Internet Censorship in Australia? 717
Enaku writes "Right wing Australian Christian political party Family First wants an annual levy of $7 to $10 on all internet users in Australia to fund a $45 million mandatory national internet filtering scheme aimed at blocking pornographic and offensive content at server level. (Read Family First's Policy Statement on Internet Pornography and Children (pdf) ) Great firewall of Australia, here we come!"
Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need a hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
See here's the thing about your bogus framing of the debate. There has never been an example of an atheist (outside of a Stalinist country) demanding a plaque declaring "There is NO god." be hung in every school. No children have been asked to declare God dead as part of a loyalty oath, in a political effort for immoral politicians to attempt to appear moral.
So give it a rest, Christ could use a day off from your imaginined persecution.
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:2, Interesting)
wrong there's an example right here ^
I'd demand a lot more, if only anyone would listen
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Militant, door to door atheists. (Score:5, Insightful)
When dealing with the "evolution is a religiuos belief" idiots, it's important for you not to give them this kind of ground on their sophistic confusion of science and faith. There's an important distinction between religion, which deals with the non-falsifiable, and science, which deals with the falsifiable. Read some Popper.
On the issue of evolution itself: the moment a Creationist asks for another antibiotic because they have a resistant bacterial infection, they are dealing with natural selection in real time. Disbelief in evolution won't save you from its effects.
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever.
Nobody but yourself is putting you on a cross.
So they started calling what some people called "Christmas vacation" "Winter Vacation".
Big fucking deal.
In the first place, it was called "Winter Solstice" long before Christianity coopted it.
In the second place, it has not a god damned thing to do with your religion because all the evidence points to Jesus (if he ever existed which there is very little evidence for)
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a response to. The issues discussed on that station have little to nothing to do with the subject at hand though.
Your Comments:"nobody gives a flying fuck what the particular details of your personal invisible friend are"
"how fucking psychotic would you have to be..."
And my personal favorite,"Tough shit you whiny little bitch."
There is nothing the least bit ignorant or even angry about my words.
I will admit that
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Informative)
Well that's not in bible! Thats one of SCIENCE theories that was taken from A greek scientist and rectified as absolute truth by catholic church, and when others proofed it false church kept it, as absolute truth since POPE has said it's the truth.
>When it comes to pointing out sinners, I like to reflect on the teachings of an old Jew. He said, >"Let he who is without sin cast the first sto
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is to try to get places like Indonesia and Sudan (over time) to use the same kinds of policies. That way, the Chri
Re:If you need a hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Christians, on the other hand, want you to be saved and believe that their teaching is your path. So do Jews, Muslims and members of any other religion that teaches belief to be the precursor (and often enough, sole precursor) of salvation.
Religions such as Buddhism and (IIRC) Skihism don't believe in an exclusive heaven. Buddhists have no defined beliefs,
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Interesting)
The significance of both are constructs in the mind of the viewer.. to the porn-seeker, the woman in the pic becomes a part-player in his imagination, to the believer, the suffering of Jesus becomes an atonement for our sins and his way becomes a path to enlightenment.
So a fit response to this would be to ban access to all religious sites.......
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Funny)
Hands up, all of us who'd like to see this guy's pr0n collection!
> The significance of both are constructs in the mind of the viewer.. to the porn-seeker, the woman in the pic becomes a part-player in his imagination, to the believer, the suffering of Jesus becomes an atonement for our sins and his way becomes a path to enlightenment.
Warning: Commentary on the psychological and neurophysiological parallels between sadomasochism and religious ecstasy will not emable you to get off (!) on the resulting obscenity charges should you attempt to film "THE PASSION OF JENNA: FLOGGED AND NAILED!"
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:3, Interesting)
Its just a counterpoint to their argument that porn is a direct cause of undesirable behaviour. I would say, like religion, that the effects on the individual stem more from the workings of their mind, and as a result their personality, than from the material itself.
Religion has created monsters as well as martyrs, while in societies where clothing isn't
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be modded as flamebait? You know what atheist fundamentalism sounds like when you read posts like, "Anything that gets those Christian bigots pissed off is fine by me." Christianity has spent years as a scapegoat for racism and bigotry. It's gratifying to clearly see that people act exactly the same without it. There are few things nothing funnier and more tragic
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but don't know of all that many 'fundamentalist' atheists, at least not in the modern western world. I've noticed a lot of the time fights against things susch as school prayer are portrayed as being anti-religion, as you seem to in a later post. Students are not banned praying in school, and it's rediculous to argue otherwise. What *is* banned is for the school
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:4, Funny)
There I was, the other day, peacefully walking down the road thinking about the Bible, when I was set upon by a gang of atheists with a movie projector, a gramaphone, a copy of Beethoven's 5th and eyelid forcers.
You won't believe the shit I'm into now.
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Bible, even Jesus cringes at public grovelling by Christians:
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matt 6:6)
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I consider a fundamentalis atheist. They pursue antireligion with religious fanatism.
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides I've probably danced more in church than many slashdotters at all
And probably when I dance there is more girls around than when slashdotters dance
And I just spend less attention to them than slashdotters would if one of them would just walk in front of them
>>Heh. Most christianity goes to bar and is secular, thats what happens when secularism is allowed in >>everywhere to spread to church and christianity is not allowed to influence the daily lifes of >>christians OUTSIDE of home and church.
>What's wrong with that? Keep your religion to yourself, why should others have to listen to your >gospels?
Well thats one thing, shutting others up because you don't wan't to listen to them.
That's U.S.S.R solution.
In west you just ignore its just noise, some times if there's too much noise, you just ask them to reduce the volume, or say your not interested. You don't have to listen. But there's difference of showing your not interested so that they won't bother you more, and go actively persecuting them so that they can't open their mouths to say their point of view.
One last note. In this whole thread I havent SINGLE time tried to tell about what gospel is, I do have right to say that but I did choose not to.
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:3, Insightful)
The term would seem to mean simply that one believes that not believing in deities is the most important thing one can do -- that this belief is the foundation on which his whole worldview is built. Lots of people throw the word "fundamentalist" around without stopping to figure out what it means.
The problem I have with "fundamentalists" of any stripe is that some of them never get around to building anything on top of that foundation. Lots of fundamentalist-${R
Re:Christian Fundamentalists Fuck Off (Score:3, Interesting)
If a giant hand came from the heavens and said "Hi! I'm God!", we'd find out in a hurry where the distinction was, because only one of the two groups has any attachment to the opinion of atheism.
Re:Name one atheist terrorist (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one to think that there are two contradictions in that sentence? If not, Ausse politics has got to be a confusing system...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The family first party is clearly a right wing party and is identified locally as such.
This party has been clearly shown to be essentially a front for the "Assemblies of God" church. See one of Australia's most popular political sites for an article on them [crikey.com.au]
They're right-wingers guys!
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yeah, but was the editor at Slashdot asleep? The story begins:
... whereas the original, article [news.com.au] (to which Enaku links!) begins:
(Capitalisation in original story too)
I know almost no-one on Slashdot bothers to RTFA any more, but please credit some of us with an ounce of brain.
Small L liberals (Score:5, Informative)
An important point here - the primary party of The Coalition is the Liberal Party, not the liberal party.
The Liberal Party are *not* liberal in the true sense of the word - they are on the conservative end of the political spectrum.
This has lead to Australians referring to "small L liberals" and "big L liberals", to differeiante between the two.
> The family first party is clearly a right wing party and is identified locally as such.
Yep, they're religious zealots of the worst kind. The only parties worse than them are One Nation and the Citizen's Electoral Council.
Re:Small L liberals (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Small L liberals (Score:3, Informative)
The CEC are anything but left wing. They are, in fact, a political cult formed around the conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche [wikipedia.org]. While it is true that LaRouche was at one stage a Marxist, he has since made the dizzying turn into far-right politics. He is anti-semitic, anti-Briti
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that obviously depends on what right/left scale you measure it on. If it is the "All things good are left-wing"-scale, and you believe that non-secular political organisations are evil, well, then they are clearly right-wing.
Another often used scale (in european politics, at least) is the "more/less immigration-friendly". This is not a fully conscious use, but more of a consequence of the lefts need to group everybody immigration-s
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm represented by Liberals at the provincial and federal levels. The former loudly proclaimed during an all-candidates meeting that homosexual relationships are an "affront to God." The latter promised to champion against pro-choice bills, no matter what party policy might dictate.
Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why is the Internet Industry allowed to avoid their responsibilities on this?"
Why the hell aren't you watching your kids? What the hell ever happened to active parenting? If you don't want your kids to see such content then keep them off the damn internet,or at least monitor what they do online.....Furthermore, filtering may do more harm than good by keeping useful information blocked anyway............The "internet industry" is composed of a hell of a lot of people, and there is no one person to lay such responsibility on anyway.....The internet is not a cable tv show or a movie - it wasn't designed with a ratings system in mind.........
I found it odd that they cite plenty of numbers on how often kids had accessed pornography, the survey simply stated -
In November last year Dr Michael Flood of the Australia Institute cited a new study showing that concerns about pornography and children were warranted: "Children who regularly see violent pornography are more likely to be sexually aggressive and to believe that sexual abuse is normal".
What study? What percentages? What numbers?
Finally, From TFA -
"This may have the result of putting cost pressures on some of the smaller ISPs, but there are arguably too many of these at the moment, and adequate competition could be maintained with 30 ISPs rather than the hundreds in existence now," it said.
Screw the small guys, huh?
(Sorry bout the long rant, can't sleep
-thewldisntenuff
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:2)
It's slightly comforting to know that there are other countries where some very puritan ideals are also being put forth (unfavorably, yes)
Just associate it with China, a communist state, that will make people _not_ want it
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Their dad's closet, underneath shoeboxes of tax returns? The young miss section of the Sears catalog?
Saved me in pre-internet days.
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a disturbing trend i've seen lately - in everything from books, magazines, TV shows, to the Internet. Some people seems to be convinced it's better to ban everything questionable / politically incorrect instead of acknowgleding responsability as a parent and keeping your kids from seeing stuff you don't want them exposed to.
Ultimately, these actions have little effect because of the nature of Internet itself; there's always a way of bypassing restrictions, even at firewall level. Never mind the grown up, conscious adults that have the legal right to fed themselves of all the porn they want. No one thinks of them either
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once she becomes an adult, she will be free to decide herself what she looks at. Where do you stop when you begin to censor things.
I also find it amusing that those shouting that Christians are bigoted and trying to censor what they can see, are trying to censor the Christians (IANAC).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you want to look at porn, you can. If you want to bitch at people because they are looking at porn, you can. If you want to be part of a political party that tries to impose a tax to prevent minors from being exposed to porn, you can. It's your right as a human being to do those things, even if someone else finds them morally objectionable.
Live with it....
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling someone that they're wrong and that they should shut their incorrect pie-holes isn't censorship, it's free speech. Now, if the government was asking for $7 to $10 from each person to spend on efforts to silence these Christians, well, yeah, that would be censorship. In the meantime, just as it's this group's right to argue for censoring the in
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Interesting)
But hey, lets take this even further, let's also demand everyone wear helmets everywhere they go...walking, biking, driving a car...I mean, it only makes sense to wear helmets because you never know if you'll slip and hit your head...and of course you'll be better protected in a car accident! Let's push for mandatory helmets for everyone everywhere now! Remember Dr. Atkins? He'd be alive today if he were only wearing his helmet!
Give me a break...
George Carlin said it best:
Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk
I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore, children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children." You
know what I say? Fuck the children!
They're getting entirely too much attention. And I know what some of you are thinking: " Jesus, he's not going to attack children, is he?" Yes he is! He's going to attack children. And remember, this is Mr. Conductor talking; I know what I'm talking about.
And I also know that all you boring single dads and working moms, who think you're such fucking heros, aren't gonna like this, but somebody's gotta tell you for your own good: your children are overrated and overvalued, and you've turned them into little cult objects. You have a child fetish, and it's not healthy. And don't give me all that weak shit, "Well, I love my children." Fuck you! Everybody loves their children; it doesn't make you special. : : : John Wayne Gacy loved his children. Yes, he did. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is this constant, mindless yammering in the media, this neurotic fixation that suggests that somehow everything--everything--has to revolve around the lives of children. Ist's completely out of balance.
Listen, there are a couple of things about kids you have to remember. First of all, they're not all cute. In fact, if you look at 'em real close, most of them are rather unpleasant looking. And a lot of them don't smell too good either. The little ones in particular seem to have a kind of urine and sour-milk combination that I don't care for at all. Stay with me on this folks, the sooner you face it the better off your going to be.
Second, premise: not all chidren are smart and clever. Got that? Kids are like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lot of losers! This country is filled with loser kids who simply...aren't...going anywhere! And there's nothing you can do about it, folks. Nothing! You can't save them all. You can't do it. You gotta let 'em go; you gotta cut 'em loose; you gotta stop over-protecting them, because your making 'em too soft.
Nuff said...
OK..not nuff said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Today's kids are way too soft. : : : For one thing, there's too much emphasis on safety and safety equipment: childproof medicine bottles, fireproof pajamas, child restraints, car seats. And helmets! Bicycle, baseball, skateboard, scooter helmets. Kids have to wear helmets now for everything but jerking off. Grown-ups have taken all the fun out of being a kid. : : : What's happened is, these baby boomers, these soft, fruity baby boomers, have raised an entire generation of soft, fruity kids who aren't
even allowed hazardous toys, for Chrissakes! What ever happened to natural selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!
Another bunch of ignorant bullshit about your children: school uniforms. Bad theory! The idea that if kids wear uniforms to school, it helps keep order. Hey! Don't these schools do enough damage makin' all these children think
alike? Now they're gonna get 'em to look alike, too? : : : And it's not even a new idea; I first saw it in old newsreels from the 1930s, but it was hard to understand, because the narration was in German! But the uniforms looked beautiful. And the children did everything they were told and never questioned authority. Gee, I wonder why someone would want to put our children in uniforms. Can't imagine.
And one more item about children: this superstitous nonsense of blaming tobacco companies for kids who smoke. Listem! Kids don't smoke because a camel in sunglasses tells them to. They smoke for the same reasons adults do, because it's an enjoyable activity that relieves anxiety and depression.
And you'd be anxious and depressed too if you had to put up with these pathetic, insecure, yuppie parents who enroll you in college before you've figured out which side of the playpen smells the worst and then fill you with Ritalin to get you in a mood they approve of, and drag you all over town in search of empty, meaningless structure: Little League, Cub Scouts, swimming, soccer, karate, piano, bagpipes, watercolors, witchcraft, glass blowing, and dildo practice. It's absurd. : : : They even have "play dates", for Christ sake! Playing is now done by appointment! But it's true. A lot of these striving, and parents are burning their kids out on structure. I think what every child needs and ought to have every day is two hours of daydreaming. Plain old daydreaming.
Turn off the internet, the CD-ROMS, and the computer games and let them stare at a tree for a couple of hours. Every now and then they actually come up with one of their own ideas.
You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone.
Thanks George!
Re:OK..not nuff said... (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, a couple of years ago, one of his daughters got old enough to fly from the family nest, and moved from her home state to WA, where I live. A few weeks later I get a phone call from the in-laws because daughter has stopped phoning home and they're worried, would I drop by her plac
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do agree with the more harm than good argument later in your comment (and I'm still wondering what gruesome fate exactly it is people think awaits any young Homo sapiens that get to witness normal procreation in their own species before well after sexual maturity), I'm getting really tired of that "it's up to the parents" line. It's such blantantly illogical cop-out.
When people worry publically about some supposed effect on children, it is (or pretends t
Re:Oh the Humanity! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called being a smart consumer. Having the government get involved in censorship rarely has the limited scope people really want. All too often government officals tak
Surprise, surprise. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Pharmboy, get it now? [slashdot.org]
Left wing ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
free speech
real democracy
respect for other people
This is a new form of "left wing" that I was previously unaware of.
Re:Left wing ?? (Score:2)
I take it you slept through the entire 20th century then.
The word "far"... (Score:2)
Re:Left wing ?? (Score:2)
The wings (left and right) only want that when they arn't in power.
Re:Left wing ?? (Score:2)
you should go read some books
socialism doesn't start with concentration camps, that's where it ends
The UK Govt. is left wing, didn't see them respecting Iraqi's, Afgahni's and they are pushing through biometric systems for passports and healthcare (yes, visit the doctor and provide a biometric sample before he'll see you!).
Though, tbh, all powerful political parties gravitate toward centrist policies over time, as a method of negating the differences between them and their opposition.
Democracy results i
heh (Score:4, Informative)
It shouldn't come as a surprise to slashdot readers ... the two organizations that are down on violent video games (both often mentioned here) are the Lion and the Lamb project (left-leaning outfit) and the National Institute on Media and the Family (right-leaning outfit). Guess which one supports (unconstitutional) legislation limiting sales of violent videogames? I'll give you a hint : it's not the right-leaning one.
Also, the US is probably one of the most right-leaning industrialized nations, and also has the best free speech protections of all of them.
Re:heh (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it has to do with left or right. In germany for example both left and right have a tendency to mix in peoples lives and want to regulate everything, "protect" people for themselves etc.
The anglo saxon countries in particular are over sensitive when it comes to sex (but not to other areas that might warrant regulation), however in the US this is overridden by indeed a higher esteem for free speech and/or mistrust for central government (depending on how you look at it).
Re:Left wing ?? (Score:3, Informative)
This entire thread should be slapped as "TROLL" - none of you READ THE FSCKING ARTICLE.
CONSERVATIVE political newcomer Family First wants an annual levy of $7 to $10 on all internet users to fund a $45 million mandatory national internet filtering scheme aimed at blocking pornographic and offensive content at server level.
"CONSERVATIVE" and "LEFT WING" are antithetical.
Re:Left wing ?? (Score:3, Informative)
They are socially conservative, being the political arm of one of Australia's largest evangelical groups, and have no real stance on economic issues. Their main aim is to move their evangelism into the political aren
Reminds me of a bash quote: (Score:5, Funny)
<factorial_nine> GOOD LUCK, BITCH.
I think that it's applicable
I know people..::cough:: that wouldn't use the internet if they couldn't get pr0n off it
Rightwing vs Leftwing (Score:5, Informative)
right wing! (Score:2, Informative)
Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
Family First admitted the cost of the filtering scheme could be prohibitive for small ISPs, but said the scheme should proceed regardless.
We wish to practice futility at the cost of other families' livelihood?
But seriously, is this possible? Is it even legal under current law?
100% agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
i 100% agree. we should start by blocking the bible. it's full of obscene, graphically explicit sexual passages and extreme violence.
there's plenty of examples of people exhibiting disturbed, aggressive and sexualized behaviour after reading the bible.
if porn is going to be filtered, there can be no exceptions. no online bible for you!
Ban the bible? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:100% agreed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:100% agreed (Score:3, Funny)
For those who have not caught the joke, please load the images
Re:100% agreed (Score:4, Informative)
What else is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
All in the name of family and children, of course.
Anyone else think (Score:2)
Fuck politics, and politicians.
Re:Anyone else think (Score:2)
Actually I take that back. I would never, ever touch that Andrea chick. Ever.
That is wannabe leftwings (Score:2)
Real leftwings are atheists, not some crazy christians. Many parties in the world say they are leftwing and have a profile that looks like its leftwing - but in reality they work for rightwing ideals (like religion, capitalism, etc) - its a way of gaining votes. In their proposal of internet-filtering I say it is their conservative christian ideas you are witnessing, and the leftwing part beeing "offtopic".
Re:That is wannabe leftwings (Score:2, Interesting)
How are real leftwings atheists? That's just like saying all Christians are fundamentalist. Just because someone doesn't believe in god/s, doesn't mean they necessarily believe in government-sponsored healthcare and that which makes up leftist ideology.
There is no reason an atheist cannot believe in a small government that likes to promote a large military and whatnot.
Much of politics has little to do with religion at all. Sure, politicians love to speak of God and such to keep most o
Christian Nutters (Score:2, Interesting)
so lets see (Score:2)
However, they're not expected to win very many (if any) seats in the Senate. (They've got exactly *one* elected representative anywhere at the moment, a member of the South Australian Legislative Council.
It's a fringe policy of a fringe party, who are going to have zero power in the forseeable future. Why is this considered newsworthy?
Re:so lets see (Score:3, Insightful)
Although spreading their message might not be a good idea if you argue that talking about them gains them support just because people hear about them.
Censoring the Internet is like. (Score:5, Insightful)
Both are information tools, use them with care.
Possible origin of 'left wing' misunderstanding. (Score:4, Informative)
In Australia, the 'Liberals' are the right-wing party, something that confuses many septics (not that that's difficult
'Fuck the children'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck the children.
This is the job of the parents, and the blame for any problems due to lack of supervision lie squarely with them. I'm not paying a red cent for anyone elses irresponsibility.
Thankfully, Fundies like this dont really have much of a say in politics down here, so hopefully this wont really be heard anywhere outside of
Don't Fear the Neo-Christian Party (Score:5, Informative)
#2 - they'll get this past on a cold day in hell, read their comments about smaller ISPs for instance (eg they're expendable - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/27/net_levy/ [theregister.co.uk]
It's an attention seeking episode imho
This plan blows (Score:5, Insightful)
Exposure to pornography (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up in the days before the Internet. Was I exposed to pornography? Yes. In fact most, if not all, of my contemporaries were exposed to pornography. Where did this pornography come from? Well believe it or not, there was a time when pornographic material came in these things called magazines. That's right - magazines!
What used to happen is that one kid would nick one of these magazines and bring it to school. Everyone else would borrow said magazines (the rest is left as an exercise for the reader).
The interesting point is where these magazines came from. Strangers on the streets? No. Mad pornographers trying to hook impressionable kids on their filthy wares? No. Evil devil worshippers and socialists trying to destroy the fabric of society? No. The magazines were nicked from - you guessed it - parents.
Teenagers and adults have always sought out erotic material. It was magazines in my day, the Internet today. Family First, nor any other right wing party, are not going to be changing that fact of life too soon.
One last thing - if you are Australian and interested in IT related policy issues (mandating open file formats, IT procurement policies, censorship etc) please consider voting for the Australian Democrats - if not for the House of Reps then the Senate. Yes they've taken a pounding, but they remain the only party in Australian politics that are dedicated to ensuring accountability in Government and the only party that has aggresively pursued IT policy. Yes some of the others are trying to jump on board the OSS bandwagon (Greens, ALP etc), however the only party to have looked at these issues seriously, and proposed legislation are the Democrats. When they go - so will an accountable Senate.
Why is Christianity associated with conservatism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings us to the present day. You can disagree with my theology if you want, but flipping back to Genesis, wasn't the fundamental idea that God gave Adam and Eve freedom, freedom to do wrong and make errors, so that they would love Him for Him, not out of necessity? There were certainly consequences of wrongdoing, but the role of punisher was God's and God's only and fundamentally, humankind was given the freedom to choose (we chose poorly). Isn't it yet another misrepresentation of Christianity to associate it with repression? Not only is personal morality God's business, He has decided that it is wrong to stifle choice because it doesn't inspire true faith.
Of course, Christianity holds that pornography is wrong. But to politicize its message has only ever messed it up.
Re:Why is Christianity associated with conservatis (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a strain of Christian thought that through history has emphasized a distinction between Christianity and Religion, per se. Of course, we don't hear this emphasized by the religious Christian groups today as it has generally been championed by those who have resisted the status quo (Of more recent note, cf. Karl Barth and other Neo-orthodox who rallied against old Christian Liberalism that clung to the state and endorsed pretty much anything that came from it, including horrid old doctrines like Eugenics; or cf. the whole Liberation Theology movement in present day Latin America and elsewhere).
It's so ironic that theological conservatives are today the ones who are quickly willing to side with big government and do things like try to legislate rules on marriage to push their own moral world view on others. The earliest Christians, renowned for their anti-establishment conservativism (no Ceasar worship?! Gasp!!) were pacifists in the truest sense.
When the early Christians had a problem with abortion (contemporary forms of the practice), they didn't kill people for it, they waited at the dumps and adopted what children they could.
And now, I sit in Sunday School, and listen to people who honestly believe that if Jesus were here today, he would be writing his senators and politicking on trendy moral issues. It burns me the hell up to have Jesus rendered so trite and tied entirely to local drama. Have they ever even read the damn book they talk about so much?
So, instead of just complaining and throwing in the towel, I now teach Sunday School, and I teach about Jesus and use his words which sound oddly out of place in my Baptist church. It gets me in trouble, and some days I really really want to quit, but also on rare occassions, it turns on lights and people begin to see that there is a difference between Christianity (following Christ) and Religion (the polical, moral, and pop psychology package) and maybe the world is a little better place.
What else would a Geek with a degree in theology do? There's an itch; it needs to be scratched.
Re:Why is Christianity associated with conservatis (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically put: It's not the christians as individuals that are perpetuating the conservative line, but the organizations that are in power.
It turns out that an organization's level of conservatism is usually related to how large/powerful the group is. Playing it conservative helps preserve things the way they are now, which is beneficial to the people on top.
Think abo
ERR WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Family first is a FAR RIGHT party!
Not left!
David
Re:ERR WRONG! (Score:3, Interesting)
The two moderate-right parties (liberal - in government and labour - in opposition) would never be stupid enough to agree to something like this.
Yes, if Family First ended up holding the balance in the upper house, things would be fucked, but not this fucked.
Re:ERR WRONG! (Score:3, Funny)
anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-corporal punishment, anti-porn, anti-free speech, pro-family.
The list goes on.
The funny thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, he can't have been doing such a great job if the Family First party popped up. Ignore the submitter's insistance they're left wing - they're far from it. In fact, their main political rival is the Australian Greens, for their support of gay marriage.
The thought of equity in Australian society scares the shit out of these christian extremists. That's probably why they want to censor the internet now - god help us if a 15 year old sees some porn, it's going to unravel the very fabric of our "christian" society!
party lines.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"can you imagine extreme greens running the show? it'd be chaos!"
gee, I dunno which would be worse, people making deals to save the old growth forests in Tasmania, or people making deals to censor freely available information.
'no political dealmakers' indeed!
Why block at server level? (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone in Aus finds one of these Family First people, ask if they believe in higher taxes to help the world's poor. If people have control of their web habits, they will be tempted to look at porn. Likewise if people have control of their money, they will be tempted to sin by spending it selfishly. If the government should remove the temptation of porn, shouldn't it also remove the temptation of money?
My 2c (well, email to Family First Party) (Score:4, Interesting)
I was horrified to read in the news today details of your misguided
policy on instituting a Internet filtering system to block
pornographic and other offensive material on the Internet.
This policy is blatant pandering to lazy parents who wish others to
take the responsibility of properly supervising and raising their
children. I don't deny that pornographic material can be accessed on
the Internet, but having been an active Internet user for many years,
there have been only two occasions where I have accidentally
encountered advertisements for pornographic material. Hardly "easy to
stumble across".
Furthermore, I was flabbergasted at your easy dismissal of the burden
that would be faced by many smaller ISP's and that it doesn't matter
if you drive them out of business, because there "too many of these at
the moment". Never mind that this would negatively impact hundreds or
thousands of families (who I thought you were about putting "first"?).
It could perhaps be argued that Australia has too many political
parties, and that "competition could be maintained" with a lesser
number (like Family First, for example).
You quote figures that 73% of boys and 11% of girls have watched
X-Rated videos, but only 38% and 2% have deliberately sought out sites
on the Internet. So, according to these figures, MORE teenagers have
seen an X-rated video than have sought out Internet pornography.
Surely then your policy should be addressing the alarming numbers of
teenagers viewing these pornographic videos! Or then again, it's
quite possible that teenagers will view pornography any way they can.
You also note that poor uptake of end user filtering. Were there
reasons for this poor uptake? If it's lack of knowledge of the option
then you should perhaps be concentrating on educating the public to
use an existing system.
The policy also states we "acknowledge the need to regulate other
media". Regulation and censorship are two completely different things
- at least with regulation adults can still access legal pornography.
I dislike censorship; because you do not want "the" children to see
pornography does not make it right for you to restrict adults from
this. If parents do not want their children to access pornography,
they can take the appropriate steps. I do not believe it is the right
policy to inflict your censorship on everyone in Australia, whilst
increasing their tax burden (on those poor families again!)
If you are determined to provide an Internet without pornographic and
offensive material, an alternative, cheaper and far more preferable
solution would be for you to either set up, or arrange to set up, your
own ISP. Families would be free to use your ISP, knowing that their
Internet access it is filtered at ISP level, and the rest of us can
use the Internet free of your odious attempts at censorship.
Yours faithfully
I'm scared (Score:3, Interesting)
The current censorship/ratings/whatever mess that exists in Australia now was introduced to appease Brian Harradine, a senator who held such a balance of power in the senate a few years ago. The Government did it so he'd pass their telecommunications privatisation legislation.
These guys would be worse.
as with all (Score:3, Informative)
I am tired of Christians dictating morality to me. (Score:3)
99% of them are child molesters or some other version of pervert, or adulters or drunks or drug abusers or...... They run around foaming at the mouth about God then run home, get drunk, smoke some dope and poke the little boy next door in the booty while reading a copy of Hustler.
I'm against pornography because it degrades women and I'm 101% against kiddie porn/molesters, child molesters are mentally ill and should be put to death. I'm a parent and grand parent so don't say anything to me about that, I would *kill* anyone that touches my kids or grandkids.
They have ways to detect, track down and arrest child pornographers. Leave that process to the police. But don't dictate with a broad brush what people can and can not see. I find it particularly offensive that a religious organization is allowed the status of a political party. And they find it offensive that I take offense to them. So they will dictate that I am not allowed to view dissenting materials of alternative political parties. It's their TRUE GOAL to convert, my force of law, the country into a religious Garden of Eden, as they see it in their limited minds.
Just like the CDU (Christian Democrats) in Germany or the Christian Family First in Australia or the Christian Neo-con right wingers in America. No religion has the right to impose it's will or morality upon anyone.
When a country seeks to silence dissenters from the approved party line, you have a dictatorship.
Total bunkum. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nutter right wing Christians... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:XXX Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Some judge somewhere would determine that Maximonline.com should be in the XXX domain. Some other judge might even determine that www.theonion.com should be under the XXX domain. I've seen penises there.
The best approach is to simply put some