Australian Government Delays Internet Filter Legislation 255
An anonymous reader writes "It seems the Australian federal government is being forced to delay the introduction of its proposed and much-hated, much-maligned Internet filter. It will not be introduced in the next two sittings of parliament, which realistically delays it until after the next election. News on withdrawing the filter, which was a promise from the previous election, has disappointed lobbying groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby."
Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd (Score:3, Interesting)
The opposition Liberal Party are finally getting their act together and the Labour Government doesn't want to feed them any issues to debate, so filtering is on hold.
Re:Not actually an election promise (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100265633350951 [facebook.com]
Seems like a bit of a co-incidence.. especially because this is the second time it has happened. Last time there was a protest organised about shutting down the Tote due to insane liquor licensing - but the protest was a waste of time as a decision had already been made.
I guess politically it's a lot less damaging if they stop the protest from happening.
But maybe they've started doing next years budget and realised just how expensive this filtering nonsense will be.. and that they can safely cut it because no-one wants it. They can save face by saying "it's just been delayed".
Some obvious observations (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
Elections are coming, Labor wants votes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rudd knows just how unpopular the filter is, even if it only loses him 10% of the votes it's enough to scare him as he got in by a gnats wing in 2007.
The question is will Rudd shelve the plan or just carry on regardless after the next election. Personally I don't want to find out but I cant vote for that hyper religious nut-case, Tony Abbott as he'll probably turn around and do something worse so personally my vote is going either to the Greens or an independent against the filter.
Another piece of legislation delayed? (Score:2, Interesting)
<rant>
Oh, and as to the Australian Christian Lobby and all those other extreme conservative political groups - don't mix religion with government! I'm Christian, but I don't think that should have anything to do with running a country. One of these days we'll end up like certain European countries and be forced to go to church every week!
</rant>
Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd (Score:3, Interesting)
The greens are turning out to be less environmentalists and more insane policy blockers of late which is kind of scary. As for the environment, Rudd should never have put Garrett there, nothing against the guy but he was definitely not qualified, minister for the environment should be occupied but someone with an understanding of chemistry or biology (OK, wishful thinking).
Personally I think we didn't really have a choice with Rudd, if Howard had of been permitted to keep Work Choices things would have been a lot worse for the average worker in the GFC, fairness test or not, wages would have fallen through the floor and mass lay offs would be the norm.
Re:Elections are coming, Labor wants votes. (Score:3, Interesting)
By hyper religious, I assume you mean that earlier on his life he entered Seminary, intending to be a priest but changed his mind. Or did you mean to refer to the fact he has strong catholic based beliefs. This is important because the term hyper-religious has massively different connotations to our American colleagues, where it could/would imply that he was a member of the literal truth of the bible pentacostal brigade. At least he's been honest enough to say outright was his beliefs are, and cope with the spin/misunderstaning - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/27/2802389.htm [abc.net.au]
But if you really, really care - have a look at your local candidates and think who will do more for your area. We elect our representives, not our prime-minister. You can go and approach the candidates and ask them - "My friends and I want to know where you stand on Internet Filtering because it's major factor in choosing who we'll vote for" or "Will you oppose/support the internet filtering even against the rest of your party's position?"
Mate - If you don't tell them that this is an issue, then all they have to go off is the Media - and they really treat Internet comments with sooo much respect.
Re:Another piece of legislation delayed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Won't somebody please think of the children!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as a Christian, Lobby groups can go fuck themselves. It is ludicrous that any tiny minority that is good at fund raising, or has deep corporate pockets, can be allowed to go around parliament and have private "chats" with legislators. The way people should influence their representatives is via letters and local meetings (and the representatives should be required to keep office hours in the non-sitting season that allows workers to visit them).
Groups like the ACL don't even represent most Christians just a tiny vocal minority.
What is likely to happen here is that Rudd and Conroy will pull a Howard and pass the legislation once returned to power because they now have a "mandate". Honestly we should bring back the Greek/Roman practise and try elected officials once they have left office.
Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm a Liberal Party Member
voting green (Score:2, Interesting)
A few of the Aussies here have mentioned their disappointment with Rudd and greater dislike of the opposition, and have expressed their intention to vote dreen or independant.
If you wish to keep legislation such as this from passing its important to understand how the Australian government works.
firstly there is the Upper House: parliament. Here you find the Prime minister, Ministers and back benchers. Voting for anyone other than either of the two major parties here is basicly a wasted vote. In most cases the winning party will always have enough seats here to propose anything they like and see it pass. I suggest voting for the major party you find least objectionable.
The Lower House: The Senate, is where the postions of minor parties/independents are most powerfull. It is here that legislation such as the internet filter stand the best chance of being stopped. Many years ago the Australian Democrats held a significant proportion of seats here. Never aiming for the upper house, they focused on the senate with the tag line of 'keeping the bastards honest'. Today that power is held by the Greens and the Family First party, each equaly scary depending upon your own personal views (damn hippies vs Christian nutjobs). If you are disillusioned with Labor, and intend to vote Green, doing so in the senate will have the greatest impact.
Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd (Score:3, Interesting)
another 3 years of Rudd will be much MUCH worse then just about anything. the greens in government would be worse, because an environmental single issue party simply isn't capable of running a resource based economy. thankfully greens will only ever be a senate-take-one-seat-and-milk-it party.
Most Australians want a filter (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results [abc.net.au] This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.
Re:Looking slightly dangerous for Rudd (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be more inclined to vote Liberal on the grounds that they've historically been far more concerned with staying in power and they've done that by keeping the people happy enough. Labor went in with some good ideas and a far superior approach to the election... they've just made some really awful decisions.
Best outcome I could see would be Labor getting the House of Representatives majority, then Labor and the Coalition around tied for reps in the Senate so the Greens and other independent reps would have a more important say. Labor's ideaology is generally more progressive, but the Libs have a rather useful tendency to sit back and wait for what the Nation has to say about it instead of acting like bullheaded idiots and pushing seriously bad legislation.
Re:Some obvious observations (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet is NOT media. It is a medium. Of course it should be treated differently to broadcast media.
We are talking about censoring COMMUNICATION here, not fraking superbowl commercials.
it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
Precisely, so what does this achieve? Why allow the Government to grant itself that much power over public discourse when there are already tools in place to address these concerns.
Re:GOOD! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Some obvious observations (Score:4, Interesting)
You think the state censoring racial hatred or child pornography in various forms of media is WRONG? I assume you're joking.
Yes and No I'm not joking.
Personally I believe documents on racial hatred reinforce existing racial hatred, it's ludicrous to suggest that they create it from scratch. I also don't feel that suppressing the relevant documents is effective, the history of religous persecution is ample evidence of this. Restricting access to the materials does make it difficult for those who oppose them to read it and address their grievances or develop counter tactics.
The argument for censorship in this matter is an argument for thought crime and I'm not sure it can be dismissed lightly. I don't give two hoots if someone wants to sit at home beating off to drawings of children. Having sex with a minor is a crime and anyone who does so should be charged. I haven't seen any solid evidence that the first leads to the second, there are reasonable arguments that porn provides an outlet which helps prevent the sexual act.
Re:Some obvious observations (Score:2, Interesting)
> So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it.
Totally wrong: there is *no* other "media" that is actively filtered, based either on content or source. That is what is different about this proposal. All other media comply with the legislation (mostly) because they'll get into trouble with the law if they don't. That is *good enough*.
> I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
Exactly. It's illegal essentially everywhere. Let the police get on with their job. Encourage them. Fund them with the proceeds of this policy, if you like. The police don't care what protocols you're using to break the law, and are therefore future-proof and much harder to circumvent.
Re:Some obvious observations (Score:3, Interesting)
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
You don't want to wait that happen. Eventually the government will become having a face so thick that they just outright lying to the citizens. China has already set the example, and I surely you don't follow the shit.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E8%BA%B2%E8%B2%93%E8%B2%93_(%E7%B6%B2%E8%B7%AF%E7%94%A8%E8%AA%9E) [wikipedia.org]
In 2009, a 24yo Man died while being detained. In the press release, official stated that the suspect died from head trauma by hitting the wall when playing hide-and-seek.
http://news.mylegist.com/1604/2010-03-01/21338.html [mylegist.com]
Two months ago, another man died while being detained. This time the reason given were he drank too much water - despite that there was a hole in the head, nipple and gential showed signs of abuse.
I am picking the two most obvious and well-known cases, there are many more unbelievable cases like that happening frequently. Although for both cases, the department in a higher hierarchy later came up and clarify the truth. But nevertheless, IMHO they crossed the line. Yet the Chinese couldn't really do anything besides chatting about it on the net. There is no way to replace the official, the government or the party without bleeding.
Going back to Australia and the other countries, you don't want to let your country to step out the first step - please defense your rights.
The "think of the children" is pointless, the child molester will find their way to get the actionable material no matter what, you think a filter or two will stop them? They are driven by the sexual desire and nothing can stop that - human is just another animal. Nor the filter could cure them either. Just like lock can only keep honest people honest - Internet filter in the national sense could only make your Internet experience more trouble, not those child molesters.
Once the government wins this, they will take a even more aggressive step and when you finally find out it's outright unacceptable - it will be too late - and welcome to join the Chinese.
Exercise your right while you still have it, and please protect it, treasure it.
Disclaimer: I'm a Hongkonger, but living in Shanghai.