Australian Internet Censorship Plan Torpedoed

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."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Block The Internet

[Z00L00K]

Anything that's offensive will be blocked, so the aussies will stick to watch flowers and waterfalls and only happy news on the web.

Big brother is watching you! But who is watching the watchmen?

Another problem is that sites on the net changes all the time and one site may appear and another disappear. And who frees old blocked addresses?

Re:I am not an Aussie...

[mrclisdue]

As a member of the Human Race, I, too, feel it is our obligation to do what we can to support the abolition of asininity.

Political borders notwithstanding.

However, I have very little money, but I can collect tabs from soda cans.

cheers,

One reason...

[BrokenHalo]

One reason why support for the blocking is so low in this nanny state might well stem from the fact that there is still a significantly large proportion of the population who cannot get any connection better than dialup (if that), who would find their snail-like traffic grind to a halt.

If you're a city-dweller, you're fine, but there are lots of areas, not necessarily even very far from cities, where broadband access is poor or non-existent. Needless to say, our government's priorities are not appreciated in those areas.

Re:Bandwagon

[MightyMartian]

This looks to me a lot like a McCarthy moment; as in Senator Joe McCarthy [wikipedia.org]. Conroy sounds a lot like him in being a lunatic zealot suffering from severe self-righteousness to the point of being pathological. I mean, when a guy starts talking about banning anti-abortion sites and sites showing drug use, he's gone so far around the bend that those who back him, usually out of pure political expediency, can no longer do so.

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.

Transparent

[anomaly256]

Ignored all expert advice.. Expanded the scope beyond it's original intention despite this.. Decided to bypass the larger, more popular, more mainstream ISPs during trialling and instead used a very select few mainly used by 'ma and pa kettle' types who would be ignorant of anything should their net one day be slow and half missing.. Isn't it obvious? This was never about morality or protecting the innocent. This was about instigating a control mechanism. The ability to shut you up and control your perceptions. Or.. perhaps he really thought he was doing the right thing, and going about it the right way. Really, either way you look at it, either his motives or his competency do nothing but put Australians at risk of being subjugated. He needs to be impeached. Now, I'm all for his originally claimed intention. But I think we need to find someone else to implement it. Someone with half a fricken clue and no ulterior motives.

Re:Well...

[amorphic101]

I heard a conspiracy theory of sorts back when the censorship plan was first coming to light. Apparently Conroy isn't particularly popular even within his own party and the story went that the 'net censorship legislation was given to him in the hope that it would fail as catastrophically as it seems on track to do.

After it blows up in his face, his peers in the Labor party would have a good excuse to push him out. It does sound a bit far-fetched but hope springs eternal...

Re:Anti-abortion website blocked for good reason?

[wastedlife]

Good point, and I agree wholeheartedly. If they are really worried about children being affected by content on the web, then they should provide tools for the parents and let it be voluntary. Protecting children from themselves should be the parents' responsibility, not the government's. My point was that there might be a reason it was added to the filter list other than just the fact that it is anti-abortion. Going by the types of things they are blocking, those pictures would probably be considered "offensive" and "prohibited".

Re:It all makes my head hurt.

[Eil]

"If it offends me, I want it banned for everyone." seems to be the mentality of so many.

This is so true it hurts. Somehow we've slipped into a society where people honestly believe that they have some natural or state-given right to not be offended. Just look at colleges and universities. The last bastions of intellectual thinking, lively debate, and radical ideas, right? Nope. There's no free speech on campuses anymore. You can't say whatever you like. If what you have to say is not politically correct, you get kicked out.

For a fun experiment, try this in the U.S.: ask a random person whether their government gives (or should give) them or their children the right to be protected from offensive material. I think you'd be shocked (perhaps offended, even?) how many people will answer in the affirmative. For extra fun, remind them that the First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly gives every citizen the right to speak and communicate as offensively as they like. It's your job to shelter yourself from whatever you deem offense, not society's and certainly not the state.

I have a good friend who is normally quite liberal about most things, but has a pair of young daughters and thus strongly believes that every ISP should filter all Internet content by default. I've tried explaining to him what a bad idea this is from pretty much every angle, but he persists. And I wish he was the exception, but there are plenty of other people I've met or know who believe the same thing. It frustrates me because it's people like this that are turning my beloved country into a nanny state. The actions of the government lately have flushed the idea of capitalism down the toilet, I don't want to see the same thing happen to speech next.

</rant>

Re:Anti-abortion website blocked for good reason?

[dancpsu]

For the same reason that all life is sacred, but killing abortion doctors is a ok.

I'm not going to argue against abortion or defend fringe groups, but your logic does not follow.

If there was a serial killer who had escaped from maximum security prison several times to continue killing, then by killing him, it would preserve more lives. Therefore, killing someone is in line with protecting all life, because all alternatives lead to more lives lost.

Re:Block The Internet

[TapeCutter]

Politics is a strange world, Conroy was put in charge of this so that it could be killed when the time was right. What better way can you think of to do that than to expand the list until it includes issues dear to the heart of the puritanical moron [wikipedia.org] who's vote the government of the day was trying to buy.