Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Internet Censorship Plan Torpedoed 308

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has been scuttled, following an independent senator's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation needed to start the scheme. Anti-Gambling Senator Nick Xenophon previously supported the filter because it could also block gambling web sites, but today withdrew support saying 'the more evidence that's come out, the more questions there are on this.' This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship. Censorship Senator Stephen Conroy has consistently ignored advice from technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online. Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or 'revolting and abhorrent phenomena' that 'offend against the standards of morality.' Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Internet Censorship Plan Torpedoed

Comments Filter:
  • Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:24AM (#26997515) Journal

    Censorship is a "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offends against the standards of morality".

  • by moose_hp ( 179683 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:28AM (#26997575) Homepage

    Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

    So the filter would block the Internet?

    If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:30AM (#26997597)

    I don't know about the rest of the internet, but by "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" I'm pretty sure they mean MySpace.

    Couldn't the morality part also apply to anything for gay rights?

  • Xenophobe? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:40AM (#26997727)

    After RTFS, xenophobe doesn't even begin to describe Stephen Conroy. Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness. He should be tried for blatant disregard of personal freedoms.

    it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence

    Really? Is he also going to block all Hollywood movies from entering Australia.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:45AM (#26997803)

    That would entirely depend upon who gets to decide what constitutes "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" ...And that in and of itself is a problem.
    If you do not clearly (Without any ambiguity) define the behaviour you wish to be illegal, then how would one know when they are breaking the law?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:50AM (#26997879)
    yeah, we should have voted for the senior citizen who can't even remember how many houses he owns.

    chris rock was right, the clear choice is to vote for someone who is closer to the life you life, in this case: one house.
  • by VShael ( 62735 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:51AM (#26997903) Journal

    and you know they'll try for a mile.

    This is why those types of idiots have to be resisted at every single step of the way.

  • Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality". Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."

    He wants to block all of that content and has narrowed it down to a mere 10,000 sites? Conroy's depth of knowledge in this field is simply stunning! Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!

  • by the-empty-string ( 106157 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:55AM (#26997973)

    So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

    Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!

    For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.

    That makes you just as bad as the us in the US, always wanting to tell other nations what they can and can't do with their sovereignty.

    Yeah, it's exactly like that. Only completely different.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:56AM (#26998009)

    "If it offends me, I want it banned for everyone." seems to be the mentality of so many. I understand the general intent of blocking that stuff, but it'll never, ever truly work. Besides, people like him will never listen to any other opinions, let alone listen to numerous experts telling them their ideas are wrong.

    Heck, you could tell him that water was wet while soaking him in a bathtub floating in the ocean during a rain storm. But if his mind is set on water not being wet, he'll never listen.

  • by wdef ( 1050680 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @10:59AM (#26998049)
    Great to see that common sense has at last prevailed. I would like to see this as a triumph of democracy but it perhaps appears to be as much due to a lucky accident of the numbers in the Senate. Now, if only the UK would drop its misguided plans to implement filtering of the internet, albeit by different means iirc. And you in the US - don't think you're far behind. Your bunch of idiots wait to see what oppressive regime the bunch of idiots in Europe can impose on their populace before imposing it on you - at least that is what happened with the idiotic EU data retention laws and the current move in the US to force large numbers of wifi routers to keep logs.
  • by Kell Bengal ( 711123 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @11:05AM (#26998135)
    Exactly - so if you keep it vague and fuzzy you can block things you don't like without having to publicly declare discriminatory prejudices.
  • by Kell Bengal ( 711123 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @11:09AM (#26998197)
    I'm an Aussie! But I don't want your money - I'll do it for free as a public good. Virtually no one here wants this crap - it's just the nanny-state nitwits voted in by the over-60s, who probably don't even know what the internets are only that they're full of Terrible Things because Today Tonight told them so.
  • This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship.

    Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it. How do we account for this?

  • by BrokenHalo ( 565198 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @11:27AM (#26998445)
    Trouble is, these politicians don't actually have any ideas beyond their narrow-minded suburban little headspace. After all, they are just glorified parking attendants; they don't have any real skills. We (Australians) can see the silver lining in the cloud of the financial crisis, in that the Government are so busy tearing their hair out about something they can't do anything about, they don't have the energy to pursue something they can (sort of) do.
  • Squeeze (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @11:48AM (#26998727)

    The harder you squeeze the more you piss off the electorate.

  • New site blocked! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by clickety6 ( 141178 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @11:53AM (#26998793)

    Conroy .. said [the list] would also block sites depicting ... "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

    Latest site added to the list:

              http://australia.gov.au/ [australia.gov.au]

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @12:49PM (#26999595)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by wastedlife ( 1319259 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @12:55PM (#26999685) Homepage Journal
    Now, I'm not saying being against abortion is wrong, you have the right to your beliefs, but if the web page they blocked was like the signs they posted on the roads when protesting the Planned Parenthood going up in the Aurora/Naperville IL area, I can understand why it went on the filter(note that I am against the filter in general, just playing devil's advocate on why that specific page may have been blocked). They would post shit like pictures of cut-up late stage abortions and dead fully developed babies (as in, unlikely to have come from a legal abortion anyway). Now, I've never seen a pro-choice campaign smear ads everywhere with pictures of crack-babies, kids with fetal alcohol syndrome, and other abused children, so why do anti-abortion campaigners have to basically troll shock pictures to get their point across?
  • by the-empty-string ( 106157 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @12:59PM (#26999745)

    The principle of self-determination holds that only citizens directly affected by a government should be allowed to influence its policies.

    I would agree that foreigners shouldn't vote in the elections and shouldn't be allowed to contribute to candidates. Other than that, they are well within their rights to express their opinions, and also to support groups opposing or favouring policies that may end up affecting them. This is how various NGO's work, and it's a good thing.

  • Stephen Conroy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cparker15 ( 779546 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:08PM (#26999855) Homepage Journal

    Stephen Conroy is an asshat.

    That is all. Carry on.

  • by Zancarius ( 414244 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:19PM (#27000041) Homepage Journal

    What is sad about this, sadder than even Australia coming within an inch of this level of censorship, is that a government could let itself get so out of control.

    What's frightening about this, though, is that other Western governments are probably using this as a test case to determine the efficacy of such censorship (and whether public opinion will effectively bend over and take it).

    Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the US and UK alike that would very much appreciate this level of censorship, perhaps even under the guise of limiting/preventing piracy.

  • by the-empty-string ( 106157 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @01:36PM (#27000367)

    So you have no objections if foreigners from the United States lobby for passage of a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (or clone thereof).

    They already do that here in Canada, through their corporate subsidiaries. Trying to shut them up has as much chance of succeeding as the censorship laws; it's better to speak up against the ideas. What I object to are the DMCA-like laws themselves, which is why I support both local and U.S.-based groups like the EFF.

    I understand and generally agree with your point regarding self-determination. At the same time, I recognize that borders lose their relevance with every passing day when it comes to laws of a certain authoritarian flavour. The market of ideas is just as globalized as the other kind, as this very forum demonstrates.

  • by computational super ( 740265 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:48PM (#27001555)

    Are you talking about Australia or America now?

  • by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @02:55PM (#27001659)

    The tools parents use are of a good example of why this cannot work, they do not have never and cannot stop kids looking at anything they want on the internet ...

    The only "tool" that works is put the computer in a family room and be around them when they are using it, this is 100% foolproof and may even lead to them speaking to their children occasionally ...

  • by TheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @03:53PM (#27002549)
    For the same reason that all life is sacred, but killing abortion doctors is a ok.

    Extreme groups are (almost) always wrong.
  • by wastedlife ( 1319259 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @04:27PM (#27003043) Homepage Journal
    I understand that you are not defending them, but how does your logic follow? Abortion doctors aren't serial killers escaping from prison. They are certified physicians performing a legal, albeit controversial, practice. If one does not agree with the law of the land, then they should work to get it changed or leave. Vigilantism of this kind is just not acceptable. Besides, it seems to me that one of the major foundations of many religions is the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is a statement that in no uncertain terms people should not kill other people. Not at all. Never. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. Yet many are killing others in the name of God. Can anyone make sense of this?
  • by Tubal-Cain ( 1289912 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @06:01PM (#27004511) Journal

    They are certified physicians performing a legal, albeit controversial, practice.

    Would murder be perfectly acceptable if it were legal? Because that is the crux of the issue: Is abortion murder?

  • by wdef ( 1050680 ) on Thursday February 26, 2009 @06:40PM (#27005039)
    I do blame the post-war Baby Boomers for the wave of nanny state repression we are all enduring in the UK, Australia, the US, and elsewhere.

    That generation have been running things now for almost 20 years. This was the same generation that benefited so from the emancipation of youth culture in the 60s and into the 70s. They enjoyed sex, drugs and rock and roll, inventing a whole new cultural paradigm out of the Beat Movement of the 50s, tearing down boring conventions, raising hell. When they became politicized, they demanded accountability from authorities and youth participation. Some refused to go to Vietnam and get killed. They demanded the lowering of the drinking age and the age at which you could get a license. They wanted to be treated as adults at 18 or before. They wanted free love, meaning no social restrictions on sexual intercourse. They reveled in the contraceptive Pill. They got all of their demands.

    But as they grew a bit older, they got married. As their kids hit teenage years, they panicked, knowing from experience just what they could get up to, because - remember - this generation had already done it all.

    Steadily, they began to pull up the ladder they themselves had climbed. They decry the promiscuity of young teenagers, saying it is harmful. What killjoys they became. In many cases, they want to raise the drinking age and the age at which kids can get a drivers license because young people are too "irresponsible". Having themselves fought for 18 to be regarded as the age of majority, now many want to increase that upwards. Having fought to lower the age of consent for themselves, many now want it raised.

    This is the ex-free love generation that now wants censorship.

  • by aXis100 ( 690904 ) on Friday February 27, 2009 @01:08AM (#27008431)

    You should hear what this crazy George W Bush was doing....
    Winning an election with a minority, reading books upside down, sending people off to illegal wars and making hilarous mistakes in speeches.

    All polititians look stupid if all you see is foreign news - bad news travels much faster. That said alot of them look pretty terrible in the local new too ...

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...