.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem. There really isn't a valid conservative party anymore.

Republican's want to strip rights, censor stuff etc. to promote their social conservative agenda. And hell, they aren't even fiscally conservative anymore as the Bush years showed.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's the problem. There really isn't a valid conservative party anymore.

Republican's want to strip rights, censor stuff etc. to promote their social conservative agenda. And hell, they aren't even fiscally conservative anymore as the Bush years showed.[/QUOTE]

You are damn correct, sir.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's the problem. There really isn't a valid conservative party anymore.

Republican's want to strip rights, censor stuff etc. to promote their social conservative agenda. And hell, they aren't even fiscally conservative anymore as the Bush years showed.[/QUOTE]

Reagan ran up huge deficits, too. They haven't been fiscally conservative in a very long time.

After mocking and even leaving him out from one of their debates, it's been both hilarious and sad to watch Fox News hijack Ron Paul's message and turn it into some bizarre, hyperbolic, mutant hybrid of a neo-con/conservative/libertarian "Tea Party" movement. It was entirely predictable, as Republicans like John Ashcroft said Clinton's desired wiretapping was a slap in the face of the Constitution then rammed the PATRIOT Act down our throats as soon as they came into power (among other insane hypocrisy), and Democrats are guilty of the same kind of thing, but it's sad to see the minority party act like it's for liberty and defending citizens' rights when they're out of power.
 
Conservatives have become a party-less unrepresented large chunk of American Society left to roam around in angry demonstrations.

We might as well start creating reservations for them.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Child porn seems to be becoming so pervasive on the internet that in a lot of countries it's either going to come down to this, or having to build a whole new slew of prisons to house the hundreds of sickos that get arrested for that crap every week. I could easily fathom a government controlled and censored Internet in our lifetime, hell, within the next decade or so even.[/QUOTE]

I've been using the internet daily since 1993 and have never come across child pornography. To call it pervasive is a bit of an exaggeration. It's not as if it's dripping out of the interwebz for all to see and we need to think of the children.

I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't exist at all, but as the internet is used as a delivery agent in this case, are you in favor of the government going through all your mail as well? Seems logical since that has long been the method by which indecent and salacious materials have been distributed, and would be the first method to which pornographers would resort.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Conservatives have become a party-less unrepresented large chunk of American Society left to roam around in angry demonstrations.

We might as well start creating reservations for them.[/QUOTE]


We already have those. They're called "Non-urban" areas and wholly misnamed "Red States"
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We already have those. They're called "Non-urban" areas and wholly misnamed "Red States"[/QUOTE]

Nah, those are full of social conservatives who are fine with government power when it's forcing their morals on others. Not true conservatives who want as little government as possible period, and let people do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']I've been using the internet daily since 1993 and have never come across child pornography. To call it pervasive is a bit of an exaggeration. It's not as if it's dripping out of the interwebz for all to see and we need to think of the children.

I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't exist at all, but as the internet is used as a delivery agent in this case, are you in favor of the government going through all your mail as well? Seems logical since that has long been the method by which indecent and salacious materials have been distributed, and would be the first method to which pornographers would resort.[/QUOTE]

I'm not advocating increased governmental censorship at all, I'm completely against it, but I'm just saying that I could see it happening someday. I've never come across child pornography myself either and I have been on the internet for nearly as long, but clearly it's out there somewhere where people can access it, just search any states local news, and you'll see dozens of stories every day of people getting busted by the feds for having it. So between thay and the rampant level of piracy that goes on, I could definitely see a more censored Internet someday in the near future.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I'm not advocating increased governmental censorship at all, I'm completely against it, but I'm just saying that I could see it happening someday. I've never come across child pornography myself either and I have been on the internet for nearly as long, but clearly it's out there somewhere where people can access it, just search any states local news, and you'll see dozens of stories every day of people getting busted by the feds for having it. So between thay and the rampant level of piracy that goes on, I could definitely see a more censored Internet someday in the near future.[/QUOTE]

My mistake then, I completely concur with your thoughts.

I do feel that the whole "internet is full of pedophiles" story is much ado about not much. The internet may facilitate connections between sick individuals, but it doesn't manufacture them. So I can't believe there are dramatically more child abusers now than five years ago -- although if they're getting busted more frequently, perhaps the internet is a great boon to bringing these people to justice.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']true conservatives who want as little government as possible period, and let people do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.[/quote]

+1

I'm all for the libertarian party, but it sucks how little power they have... Seems they need to run under the republican ticket to even get anywhere.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Yeah, actually. Bill O'Reilly is decidedly for it, as are many of his millions of viewers/listeners. My uncle, Captain Conservative, is for heavily regulating the Internet. So are most Christian conservatives. Republicans (most of whom run under the conservative banner) crapped all over the Constitution for the entirety of their six year reign of the House, Senate, and Presidency. Their current defense of the Constitution is a joke at best, and downright evil and disgusting at worst.[/QUOTE]

True. Republicans want to limit our personal freedoms under the guise of imposing their version of morality on the rest of us. Democrats, on the other hand, want to do the exact same thing -- only with the excuse of "protecting society" or "the children." Both parties would shred the First Amendment given the chance, for different reasons.

So thank goodness they are at each other's throats enough so that they don't agree to destroy what's left de facto of our rights while agreeing to disagree on motives. What America needs desperately is another way -- to destroy the two-party power structure that adversely effects most every facet of our lives.

Americans are becoming very angry with our government. We are always angry with it, but it's more pervasive than I've seen in a long, long time -- probably more than 1994 or 2006. If things continue the way they are (corruption rampant, lies upon lies, extremely unpopular legislative shoved through Congress in the dead of night) we just may see the light at the end of the tunnel. Vote against your resident incumbents and for someone you actually think could do a good job (i.e. not a Republican or Democrat in the overwhelming majority of cases), and you can be a part of it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So thank goodness they are at each other's throats enough so that they don't agree to destroy what's left de facto of our rights while agreeing to disagree on motives. What America needs desperately is another way -- to destroy the two-party power structure that adversely effects most every facet of our lives.[/QUOTE]

Political theater is still theater.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Americans are becoming very angry with our government. We are always angry with it, but it's more pervasive than I've seen in a long, long time -- probably more than 1994 or 2006. If things continue the way they are (corruption rampant, lies upon lies, extremely unpopular legislative shoved through Congress in the dead of night) we just may see the light at the end of the tunnel. Vote against your resident incumbents and for someone you actually think could do a good job (i.e. not a Republican or Democrat in the overwhelming majority of cases), and you can be a part of it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, let's put our faith in another representative. If the rigged voting machines make a mistake and let someone who isn't beholden and bound a thousand times over, I'm sure that one person will be able to avoid the deluge of pussy, booze, young boys, drugs and truckloads of money and convince the other 600+ people in Congress to do the right thing.

...

Our system of government has been irrecoverably corrupt for over a century. The system is corrupt from the beat cop with a chip on his shoulder all the way up to the few people telling the president what to do.

The only solace is that the system is finite. It will fall apart anytime between 5 minutes from now to 5 decades from now. Medicare and Medicaid are only a few short years before going red. Our standard of living will continue to fall. Social Security won't be available to most people unless they're already drawing from it. Those disabled and widowed with children probably won't keep it.

As the government fails to maintain its societal bribes, people will lose faith in it. Some might fight, but more will just walk away. The government will do its best to corral people, but even idiots eventually stop betting on the losing horse.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, let's put our faith in another representative. If the rigged voting machines make a mistake and let someone who isn't beholden and bound a thousand times over, I'm sure that one person will be able to avoid the deluge of pussy, booze, young boys, drugs and truckloads of money and convince the other 600+ people in Congress to do the right thing.[/QUOTE]

One person can't do it all by themselves, but it's a start. If people would wake up we could replace all of them with non-career politicians who reflect the real America and fight for it, not the Democratic or Republican corrupt political machines. Sure, it'll take a lot of time to repair the damage caused by the despicable idiocy of those two, but sue me, I'm an optimist: I think we could do it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']One person can't do it all by themselves, but it's a start. If people would wake up we could replace all of them with non-career politicians who reflect the real America and fight for it, not the Democratic or Republican corrupt political machines. Sure, it'll take a lot of time to repair the damage caused by the despicable idiocy of those two, but sue me, I'm an optimist: I think we could do it.[/QUOTE]

If you worked in tech support, you would realize how very little the average person can do.

If people woke up in large numbers, the government would put them to sleep.

I guess if somebody became president and stuck it to the government, the government would just take it. http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm I guess not.

Let's assume some reverse Rapture occurred and all of the corrupt people in Congress and their successors were gone.

Great. Are the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA going to start acting right? Are the dozens of government agencies that the American public have little to no knowledge of just going to close up shop or completely divulge their secrets? Are the military facilities hidden in mountains, under the sea, in other countries and in plain sight just itching to step in "temporarily" going to roll over, too?

Washington D.C. is like a scale on a viper. Pulling on it will only get you bit.

...

I'm sure somebody will ask "Why so defeated?" The game is rigged like the ones in any casino. You can play. It'll be fun, but you will lose. If you don't lose, you'll be asked or made to leave.

However, the government like any good casino owes a lot of money to a lot of people. Some of them are retirees. The government will ask them to politely die off. Some of them are cops and army. They have guns and know where some of the bodies are buried. Unfortunately, their parents will have to be taken care of in addition to themselves to keep the police state going. A few of them are Chinese. They have an army and have no problem using it. The government only has enough money to pay one group.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Foc, you're a god among men. If our spoused die, let's move to Hawaii and get married.[/QUOTE]

I can't be fooled into getting married again. Nope, I'll work as a day laborer near your drug estate in Ecuador.

EDIT: The oldies station has been playing "Won't Get Fooled Again". I wouldn't listen, but everything else is crap rock, Mancow, holiday tunes, Jesus talk, Jesus rock or Glen Beck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top