Aussie Minister Backs Down on Internet Censorship 211
gballard writes "After the constant furore raised by rights groups, ISPs and concerned citizens over the Australian Government's planned 'internet filter,' it seems that Australia Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is finally backing down. In a recent interview, the Minister conceded that many of the sites blocked by the filter were legitimate businesses (including, in one case, a Queensland dentist's homepage) and changed his story on whether the planned filter would restrict 'Refused Classification' websites or use the broader (and more vague) criterion of 'prohibited.'
It's a positive step, but as the article above suggests, at the moment it's only one crack in the defenses of a censorship plan with broad ramifications for Australian internet users."
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
Also take note of the Australian Christian Lobby rep "Lyle" who interjected during the discussion saying that the majority view of anti-filter people was that rape porn and child porn had no effect on children which was not said by anyone in the audience or at anytime.
Its that kind of view that has to be struggled against. If you're for the filter you're pro child if you're against then you're pro child-porn. Its sickening.
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
When will people learn to vote for the less religious politicians, or even the agnostic/atheist politicians?
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a big part of the problem I have with the filter (amongst other things) is that it's open to scope creep. Pet peeve of the month will be used to help get ministers onside, especially at the moment to pass anything Labour need the help of the Independant ministers, ones like Family First Senator Steve Fielding [stevefielding.com.au], religious right wing nut job.
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is an idea from marketing that is relevant to this political issue.
Never try and compete directly with an idea that people have already bought into. If many people believe that anti-filtering is anti-child, to change someone's mind 180 they must admit that they were wrong...and people don't do that.
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Politicians can be so short sighted and stupid.
They scream, porn, rape, child molestation, crime, etc, etc, etc, this moral issue, that moral issue.
Of course you CAN legislate morality, the better question to ask is SHOULD YOU?
To have freedom of religion, no one religion can dominate, otherwise we all lose religious freedom. THIS IS BAD.
Now ask yourself, is your religion the dominant religion right now? (Answer is probably No)
Are members of your religion having more babies than all other religions? (Answer is NO, unless you are Muslim)
If you are Muslim, do NOT get too excited as ultimately you too will lose because the fanatic Islamist, also claiming to be Muslims are going to start nuking as soon as they get the capability, the money to purchase, to do so. So while from a population perspective you will dominant, after the first dirty nuke, those numbers will change, like it or not. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Nothing anyone does can stop this fact...either Islamist become tolerant or the Muslim religion is ultimately doomed.)
Good luck with that one...you will need it.
The only point, any law passed with Religious intent or perspective, allows your law to be replaced by a religion with more population.
This is why you MUST NOT pass any law of a religious nature and why government and religion should NEVER mix.
To do so risks the loss of freedom of religion for you and your posterity.
Obviously any law of censorship, ultimately threatens your freedom of religion, no matter how that law is worded. Do you really want to do that to your kids? To their kids?
In America, our founding fathers understood religious persecution, sadly we have forgotten those lessons.
Net Neutrality is in YOUR religions best interest. Net Neutrality is what god wants you to have. Now go, worship freely, get out of government and sin no more!
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now with regards to the truely religious politicians who aren't cynically using it as a tool for votes, I would say they're simply not smart enough or critical enough to be put into a position of power.
Re:To view the show (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more . . .
Re:I am not an Aussie (Score:3, Insightful)
but just hypothetically: might it be possible for somebody to just shoot this idiot and have done with it? Seems he is the only one who wants it.
Oh, yeah. Right. Forgot. They took away a bunch of the guns, too.
Well, of course someone could just shoot him. But what would that achieve? What a stupid suggestion. And, for the record, "they" didn't take away a bunch of guns; only extremists assert that they enforced it. If you want a gun in Australia you can buy one just about as easily as anywhere else in the world.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're completely missing the point. These kinds of nutcase zealots aren't interested in setting up their own personal blacklists, instead they want to control what other people see and do.
PS (Score:5, Insightful)
It "kinda" didn't exist before the election, check how Mr 2% got elected in the WP link. I say "kinda" because it's a cyclical thing...
1. Pre election - no censorship.
2. Post election - New government and a few independent censorship nuts are suddenly sitting members. Their heads swell with the phrase "balance of power" and believing their own bullshit they try and play the big boys against each other.
3. Government sets up an inquiry and wins the support of nut jobs.
4. Government sends draconian bill to the senate, opposition and public don their tinfoil and go into a turd flinging, arm flapping frenzy.
5. The trial drags on until mid-late term when the list is suddenly broad enough to include the nut jobs own supporters.
6. Trail ends, bill is voted down and considered by all not to be worth risking a double dissolution.
7. Goto 1.
8. ????
9. Profit.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
And atheist leaders or secular governments are somehow better? Here's a thought experiment: how many atheist and secular, non-religious governments and leaders can you think of in the 20th century that committed mass atrocities against their people, or others?
If you think quite hard about it, I'm sure you can name a few. Stalin is probably a very good place to start.
I would rather we questioned the whole concept of the state itself, and the type of governance we accept. It's far more likely that we encourage super-structures around our lives that stifle human freedom and creativity that encourage this type of behaviour, than it is because our leader is religious.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il... They were very religious. Bertrand Russell had a lot of criticism for the religion of communism.
Part of the step towards questioning the state has to be raising the conciousness and level of intelligence of the general populace. Part of that is getting them to part with childish fantasy.
Re:To view the show (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of it, in fact the absolute vast majority of it is completely non sexual shots of single children, no toys, not an adult in sight, just a naked kid between probably about 10 and 15 years old, most of them on the beach, many of them oblivious to the camera.
I believe this is referred to by the "victims" as Nudism. There are whole sites [purenudism.com] full of such pictures.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm impressed at your ability to quickly denounce them as being religious, and that communism was their religion. When in doubt, they're not true atheists. Tell me, are you equally quick to denounce atheists who adhere to capitalism as being "religious"? Or those that support democracy?
I think you have an axe to grind, and are simply not willing to accept the truth that atheists and religious people can be equally as tyrannical, murderous, and genocidal as each other.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
they want to control what other people see and do.
..
Most of the public seems to miss this little aspect of our(world) leaders, or whomever is driving the puppet.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Democracy I'm in full favour of. But I have no problem with it being questioned/critiqued.
It seems to me that you have more of an axe to grind if you're trying to say that Stalin, Mao or others are somehow reflective of what the vast majority of non-religious leaders are like. Where as I am very likely to find worrying problems with any openly religious politician picked at random.
Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT? (Score:2, Insightful)
But, I'm not sure why you're bringing religion into the argument
Basically because after reading the posts that were already there, I realized there were many posts referencing religion and censorship based on religion. So I am definitely not the first nor the only one pointing out that censorship often occurs first from a religious perspective.
I also disagree with you that the two are not related. I would suggest to you that most censorship is based on moral issues. Never mind that you can choose not to watch, not to hear, not to partake by turning off, personally blocking a site, etc....
For most, it is not enough to censor themselves, they want to censor you, me and everyone else, as they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. It is not enough for them to live their lives, they want to control how you live yours.
As most of us have learned, too many politicians, at least here in the US, hope that most people will NOT show up to vote. When that happens, groups, especially religious groups, that historically are whipped into a frenzy with anti-religious propaganda will show up and vote. Often voting based on a card handed out in their church or group, rather than using the brain that the god they believe in gave them (I would suggest to NOT use that brain is SIN...but that is just me.)
When they vote from a religious perspective on anything, they open the doors, setting precedents, for other religious groups with higher popluation (i.e. more voters) to change laws that ultimately can result in all of us losing religious freedom.
I am not anti religoius...I am pro freedom, which MUST include religious freedom.
I just wish other religious people would realize, its not that they can NOT pass laws...they can and have....
Rather they need to ask themselves, SHOULD WE? Most of the time they SHOULD NOT.
And for the reasons that I stated above.
Re:I am not an Aussie (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't lie it makes us all look bad.
twostix, I did not lie. I am sorry if I offended you, or any other Australians; that was not my intention. Your point is correct. But, so is mine. It is not hard to buy a gun here. It is hard to legally buy a gun, but not as hard as it's made out to be. However, my point was: if you want a gun to shoot someone then it's not any harder to obtain one (legally or otherwise) than most other places in the world. Your statement: "as can be seen by the ridiculous amount of gun violence in the country for the last few years" kind of supports my statement. My statement is not making judgement by the way. I don't support either stance (gun ownership or non/ownership)--my stance is neutral. If someone wants to shoot me, they probably will anyway, despite any silly law.
What I *did* mean, though, is that Jane Q Public's suggestion about shooting people is absurd. Violence does not solve anything. I also stand by my assessment that Jane throwing in a frivolous comment regarding gun laws in Australia--as if it proved some kind of point--was ridiculous. The gun laws do not stop a person intent on shooting another person obtaining a gun. I understand that Jane Q was trying to make a joke. I just didn't find it funny, nor accurate in any way.
Re:Bugger all backdown (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the fact that one of the biggest problems with the concept remains - it is still a top-secret blacklist that we aren't allowed to see. We're not allowed to know, or talk about, what exactly is being censored. We were assured by Conroy that no political content would be blocked, but we have no way of confirming that if the list is a secret (unless it leaks... which it did, clearly showing that political content was being blocked).
Time and time again, experience has shown that these lists WILL leak, and they WILL be trivial to defeat (particularly for those with the greatest interest in defeating them). And these people want to keep adding child porn to some of the most widely released documents on the internet?
Fucking imbeciles, I tell you. You're not helping the children, you're harming them, and you're pandering to fundamentalist wowsers who have about 1% of a clue about what they're talking about between them.
Re:To view the show (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we even have a right to know who is monitoring us?
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that for Mao, Stalin, etc. their religious preferences were incidental to their communism-inspired mass-murder. They didn't kill people because they were atheist, but because they disliked opposition or genuinely believed that planting rice more densely would increase production, instead of causing starvation.
Equally, Mussolini and Franco were Catholics, but they didn't murder in the name of Christ, but in the name of political expedience. I'm just so fed up of this "Hitler* and Stalin were atheist, therefore atheism is evil" meme that I need to stamp it out before it even gets the chance to flourish in a conversation.
For what it's worth, I don't think atheists make better or worse leaders than secularists of any faith. I do think that religious rule of any stripe can only be a bad thing though.
*Hitler wasn't even remotely atheist.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, there's another logical flaw in your argument.
Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism. He killed people to keep his power.
On the other hand, I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with actually protecting anyone or stopping anyone from seeing things that perhaps they really ought not to see - we could argue about that one all day and I'm not even sure I'd know how I really feel about it, which is why I'm against the idea of blacklists even if I thought you could keep them ideologically pure. That's not what they're for, however; the idea is that they can "accidentally" slip sites which promote political speech of which they do not approve, sites that criticize their constituents (the real ones - the corporations) and other sources of information that "they" don't want you to have access to. It has already happened time and again and it will continue to happen so long as such blacklists are permitted to exist. You can examine the great firewall of China as your inspiration. While it is largely ineffective against interested parties, its purpose is to keep the masses largely ignorant so that they don't become interested parties.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism.
That's an easy claim to make, considering that atheism itself is not a religion. Besides, Tony Blair (used as an example by the parent) didn't come out and say, "Hey, I'm invading Iraq in the name of Christianity!"
I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.
I'd be curious to hear your examples. Not saying that there are none, but I'll bet you anything you like that a majority are going to be cases where the actual aims and purpose were to keep power, and expand empire - just like Stalin.
Re:Yes Minister (Score:3, Insightful)
Just put "Cc: The Internet" at the bottom of each one, and post them somewhere they will be read. Then at least your writing isn't a waste. Add citations to the online version, please.
Re:To view the show (Score:5, Insightful)
Scope creep is a major aspect, but its worse than that, as it also provides an example to all governments, which is a danger to everyone around the world.
People who seek governmental power go into that kind of work because they want to have power over others (and power also means money). (They are constantly looking for new ways to gain more power for themselves and fearful of loosing power to their opponents). The drive to seek power and the fear of loosing power is why they are seeking to control the Internet.
All governments are like slime moulds seeking food and what feeds governmental power is finding ways to control people. All the individuals in the governmental slime mould are clambering over each other to feed their thirst for power. Its why different departments of government work independently yet all end up moving in the same direction, as they all ultimately seek the same thing. Power over people. The Internet (and extending the Internet into the real world) is a huge potential source of power over people. People in power both want and fear the Internet, because of what it means for their goal of seeking power. For example, large numbers of people viewing things online can stir up public opinion, which can undermine the people in power, as this leaked block list demonstrates.
This battle for censoring the Internet is just part of a larger battle, which is going to get ever worse control of everyone, until everyone stands up and provides opposition to the people who seek to use the Internet to gain ever more power over people. Also as fast as some stupid power grab over the Internet is forced back, the different members of the governmental slime mould all force forward dozens of other new power grabs, some of which take time to surface. That's why scope creep is so difficult to limit, bacause as fast as we try to stop one power grab, they add loads more power grabs.
This battle isn't between different political parties. They are all the same when it comes to their core goal of seeking power over people. Therefore there is no effective opposition to the political parties on this point. They all want to control the Internet.
This battle is between the elite few in power and the majority of people who the elite few aim to control (and then exploit for their own gain). This will continue to get ever worse control until the minority in power make life so difficult for the majority, that they finally stir up the majority to force some kind of fairness out of the relentlessly power seeking minority.
It will continue to get ever worse control because that is what the people in power want and currently there isn't sufficient opposition feedback to rein in their uncontrolled power grab. Its like a machine without feedback. Without enough feedback the machine runs out of control. Thats exactly want is happening now all over the world, with relentless power grabs to find ever more ways to control peoples lives.
Almost all the censorship talk is simply using FUD to sell the idea the governments need to grab control of the Internet
Re:Censoship? (Score:4, Insightful)
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Well there should be. If one managed to prevent the production of such material then I would not complain.
You seem to be buying into the idea that this is about protecting children. Or at least the bizarre idea that it's ok for children to be abused as long as we don't accidentally tune into it.
What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.
Re:Censoship? (Score:5, Insightful)
100% of what? What exactly *is* "child porn"? Pictures of teens that they took themselves? Pictures of your kids in the yard spraying each other with hoses? Anime child porn? Anime child porn parodies? Adults pretending to be children? Adults who just look young? Teens over the local age of consent but under 18? Teens over their own age of consent, but under the age of consent in the viewer's area? Teens of indeterminate age? Teens having sex with each other in ways that are legal in their local area? If they took the pictures? If someone else took the pictures? Non-naked children in sexually-suggestive situations? Non-naked children in situations that are sexually-suggestive to certain viewers only? (Think of shoe fetishes. Seriously. Would we ban all pictures of shoes?)
It's not enough to say "it catches nothing but bad stuff" -- you have to clearly define "bad stuff", too. Not only are we not comfortable with that, we're quick on the trigger -- like the recent so-called "sexting" debacle.
Re:Yes Minister (Score:3, Insightful)
Call them on it. Put your letter and their reply side by side on a website. Show the complete disconnect. Laugh at them. True, you wont get the entire population of the country looking at that site, but if you posted a link in a few places where it's on topic (here and now as example), then you could have a fair bit of attention. And perhaps enough to force a better reply from them.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, in all seriousness. What evidence do you have for making the claim that your laws are based on Christian morality?
It makes no more sense than saying that the rules on the school bus are based on Christian Morality.
Because God doesn't like it
Because Jesus died for your sins
but you might remember "Thou shalt not commit murder"
The reason that there's a law against killing people is because people don't like being killed. They don't need a deity to tell them that if they don't discourage killing people that they're more likely to be killed themselves.
Laws against sodomy are definately based on Christian morality.
Any laws against sodomy your country has almost certainly stem from religious bigotry. Unsurprisingly, they're among the most useless and harmful.
Re:To view the show (Score:3, Insightful)
So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.
The implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader, but I suggest we start using the same dirty tactics the other side.
Accuse the proponents of being closet pedophiles projecting their sick fantasies onto others.
Ad hominem may be a fallacy but if it works for them, it can work for us.
Re:Censoship? (Score:2, Insightful)
So back to the topic. If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat, and I think you would to. But your concern is more about "at what cost". I never claimed that this goes above all, rather the contrary. My point was pretty clear. In the society I reside in I tolerate some things and I don't tolerate other things. I don't tolerate murder for example, and by amputating everybodies arms and legs we could prevent murder. But of course this is silly and it's definetly not the right way to do it as there's an immense sacrifice to it, but this doesn't mean we still don't consider murder as intolerable.
If you think that this is no longer about children but instead it's about enforcing views upon others you're repeating what I said. It's not about the censorship, as you imply when you say that it's no longer about the children, but about the way it's enforced.
Re:How long will it take people to learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real division isn't atheist vs. religious. As you say, there are plenty of renowned and despised figures on both sides of that particular debate. The real division is authoritarian vs. free-thinker.
Organized religion is almost always authoritarian by nature, and tends to attract authoritarian followers, but the reverse is not always true. Plenty of atheists and agnostics tend toward authoritarianism just as much as their religious counterparts.