Australia Plans to Censor the Internet 523
MAXOMENOS writes "The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net." Yeah this is gonna work really really. It's working
out great in China after all.
well damn... (Score:3, Funny)
vk.
Re:well damn... (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, don't you think it would blow your plans for www.eplanyourviolentprotestcentral.com.au?
How 'bout a Violent Protest Wizzard? (Score:2)
Re:How 'bout a Violent Protest Wizzard? (Score:2)
Another horrible loss of rights (Score:5, Interesting)
When we chose to have freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech in our rights and freedoms, we chose to enshrine it, for better or for worse; to take the good with the bad. That's right, we chose to occasionally hear or read utterances of foul words such as nigger [m-w.com], or other words of hatred or obscenity because within the realms of free speech also lie enlightened and uplifting works, such as those of Plato, Charles Dickens, or Danielle Steel.
If the politicians see fit to take away rights from us, or from any other country for that matter, we still lose. Why's that? Because of the nature of the internet, we are all censored. The problem with censoring hate speech is the potential for continual erosion of speech rights. Next after hate speech, is critical speech. Take Russia for example, where a show named Kukli depicting political satire has been banned from television because of its critical nature. I repeat, this sort of thing is bad for all of us.
Re:Another horrible loss of rights (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That's not how it works in a democracy, or most republics for that matter.
When free speech and freedom of expression interfere with others' rights, they are rightly subject to dissolution.
When organizations try to protest a group (whether it is a genetic engineering conference, world bank meeting) or individuals (abortion clinic patients) from engaging in their rights by preventing their freedoms, it does not serve the public interests or help anyone's personal liberties.
Re:Another horrible loss of rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Caution must always be applied in the use of censorship. However, every state should be allowed the ability to prevent what it considers crime. If a website is complicit in some sort of criminal activity, then it should be shut down, by the same laws that apply to all other media.
What we should be worried about is who decides what material is considered criminal. I wouldn't consider these sort of decisions a loss of rights, as the reason behind them is to protect people and property from violence.
--T. Metcalf
We never know the worth of water until the well is dry.
Re:Another horrible loss of rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another horrible loss of rights (Score:2)
Your hair splitting is worrisome (Score:5, Insightful)
So in theory, in America, a website might be considered illegal if it were instructing protesters to take violent actions. But even in this, U.S. courts have at various times (though certainly not always) proved extremely conservative about what an "instruction" is - as a general rule, "let's teach the bastards a lesson" doens't qualify; not even "bring your baseball bats" would. The former could be considered rhetorical or non-specific, and the latter doesn't tell anyone what to do with the bats (could be self-defense, for instance). Only speech which names names, places, or specific acts in a totally clear and unambiguous way, such as "John, attack any police who come into your sector with rocks" has tended to qualify the speaker as a party to a conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
Despite this unprecedently liberal view of free speech, America has not degenerated into anarchy, much to the chagrin of a number of European political philosophers.
In the case of the websites being shut down, there are no examples of what qualifies, only a vague reference to anti-WTO organizations. Though anti-WTO protests have a repuation for violence, the organizations behind them are uniformly peaceful in nature and advocate nothing other than non-violent demonstration and, only at the most absolute extreme, vandalism or traffic violations. The most polite thing we can say is that it's often "unclear" whether or not the police or the protesters are the source of the violence in a given incident. Being more impolite, it seems that law enforcement is sent out in anti-protest activities with instructions that virtually guarantee violence ("There's a gang of young drugged-out commie agitators out there frightening citizens and stopping traffic. Here's all the clubs, pepper spray, and tear gass you need. We stand behind whatever actions you need to take 100%.") Telling it like it is, quite often the peaceful protestors get the shit gassed and jackbooted out of them without provocation, and when they post bail and go home, they see on the news that they were "violent" and thus, deserved it. Congratulations freshman, you've just passed Authoritarian Propaganda 101.
But I digress. It appears that by U.S. standards the interdictions being considered in Australia would be in gross violation of the 1st Amendment. Obviously territorial sovereignty means this should give an Australian politician little pause. But there is also relevant international law and widely-recognized (or so we all claim at Christmas) international declarations of human rights, which muddy the waters somewhat. Unfortunately, this doesn't give politicians much pause either - in the 1st world or the 3rd.
Ultimately, the American interpretation of the right of free speech is so strict because of constant and blatant experience with the abuse of police power to intimidate and silence political dissent - a totally undemocratic and illegal practice in almost every 1st world country... but politicians and police tend not to have themselves arrested and tried for it.
The bottom line is that (at least up until now - I don't want to speculate about the future) we've pretty much backed off silencing political speech in the U.S., no matter how inflamatory. The infamous example is the Nuremberg Files website [christiangallery.com], a hideous screed containing a list of abortion practitioners, where names are crossed off when one is murdered. Again - no specific instructions to murder any of them, so, despite a rough ride through the courts (this one is about as close as you can shave it), it is still running.
Americans do it this way because history has unambiguously taught them that what little reduction in "dangerous" activity you might get from trying to silence "dangerous" speech (and believe me, you don't get much) is far outweighed by the immense damage these things do to a functioning democracy.
Incidentally - when democracy breaks down, that's when you really get violence.
I think you're a poster child for propaganda. The moral of this story, as old as government itself, is that those in power will call any protest action "violent" or "illegal" in order to simultaneously suppress it and discredit it. Often, police agent provocateurs are even sent into a demonstration with instructions to commit violence themselves and urge others to as well, as "insurance" against particularly well organized protest groups. And that's happened in America. A loss of rights? Shutting the anti-WTO websites down because they "incite violence" is a classic case.
Please clarify (Score:3, Insightful)
Our concern is angry but peaceful political speech being intentionally mislabeled as an "incitement to violence" in order to silence it. I suspect this is the case literally, but regardless, the reasoning stands:
We are talking about people in the act of doing violence against an army of police. We don't need to split hairs over "dangerous" speech. You're already holding a big umbrella to protect yourself from the storm; don't try to arrest the wind for blowing it in your direction. Why? a) Stifling political speech is about as hard as arresting the wind - you still get the protest, b) The censorship powers are uniformly abused, c) the end result is the same, except with censorship your "democracy" loses its legitimacy.
Just as we say it is better to let a hundred criminals go free than one innocent be punished, we say it is a better society that looks bravely into the face of dangerous speech than one that cowers, like the Chinese, behind a firewall, against the perils of democratic ideals. This is not some idealistic caprice - these are hard-won and time-tested ideas.
If this is actually a case where there is a group openly and specifically organizing violent criminal acts against the police on the web, it's the exception that proves the rule. If that were the case, however, I'd expect (and hope, actually) to see real arrests and real trials, not administrative decisions and arbitrary censorship.
Re:Another horrible loss of rights (Score:2)
Is this protected speech? What is the difference between this and websites that organize violent protests? Do you just like the politics of one better than the other?
-jon
I have read The Republic. (Score:2)
Sarcasm? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure I get it? It IS working pretty effectively in China, right? I sent some links recently about the Uighur Turks in Xinjiang (Sinkiang)province to some Chinese friends (living in America) who kept up with Chinese news sources via the web and they had never heard of anything in these articles (the existence of a Uighur Independence movement, bombings in Xinjiang, protests in the capital city of Xinjiang, etc).
It seems to me that China's censorship works pretty damn well!
Re:Sarcasm? (Score:2)
China blocking: real time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sarcasm? (Score:2)
Re:Sarcasm? (Score:2)
Retaliation (Score:5, Funny)
So in response, will the US violently ban Crocodile Hunter from TV? God I hope so...
Heh (Score:2)
Re:Retaliation (Score:2)
You just have to get used to the idea that they are very timid spiders and if the rare case occurs that one bites you, the worst you will get is something ranging from an itchy flea bite type of mark to a low level of local pain.
When it's raining outside, and I see a small'ish one, I often just grab him/her (bare hands) and bring it itside. Although I can only do this with the small ones (3-4cm across), as the big ones do instinctively freak me out a bit if they run across me (they are just so damn fast it is startling).
I read somewhere that
I'd rather spend a night in with a hairy eight legged friend than with a member of our lying bastard government.
Re:Retaliation (Score:2)
I don't invite redbacks, funnel web or white tail spiders into my home though! They can kinda ruin you day, like the way OBL would probably like to.
: )
I recently held for the first time a python, which was a very enlightening experience. I could feel her breathing and even heard her take a deep "sigh" kind of breath. She felt incredible. I'd love to have a python if it weren't for the fact that I think they probably like to eat live food. I can't bring myself to kill some poor litte mice.
The Great Firewall of Australia (Score:4, Interesting)
Can somebody with a clue about Australian law an politics explain what recource the Australian citizens have against this measure?
Re: (Score:2)
I said it before I say it again (Score:2, Interesting)
You must presume .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You must presume .... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is fine if a website openly advocates violence. What about websites that advocate non-violent protests that are likely to lead to violence, or imply support for violence rather than explictyly supporting it. What about non-violent but illegal protest (Gandhi broke a LOT of laws and went to prison for it).
I suspect that a lot of non-violent protest will be suppressed too, especially if they belong to groups that are a real nuisance to the authorities ("anti-globalization" and anticapitalist sites for example).
As the parent post says this is going to lead to a lot of presumtions being made.
Europe, too! (Score:2, Insightful)
And these days, anything said that doesn't go along with the ideas of the majority or the most vocal is considered hate speech.
Re:Europe, too! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, anything said that is hateful or elicits violent and/or opressive behavior against people is considered hate speech. It just so happens that as of the last 50 years or so this doesn't go along with the ideas of of the majority of the civilized world. So rest assured that you wouldn't be arrested for complaining about taxes, or whatever other poorly reasoned ideas you had in mind.
Re:Europe, too! (Score:2, Offtopic)
So does that mean (Score:5, Funny)
Any Aussies wanna explain the local polibabble? (Score:5, Interesting)
E-Crime Law Reform Working Party,
What, like a political party?
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg
So.... he's, like, the justice minister in the opposition's shadow cabinet?
A police ministers meeting in Darwin
WTF is a police minister? You have more than one? Is that like a District Attorney, like a chief of police, or something? It's a cabinet post?
Senator Ellison's decision to give the new Australian Crime Commission the power to investigate cyber crime.
I thought you had a parliament? Why is a Senator handing out new police powers, anyway?
I assume that the ACC is your shiny new sinister agency in charge of government repression.
Re:Any Aussies wanna explain the local polibabble? (Score:5, Funny)
Because the Emperor has just ordered the Imperial Senate disbanded, and the senator in question made grand moff. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station!
Re:Any Aussies wanna explain the local polibabble? (Score:5, Informative)
Is a council of the relevant cabinet members in the six state governments (and the two territories), and the federal government, to coordinate their reponse to the "monstrous threat of E-crime".
Is the opposition Party's spokesperson on justice matters. Yes, he's in the shadow cabinet.
The minister responsible for the oversight of police. Each of the six state governments has one. Yes it's a little strange, but law and order is one of the state government's major responsibilities. They aren't a chief of police, they are politicians (but here the chief of police isn't an elected position so the political element of a US police chief's role is handled by the minister).
Either this is something that can be done by regulation (ministerial decree, essentially) or the legislation will get through Parliament without much debate (which seems likely if all the States have agreed to it as well, as every single state and territory government is run by the party in opposition federally at the moment).
Even in the holy US of A... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with the Australian move is not so much that it's anathema to free speech as it is stupid, much like the White House "encouraging" the craven networks not to broadcast Osama bin Laden's tape because it might have secret signals in it (more likely that was a cover story for plain old political reasons). There are far too many routes of alternative communication to make such measures any more than symbolic.
As the great Justive Homer would have said, "D'oh."
Re:Even in the holy US of A... (Score:3, Interesting)
There was way too much information that the media covered, as usual. I'm surprised the snipers were actually caught with the amount of detailed information that the media put out. ("Well, he's not shooting kids, so they're safe." Next day: "Oh, he just shot a kid!")
da Media (Score:2)
With the snipers, it's not widely known that the final descriptions of them and their car, including license plate, that were broadcast and which led to their identification by a trucker, we "leaked" to the media. Some of the press noticed, however, that the leaks were coming from a lot of different directions, suggesting that's what law enforcement wanted. Publicity was generally managed carefully but erred on the side of openness because with the snipers the gov't really needed citizen help (I live in Arlington, VA).
So both sides use each other -- symbiosis.
Re:Even in the holy US of A... (Score:2)
But then IANAL, thank goodness
Re:Even in the holy US of A... (Score:2)
Before or after the violent action is actually commited? In other words, is this pre-emptive law enforcement? We arrest you now for nothing to keep you from maybe doing something actually bad tomorrow?
Oddly enough, this is amongst the many wonderful pieces of logic used to justify Prohibitions I and II here in the States.
Anyway, rereading the article, this is not about applying criminal penalties after the fact. This is simply censorship ("...will look at upgrading federal powers to block certain websites.") of anything the Aussie government deems 'used to organize protests'. It is no different than banning the use of printing presses to print things that are 'dangerous'.
Re:Even in the holy US of A... (Score:2)
The article is about Australia, which may have different rules.
Re:Even in the holy US of A... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, it has been complete peaceful -- which is not odd, since absolutely no one had suggested any violence whatsoever. The only question was whether the CPD was going to instigate violence, but then with all the publicity they set up there were cameras everywhere. Not that most media won't bend over backwards to avoid showing police violence. But they were actually interupting programming to cover the protest, and the number of police were roughly equal to the number of protesters.
Anyway, it was hard for me to understand why the police and city government would do such a thing. The protest was looking to be pretty minor and not well organized -- the CPD practically saved it. Of course, they did it through fear-mongering (but there's no such thing as bad publicity, yada yada -- some will argue with that, of course).
But I've noticed, especially reading comments here and elsewhere, that a large portion of people have fallen under the sway of these reports. They believe that the protesters are violent thugs, even though by far most violence is caused by police. They believe these protesters are like locusts, who come into their cities and disrupt and destroy before moving on.
I suspect that the government is trying to sway people into thinking that empassioned political speach is inherently violent and should be made illegal. If this law does okay in Australia, I would not be surprised if it came up in the US -- probably under the guise of being anti-terrorist.
Nope. Not even in the USofA. (Score:2)
amidst a demonstration, the US is empowered to
arrest them, using their Web banter as as
evidence of conspiracy. But to block the sites
at the ISP is not within the US's powers.
Ban the corporate media websites (Score:3, Insightful)
How about Australia? Are you hypocrites or just interested in censoring controversial opinions?
Re:Ban the corporate media websites (Score:2)
"People always get the kind of local government they deserve."
E.E. "Doc" Smith
This law is a grim comment on the intelligence of the Australian people.
Another Issue... (Score:3, Interesting)
---
The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This
means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
Surprised? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I've been to the land down under, and it's one of the more fascist countries I've visited. They are even worse than the US.
They are the country the most wiretaps per citizen. They still treat the aborigines as second rate citizens, and they inprison imigrants in consentration camps.
China is Australias morst important trading partner. Now wonder some strange ideas come back from China.
- Ost
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
Most wiretaps per citizen, I don't know so I'm not going to argue that point.
Aborigines aren't second rate citizens. There are MANY high profile aboriginies in Government and other areas, such as sporting. Aboriginal people have access to effectively interest free government provided home loans, they are guaranteed places at university and they get more government support than any european descent person does. I'm not saying that conditions are perfect for every aborigine in Australia and I'm not saying that there hasn't been 2 centuries of persecution but the means is now there for them to take hold and turn it all around.. and plenty have. There are isolated communities which are impoverished, agreed. But I can point to various US Indian communities in the same state.
As for the crap you are spinning about imprisoning ILLEGAL immigrants. We do exactly the same as the US and the UK and 1/2 of bloody Europe. The only difference at the moment is we have so bloody many that the time it takes for a recent illegal immagrant to get completely through the system can be between 6 months and 2 years. As the levels drop back down again, time will decrease and it will be a non issue like it was 10 years ago. Unfortunately with our huge borders (we have way more coastline than the US) and our low population (less than 20 mill) we get known as an easy arrival. Of course they don't realise that only 5-10% of the land is actually livable, the rest being desert.
China is one of Australia's most important trading partners along with the US, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan. Shit, we send 1/2 the wheat we grow every year to IRAQ, so I suppose we must all have terrorist insticts?? That's the lamest argument I've ever come across.
I think the view you have of Australia is purely coloured by your own personality and being an easy target for derogatory media.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
How did this get modded Interesting, rather than Flamebait? If one reads the article, one finds that Australia has decided to pull the plug on websites that are used to organize violent protests. Such websites are illegal in the United States as well, however the legal tests for shutting down such sites are stricter in the US. The First Amendment does not protect speech that advocates specific criminal acts. That's why you're not allowed to put Wanted: Dead or Alive posters of abortion doctors on your web site. Similarly, posting notices to the effect of, "The WTO is meeting in Seattle next week, bring your Molotov cocktails" would also be illegal.
Only very specific threats are typically considered unprotected speech, however. You can publish bomb recipes in the States, or make general calls for revenge, that might be unacceptable in other jurisdictions. Australia has chosen to accept a slightly broader definition of what constitutes inciting violent or criminal activity. Slight difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Many other countries (Canada, for one) have similar policies. (And, IIRC, Canada is usually reviled on Slashdot for being a Socialist/Commie/pinko nation, rather than a Fascist one.)
They are the country the most wiretaps per citizen.
They are the country with the most reported wiretaps per person. I'm sure that the FBI, CIA, and NSA are just models of honesty and transparency about that sort of thing, since they're such good USAPATRIOTs. Ahem.
China is Australias morst important trading partner. Now wonder some strange ideas come back from China.
Canada is the United States' biggest trading partner. I'd love to know what strange ideas Americans are getting by that route.
Goes along with illegal *expressions* of hate... (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as i dont discuss decryption, copy protection, anarchy, discuss political issues before elections, how to get around taxes....
Difference between Defamation and Satire (Score:4, Interesting)
The case of defamation in the article might have certainly not been satire, but there is a wide blur line here.
How can somebody make an honest joke (about somebody) and not get penalized.
Case in point: Royal Canadian Air Farce [airfarce.com] (note: you can download episodes off of their website)
Their entire show is pretty much satire on people. Politicians mainly. Their imitation of Chretien has to be the best. This show might be cut and dry humour. But many satires are not quite as far on the humour spectrum.
Please tell me how you can distinguish them.
Re:Difference between Defamation and Satire (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but common law in most countries has built up a set of principles by which defamation lawsuits are judged. Generally, the limits of acceptable comment are much broader when discussing a bona fide public figure, like a politician. It is accepted (in both common sense and common law) that politicians will be subject to scrutiny (and ridicule) within reasonable bounds. Satire is almost always acceptable, in part because on television shows like Royal Canadian Air Farce it is obvious that humour is intended, and remarks should not be taken as gospel truth.
In the media, different countries have different standards for news reporting. In the United States a plaintiff must show malice on the part of his or her defamer--very difficult, which is why so much sensationalistic crap can be published as "news". In Canada, the bar is lower--the news source must demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to publish their (otherwise defamatory) assertions. In other countries, YMMV. In all cases, there is (or should be) a responsibility to separate fact from opinion from humour.
Hold your horses (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the last couple of times the government raised a stink, and threatened to block stuff, it will just be smoke in the wind. Look at their plans to stop Australians gaming online, and also the laws on hosting material 'not acceptable for children to view' in South Australia. They both had some sort of motions passed, and then got washed away into irrelevancy due to the complete inability of the govt to enforce the laws they formed on the matter. Either that, or the laws they formed were so watered down as to be pointless.
The Australian government can't and won't bring itself to the stage of actively proxying all international and national traffic and parsing it for hints of illegal plans for violent protests. Instead, they will pass some sort of motion that forbids Australians from hosting such a site on an Australian server, whilst completely ignoring the possibility of internation hosting etc. They will be seen to be doing something by the people who don't know better, and the people who do know better will just get on with life as if none of this ever happened.
Sure, this is a bad thing in so far as the precedence it sets, or rather in the precedence it re-enforces, but it will make no difference to anyone in the end.
Ray
Why is this ALWAYS brought up? (Score:4, Insightful)
What difference does that really make? Some people will find out what they want, but the problem with taking away rights DOES have an impact wether or not it truly works. If some people can get around the blockage, there are still lots of people who do not have the knowledge to do so.
The same goes for taking away fair-use rights with copy-protected CDs and the like. The fact that they with lots of effort can be circumvented is besides the point.
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they're inciting a riot, then charge them as such and let them defend themselves in a court of law. It looks like this law is designed to let the government decide by itself whether a website is planning a crime and lets them block it all by themselves without first charging the owners with a crime.
This isn't the first time they tried this (Score:3, Informative)
Australia's government does not seem to like to the way the Internet is lacking restrictions to free speech, and neither do many other governments. And one has to wonder if this strategy will work. Violent protests can still be organized without the Internet. Have violent protests not been organized long before the Internet was used by protesters as a medium for communication? And how can they know which protests being organized will be violent or not? Many people may show up at a protest with no intention to be violent, but keep in mind that it only takes a few people to start a riot.
S11 - I was there, this is true (Score:5, Interesting)
The police were indeed mad, there were thousands of protestors, all as calm and determined as could be, and successful. The first day they were forced to ferry in the conference candidates individually by helicopter. Bill Gates called off his
Violence - one or two people wanted to attack the police lines, they were well and truly calmed down by a dozen to half a dozen people each.
Anyway, read the article [vicnet.net.au]. It's all true afaik.
Australia (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see a lot of crime their, where is the justification?
Re:Australia (Score:2, Insightful)
About a hundred Australians just got killed in a terrorist bombing in Bali. The population is scared and riled up and so the government can do whatever it wants under the guise of protecting people. This law is nothing, they can arrest kids now without having to notify a guardian for something like 48 hours. People can just disappear in Australia... no trial, no lawyers, nothing. The only thing stopping this being used for policial purposes is the trust of the federal police and intellegiance agencies. The army and intellegience agencies of Australia have already been discovered to be working in concert with the government to cover up policy issues.
Internet censorship is rife because some very very conservative politicians from backwaters end up with political clout due to nearly balanced numbers in the upper house. They block large, economic actions (for example, many-billion dollar sales of public assests) until they get conservative laws passed.
Fact is, 90% of voters and 99% of politicans don't know and don't care how the internet works, this law is simply part of a law and order campaign to get votes. Next week they'll implement 3 strikes or something.
Ban Hotmail! (Score:2, Interesting)
some details. (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, the NSW police minister asked the federal government to censor the site (and two others; noWTO [cat.org.au] and s11 [s11.org] , neither of which host any violent content) under the existing Australian internet censorship legislation. However, the Australian Broadcast Authority did not find anything illegal with the sites, and did not censor them. So the government has decided this is not good enough and wants tougher legislation to block dissent.
As for melbourne indymedia, the main post in question [indymedia.org] was one which does suggest to people different ways of dealing with police at protests. Being open publishing, the comment is the persons own view. Whether or not one agrees with the comment, it is important to have a discussion about it, and that is exactly what happened; a heated discussion follows the original post.
People always flail their arms about `protest being OK as long as it is within the law.' But what if the law is unjust? Are people not entitled to defend themselves against a fascist police force?
What I find particularly ironic is that the Australian Labor Party, founded on the ideals of civil disobedience (unions et al) are now the ones who are trying to quell any dissent whatsoever.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't see the humor, then by all means, moderate!
Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
While blocking these sites may seem to be an effective solution, it's just like the whole 'ban guns' thing, people are the problem, not the guns.
Anyway, yeah. The risk of blocking sites is it's government censorship. It's blocking free speech, and it's another step on the road towards the government being able to censor anything it likes.
Governments shouldn't be allowed to censor free speech.
Usual Talk Radio Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
What's that supposed to mean? You believe you can segregate people based on your opinion about their intellectual capacity?
>>
No, they're not. Guns are the problem. If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot me with it. This lame argument has been used for years by the jackals in the NRA, and it is just as false now as when those murderers invented it.
>> Governments shouldn't be allowed to censor free speech.
The Internet is a public place; if you plot criminal acts in public, the government has a responsbility to stop you.
Re:Usual Talk Radio Nonsense (Score:2)
Good, now think how much smaller the chances of me attacking you if I thought you almost certainly had a gun?
I'm sorry, but I find your argument particularly weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Usual Talk Radio Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:AMEN!! (Score:2)
Guns are weapons, designed to kill. You have no right to own one.
Didn't people like you discredit liberalism? (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you had a functioning brain, you'd know that banning sites simply makes it more difficult for people to find out what's really going on. You think evil will simply go away because you want to stay in bed and pull the covers over your head when you hear about it and you want the taxpayers to help you do this? While you obviously prefer to live in your own delusional world, the rest of us are adults who need to know what reality is like so we can do something about it.
For instance, if one knows a violent protest will be happening soon, a smart person will be somewhere else if several thousand people are planning to throwing rocks and bottles at the police. Of course, if the police respond with gunfire, if you get caught by a stray bullet because you didn't know, it's just chlorinating the human genetic pool.
Personally, I like to know what the "bad guys" are up to and why and the best way to do this is to find out in person what they've got to say, not what the mass media where you get your ideas says they have to say. If you think that violent protests or terrorism can be stopped by blocking IPs, you're as ignorant as the rest of your post says you are.
If you need a government to protect YOU from being exposed to BAD IDEAS because you might follow through on them, you don't need a law and a bunch of armed thugs to enforce it, what you need is to unplug your connection to the Internet. Smashing your monitor over your head afterwards isn't required, though it would probably be a good thing.
You are one of those morons who wants to trade freedom not for security, but the illusion of security. You're obviously comfortable with the idea of living in a society where only those willing to break the law and the government have monopolies on both guns and uncensored information. Why don't you move to China or Australia where the government agrees with you? Of course, if the government grabs you by mistake and ignores your bleating "I'm innocent", you may suddenly realize you've been wrong all these years. But the government doesn't ever make mistakes, right? If they tell you you're a terrorist, you'll probably believe them and decide that your belief of never having associated with terrorist organizations must be a delusion.
If I happen to find myself in the middle of a violent protest the government-approved mass media didn't tell me about in advance, the only way I'm going to find out why this happened should I have the misfortune to live in AU is to break the law using an anon proxy or other tools which you probably aren't capable of understanding and don't need to know about.
jackals in the NRA, and it is just as false now as when those murderers invented it.
So the NRA is composed of a group of tens of millions of murderers?
Why, the government must do something about them before some AWFUL NRA person kills me in my bed with a BIG, NASTY GUN!
Presumably, you intended "jackal" as a compliment, believing (correctly) that an average jackal has 20-30 IQ points on you.
I See You've Had Your Testosterone Dose (Score:2)
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility.
The government has an obligation to prevent crime and to prosecute criminals. It is as illegal to use the Internet to plan a crime as it is to use any other medium to plot the same crime.
Re:I Like Your Kind (Score:2)
You and all your buddies here think the Internet is some kind of special place that exists apart from the law and apart from the purview of governments. It isn't. The Internet is just another medium, like TV, radio, and newspapers. If you park a radio transmitter off shore and start broadcasting guidance on fomenting riot and revolution, do you seriously expect the government to leave you alone? Why should web sites be treated differently?
Illogical Arguement against guns (Score:2)
No, they're not. Guns are the problem. If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot me with it. This lame argument has been used for years by the jackals in the NRA, and it is just as false now as when those murderers invented it.
That arguement against guns contains a huge a non-sequitur. (not to mention slander but I'll ignore that) True, without a gun I cannot shoot you, but that doesn't mean you cannot be killed without one. Shooting you is merely one way among millions. And killing is the problem, not the means to do it. The previous poster was right, guns aren't the problem. Their use for crimes *always* is due to human problems. Anger, fear, brutality, innattention or even insanity. Human problems every one of them.
Guns Provide Means to Kill (Score:2)
True, but so what? No one's denying that people engage in murder. Eliminating guns would eliminate millions of opportuntities for people to kill each other with guns. If some of those people have to work a little harder to find an alternate weapon, that's just fine with me.
In essence, your argument is tantamount to claiming children shouldn't be vaccinated against measles, because, hey, they're just going to die from something else.
Re:Usual Talk Radio Nonsense (Score:3, Informative)
He will make himself physically capable BECAUSE "the rest of you" are.
In the US you have so many killings every year, higher numbers directly attributed to gun ownership. In Australia we have so few. So does that mean that (percentage wise) there are more nutcases in the US than Australia?
No, I don't think so. We have our fair share of nut cases, but they usually get taken down easily and quickly after the initial attack with a bludgeoning or stabbing type weapon.
We have had masacres in the past (many many years between them). Hoddle Street, Port Arthur, Strathfield. But these were done by people with MASSIVE physical abilities (read, high powered assault rifles). Since our buy back scheme, we have had much less incidents.
BTW, regarding Port Arthur, the perpetrator aquired the most effective means to his end, after breaking into someones house and guess what he found? Colt AR-15 (I think, it was M-16 like from memory) in some guys house, perhaps as protection, this man and his family were KILLED with his OWN WEAPON. Now, sure, you can say that he should have had it better locked up right? Well the problem is, that TRUSTING people to do what is correct and safe is a mistake, because people being people, do stupid things. It only takes one well meaning drongo to arm a malicious drongo.
If I go into a mall, with intent to kill as many people as I can, but all I have is a knife, how successful do you think I will be? Now if I have a Colt AR-15 or AK-47 with plenty of ammo, what do you think my success rate will be?
I wish you could see it from our point of view. All you guys can think is, "if I give up my guns, I will be helpless against EVERYONE ELSE who do have guns". For us, the people with guns are law enforcement agencies and a minority of criminals who usually use their weapons against each other in gang land disputes.
There are sometimes home invasions, murders and what not, but these are infrequent and firearms in Australia are often used in more of a threatening manner because the criminals know that the victim is not going to pull out a 357 Magnum and blow his nuts off.
If everyone in Australia had guns, there would be many more deaths. Guns make it too easy to kill. Domestic violence beatings would be upgraded to killings in heated moments, and people down in the lowest times of their lives could be killing others or themselves all too easily when they ordinarily might have just had a punch up and a night in the clink to cool off or a failed attempt at suicide (wimped out with the wrist cutting and hanging, eating a bullet on the other hand is so quick, simple and final).
Re:Usual Talk Radio Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of ways to elevate ones violent capabilities. But these hardly compare.
Walk into a mall on a Saturday, say around lunch time, into the fast food eatery. Look around and typically see hundreds of people. Even better, a packed cinema. Now, you're a sick fuck, bent on carnage and you have a whopping great big knife/axe under your jacket.
How many people are you going to gut or hack before some heros wrestle you to the ground?
Now go in there with an AK-47 with a 100 round drum and perhaps a spare or two dangling from your cammo belt. Walk close enough to the front without being blinded by the projector.... How many kills are you going to get? How many heros are going to run towards you to stop you?
Semi automatic assault rifles are usually quite easy to modify into full auto.
Replace cinema/food court with your choice of sprorts stadium, city train station during peak hour, major city lunch areas during mid day, large school, hospital, bus stops, K-Mart/Target during yearly stock take sales, etc etc.
Car's, knives, axes or fight training barely compare.
I've seen photos of a mall masacre. People where lying dead in the food they were eating, taken completely unaware. You could walk into a dinner and kill every occupant with a fully automatic weapon before they could be close to the door or swallow their bacon. Hell you could do it through the window without even going in to some.
Gun's in the hands of just anyone are bad news.
Hell, good kids, high on hormones who can no longer handle the relentless cruel humiliation of bullies at school can turn apparently evil and kill his tormentors.
So, Explain Why the Internet Is Private (Score:2)
Over to you.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Insightful)
It is censorship. However, I am guessing that Australia, like the U.K. does not have a Constitution. And while I'm an ardent supporter of free speech as defined in the Constitution, I also believe that free speech requires one to accept the responsibility of said free speech (which many seem to forget). Even in the U.S. I believe 'inciting to riot' can be considered a crime. If they're advocating violence at mass protests and that occurs based in any way on that distributed by the site, that probably fits that description even in the U.S. It's possible that such a site, if not able to be shut down, could be held responsible both in civil and criminal prosecutions (and I wouldn't have a real problem with that). IANAL applies, naturally.
Prior Restraint is the Issue, folks (Score:3, Insightful)
But the right to arrest a guy who is inciting others to commit a crime isn't the issue. Even in the United States, with its stringent free speech protections, the government has always had the right to arrest someone who is calling on others to commit murder -- AFTER he or she does, in fact, call on them to do so.
The question whether the government has the right to prior restraint. Prior restraint involves two issues. The first is stopping the alleged inciter before he/she has spoken, simply because the government believes that he/she will, or might, incite others to commit a crime.
The second is whether the government has the right to prevent the public from hearing what the guy they arrested said.
I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with any form of prior restraint, and especially to any form of restraing that keeps citizens from hearing what alleged inciters have said. A democratic government that can hide what it is doing from its own citizens can influence their decisions at the ballot box by withholding material facts from them.
In geek speak, garbage in, garbage out.
I don't believe that prior restraint is ever justified except when failure to stop a criminal before he/she commits the crime will almost certainly result in innocent people being killed or caused severe harm. As such, I have no quarrel with the police interfering with an attempted murder and making sure it remains an attempted murder.
But it's difficult to imagine a crime of incitement that qualifies by this standard.
Re:Uh (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh are you high ??? (Score:2)
If you think that your political opinions justify rioting, then at least have the guts to admit that you are engaging in anti-state political violence and accept the consequences pf your actions.
Freedom of speech on the Internet is no different than freedom of speech via any other medium. You don't have any more freedom just because it's the Internet; and you don't have immunity from any goverrnment's sanctions because the Internet is supra-national. If you use your web site to incite to riot, engage in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts, etc., you are just as much subject to government action as if you used the airwaves or handed out pamphlets.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
However, don't you think this will be a power easily abused by the Aussie Government?
With this power, the government could easily block sites that help organize protests of their policies regardless even if the organizers of such protests advocate peace. They'll just claim that the protest COULD become violent.
Plus, if the site is blocked, many people won't even know if the organizers advocate violence or not. The government can say anything they want to spoil the image of groups that organize protests.
These groups can't say anything in defense because their speech is blocked.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Insightful)
If I establish a website calling for the violent overthrow of a Government, why should a Government censor me?
After all, to any government an overthrow or massive change is a violent change to those in power.
If I want to say on a web site that I will defend my Constitutional Rights with my life and force of arms, the authorities will consider that violent.
After all, David Koresh and his minions were "violent" types in the mind of BATF, why they had the gall to defend home/family/property with thier lives.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Insightful)
"Violence IS freedom of Speech."
Violence can be a form of political expression. That's about as close as the two get. If you're claiming that acts of violence are covered under the First Amendment, then the Supreme Court would probably take issue with your interpretation.
Ok then to make an obvious point, if violence is freedom of speech and protected by the 1st ammendment then everyone who is now in jail for murder/assault/etc should be released as their jailing was unconstitutional.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
the basic problem with the extreme left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then how come it's all the right wingers I always see trying to ban material that has some sex in it, or naughty words? Or material that might "compromise the war effort" or whatever they're claiming right now about "unpatriotic" stuff?
Re:the basic problem with the extreme left? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the basic problem with the extreme left? (Score:2)
Re:the basic problem with the extreme left? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because (and this is *very* unfortunate) people associate right-of-center, traditionally conservative thinking with puritanesque/christian values. "Real" conservatives are against subjective banning and censoring as they are considered an abuse of power by government - Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
At some point, the Republican party has become the "party of God." This has not always been the case, and hopefully will not always be the case in the future.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's important that we do _not_ lay the foundation for certain things and instead seek other means, just because well intentioned systems could be abused so easily in the future.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Define violent.
Is Abortion violent? Mastectomies? Circumcision? Euthaneasia? Not providing $$$ to 3rd world contries, therby allowing children to starve?
When does something become violent?
Was the 9/11 terrorist attack violent? How was the American response not violent? What about the US bombing Canadian troups or various hospitals during the response?
When does a peaceful Protest turn into something violent?
When someone suspects it might become violent? When 1 person becomes violent?
Was the American revolution something that was violent? Should it have been prevented? What about slavery?
Re:USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:USA (Score:2, Insightful)
<sarcasm> Don't worry, now with the republican majority, democartic minority, i'm sure a two thirds vote will be achieved to rewrite the bill of rights to remove that offensive rule.</sarcasm>
Re:USA (Score:2, Interesting)
info (Score:2)
Please dont equate far right wing religious conservatives with republicans in general.
With the exception of those on the fringe, the republican philosophy includes holding sacred the rights put forth in the consitution, and especially the freedom of speech. Unfortunately it is people like you that flame half the popultion for your assumption of their values that cause some would be moderate republicans to become less moderate and to ignore the valid opinions of moderate democrats.
I want to offer moderate democrats (this obviously does not include yourself) hope on behalf of my political party that a large number of us are extremely displeased with John Ashcroft, and would not be dissappointed if he was struck by a large bulder. (I am a moderate Republican)
Re:No Sale (Score:3, Interesting)
Please offer me another speech about how it is "not I who flames"
You actually were not my intended audience, so dont flatter yourself that I would plead with you.
If you'll notice in the recent elections, many democrats were campaigning the very same issues. Furthermore despite the fact that the largest political party [ballot-access.org] in the US is Democratic Party, the elections ended up as they did; this shows that many people are scared, not just republicans. There are alot of people makeing bad decisions dont try to blame a single party for the problems in our country. In a democracy we all take responsability.
Re:How will this accomplish anything? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Internet cannot be censured (Score:2)
a. It's censored, not censured.
b. You certainly can censor the internet.
Re:Internet cannot be censured (Score:2)
You can't censor the internet... you can make it harder to get the information. To fully censor the net, you'll have to block all traffic... but that sort of beats the whole idea of having a net.
Ah, but yes you can. (Score:3, Insightful)
Though all that has to be done is filter your content at your ISP level.. what you cant see is *effectively* censored.
Lets hope we never see it come to that. Though i belive thats just a misplaced dream now. The future is at hand.. being built brick by brick.