Australia Says No to Internet Censorship 209
Brenton Fletcher writes "A nationwide protest rally against the internet censorship filter proposed by the Australian Labor Government was held today. Over 9,000 people were slated to attend. I was fortunate enough to go to the rally on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide, South Australia. I heard speeches from the Digital Liberty Coalition, the Green Left Weekly, and other concerned members of the public." Reader mask.of.sanity adds a link to ComputerWorld's photo-heavy coverage of the gatherings.
Australia says "Show us your map of Tassie!" (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you that don't understand the reference Tasmania is a state of Australia that is an island and shaped something like an upsidedown triangle. "Show us your map of Tassie" is slang and translates to "show us your pubic hair".
Children's Groups don't like this either (Score:2, Informative)
Re:7000 people, that is a joke! (Score:2, Informative)
It was raining heavily, and it's the pre-xmas party season.
Parts of europe already have internet censorship, so .au is ahead there.
Mostly people don't want it I think -- from the various people I've talked to, and the reactions in different media. However people aren't as passionate about it as going to war for bullshit reasons.
Hopefully this new government will listen to people. We kicked the last government out when they didn't listen.
Re:Australia Says No (Score:5, Informative)
Then it's time to kick that government out of its cushy seats. A government governing against the will of its subjects has to be removed from power. Unless you don't mind being called a dictatorship.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
I'll bet that this whole thing really has little to do with "Christian nutters" as you so eloquently put it.
The whole 'censor the internet' thing has been a vote-grab by Labor to pander to the permanently-morally-outraged socially conervatives, who became increasingly more visible during the last decade.
It is exacerbated by the balance of power being held by "Christian nutters".
While I would never suggest the whole "corporate lobbying" thing doesn't happen in Australia, it is nowhere near as widespread and blatant as the US.
In short, yes, it is the "Christian nutters" who are responsible.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the current Government (Australian Labor Party) does not have a majority in the senate, requiring the co-operation of a Family First (christian) senator to pass other legislation. So yes, religion probably DOES have a lot to do with it.
Also, the filter is only http - no P2P is being blocked (how can they?) and presumably https will not be blocked (as they will not be able to see the traffic).
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Big Media may be lobbying and pushing, but this is nothing to do with what is happening here in Australia with regards to the current push for filtering.
Re:OVER 9000?? (Score:3, Informative)
We also had dave the happy singer. He sang never gonna give you up and still alive. XD
real crowd may be closer to 1,000 (Score:3, Informative)
According to news.com.au, the attendance in Sydney was about 300 [news.com.au], so you'd assume nationwide it was closer to 1,000.
It was also raining, which didn't help.
Re:Australia Says No (Score:4, Informative)
The election isn't for another two years. We'd overthrow them by force, but overthrowing a democratically elected government does not have a good track record in making a good successor.
I think this is all a good experience for Australian democracy, we had a Liberal government for close to twelve years. We had forgotten how much of irresponsible populists the Labor party are. The Labor opposition had drawn us to things like mandatory detention of asylum seekers and had the Australian people convinced that they were somehow a "freedom party" of sorts. So as their first memorable act they go out to censor the Internet.
Now we have that idiot Rudd spending education dollars on free laptops, telecommunications infrastructure dollars on censorship and tax dollars on allowances to buy Christmas presents. I can't believe that I voted for these arsehats.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
and presumably https will not be blocked (as they will not be able to see the traffic).
It could be if they use evil products like the ssl inspection engine [jonsnetwork.com] of Webwasher which breaks the entire trust chain...
Re:7000 people, that is a joke! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that was 2007. Sorry you missed the memo but we also had an election in 2004 [wikipedia.org]. - The name Mark Latham ring any bells?
Relevant quote from link: "The election result was a triumph for Howard, who in December 2004 became Australia's second-longest serving Prime Minister, and who saw the election result as a vindication of his policies, particularly his decision to join in the 2003 invasion of Iraq."
Upside down triangle defined (Score:3, Informative)
An upside-down triangle? What does that even mean?
By convention:
Therefore, a triangular land mass is "right side up" when pointing north and "umop apisdn" when pointing south.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the following facts.
Prime Minister Rudd is a Fundamentalist Christian.
The previous Prime Minister, John Howard, was a "devout" (read - fundamentalist) Christian.
The previous government's Health Minister was a Christian fundamentalist, who refused to allow the "morning after" pill to be prescribed, even to women who had suffered rape. He even admitted that the ban was because of his religious beliefs.
It was the Howard government which first started talking about this idea.
The (so-called) Family First party is a front for the extreme Christian fundamentalist groups. Its primary sponsors are the Churches of Christ and the Assemblies of God, two of the most rat-baggy fundamentalist denominations in Australia.
There have recently been a series of current affairs programs showing that the extremist Christian group, the Exclusive Brethren, have been actively interfering in Australian politics at all levels. The are one of the major financial contributors to all major parties.
While politicians are required to reveal any financial matters which may lead to a conflict of interest, they are not required to declare any religious or ideological matters which may lead to a conflict of interest.
IMO, the major risk I see is using this to prevent access to any (insert name of religion) sites other than Christian sites, which would actually be illegal under the Australian Constitution. It would not be the first time an attempt has been made to circumvent the freedom of religion provisions, (and it most certainly won't be the last).
Re:Socialism, Nanny state knows best (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Your facts are hardly facts.
I've never heard John Howard claim to be a Christian, although he holds conservative values, and cultivated Christian groups.
Tony Abbott, the previous Health Minister, is a Roman Catholic, not a fundamentalist Christian.
The Churches of Christ and the Assemblies of God are hardly "extreme" Christian fundamentalist churches.
And anyway, why shouldn't religious groups contribute to political parties, just like any other group?