Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×
Censorship Australia The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Government May Shelve Internet Filter 143

RobHart writes "It is reported that the proposed filters are seen as too toxic a policy to take to the next federal election — due later this year. This is according to a spokesman for the Greens party. A Labor senator has called for the filter to be opt-in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Government May Shelve Internet Filter

Comments Filter:
  • by mjwx (966435) on Friday June 18, 2010 @11:49AM (#32613708)

    http://tizona.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fosters-beer.jpg Beer (for impotent wombats)

    No one in Australia drinks fosters (not even sexually challenged marsupials). Fosters is only for export.

    Nothing is too bad for the rest of the world.

  • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:39PM (#32614368)
    Simple: They don't call it "rape" and "murder". Their culture considers male behaviour of that kind normal, especially when it comes to wives. I don't condemn them for it, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.
  • by slick7 (1703596) on Friday June 18, 2010 @12:43PM (#32614432)
    The numbers are low because the powers that be do not look at rape and honor killings as statistics. Rape is what happens to women of loose morals, honor killings is how you save face. So much for justice, women, honor and the Islamic way
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:24PM (#32615204)

    Because remember, if people do something wrong, there is no redemption whatsoever.

    Dropping a bill isn't redemption. Redemption requires issuing a public statement that the filter is a horrible idea (and why), an apology for frightening their constituents, and a promise that they will vote against any attempts to resurrect the compulsory filter. Merely saying, "We can't get to it until later," is a strong indicator that redemption has not occurred.

    The GP is right: they've shown their colours -- their present colours.

  • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Friday June 18, 2010 @01:34PM (#32615358)
    People have been speculating that the proposed filter will die stillborn for a long time.

    They are misguided on several counts:
    (1) Unless a double-dissolution election is called (and I'm not at all sure whether that can happen at this late stage), Sen. Conroy's seat is safe for another term.
    (2) This filter is a sacred cow of his, and his fellow nanny-stater MPs, including the Prime Minister.
    (3) The so-called "Liberal" opposition has frequently mentioned that it is in favour of such a policy, but knows well enough that people object to it enough that they will have to implement it by stealth after the election. In the meantime, all they have to do is let the Government's newfound unpopularity work for them.
    (4) The Greens, despite their many redeeming qualities, also have more than their fair share of nanny-staters who are happy to go along with such a filter.
    (5) We can count on minority right-wingers like Family First and a lot of independents also going along with it, again thinking of the damned children.

    I won't count this proposal disposed of until every last politician is burnt at the stake. We just can't depend on them to defend our interests.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton

Working...