Aussie Censorship "Live Trials" Won't Be Live 148
Xiroth writes "In what could be the first step to backing down on the plans to censor the Australian Internet, Communication Minister Stephen Conroy has made it known that the live trials of the Government filter will not, in fact, be live, instead being downgraded to a closed network test. Given that this would provide no further information than what Government tests have already provided, this may prove to be a face-saving measure before the plan is quietly scrapped. Nonetheless, concerned Australians are encouraged to attend protests planned for this weekend to ensure that the Government gets the message."
While all the news is about Aussie censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along. [bbc.co.uk]
I'm surprised this hasn't been on Slashdot already as it's been on the news quite a bit here.
Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary reason for the protesting and media coverage is the fact that the blacklist that would be used is to be secret, and there will be no transparency or public accountability in regards to the content of the list. The fear is that the government could easily, and quietly, block ANY content they want at any time. This simply cannot be allowed. In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.
Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information such a euthanasia methods. Independent special interests in the Senate such as Senator Xenophon [wikipedia.org] and Senator Fielding [wikipedia.org] have indicated that they're interested in banning sites where the legality hasn't even been settled, such as gambling websites and hardcore pornography.
The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech. Euthanasia, in fact, falls under that, as the Greens [wikipedia.org] and Democrats [wikipedia.org] have indicated their support for legalising it - in fact, if memory serves, as a precautionary measure a Greens state senator read out methods of euthanasia in parliament under the protection of parliamentary privilege [wikipedia.org] with the knowledge that the proceedings of Parliament must be recorded and be made freely available to the public, rendering the government unable to block the publishing of the material. If material regarding euthanasia and other controversial topics is blocked, could that not soon lead to the blocking of political speech of minor parties and political activists that wish to overturn the bans on the material?
Re: (Score:1)
A lack of transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information ...
Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret. Most Australians, myself included, would not disagree with censorship to some degree. However this is a power which in the hand of executive government (or indeed a private organisation) has a great potential for abuse. Consequently what is required is complete transperancy. The secrecy of current plan achieves the opposite of what our system of government requires.
The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.
Exactly! And given the decisions of the High Court regarding the "implied right to political communication," inherent in the Constitution, it is also beyond the power of government to do so. If, however, we are to be kept in the dark as to what is being banned, how can we have any confidence a government is not indulging in such unconstitutional behaviour?
Re:A lack of transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.
Exactly!
You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things. If the greatest concern is that the blacklist is secret, then you're saying that if the Labour party just came out and said "we censored euthanasia page waystodie.com, because we felt like it", you would be okay with that?
My greatest concern is that no other person should not be controlling what I can and cannot see on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things. If the greatest concern is that the blacklist is secret, then you're saying that if the Labour party just came out and said "we censored euthanasia page waystodie.com, because we felt like it", you would be okay with that?
Firstly, don't put words into my mouth, "the biggest concern" line was a previous poster. Nor does it the "then you are saying" follow from anything I wrote. It's just possible that if I knew they we
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You said, "Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret."
Then you quoted the parent to your comment, which said "The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech." and you said "Exactly!"
Thats why I quoted those three pieces of text in my comment. They were cut and paste directly from your comment. Regardless of how closely they may be linked, they are two separate issues.
Australia is a democracy, we will
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why I quoted those three pieces of text in my comment.
But in a misleading way that made it look like your comment "you should decide" was fair. Clearly I was agreeing that in focusing on the potential for political censorship the OP had hit the nail on the head. Given the logically garbled nature of your post it hardly falls to your to be that persnickety. For instance, I didn't point out that the UK parliament no longer governs Australia, there being of course no "Labour party" in Australia (or
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to have access to their list to know exactly what is being kept from my view and why, to know whether they have overstepped their power and I have any legal or political recourse to object.
I believe this would be a bad idea. Since no blocking is fullproof, all this would do is give free advertising to people who are looking for these types of things or to people that are curious(like kids).
All you'd have to do is hit a US proxy or SSH tunnel to some country that does not block. All you need is this nice shopping list of sites. I say you may as well go through normal law enforcement means and leave the sites to their current level of obscurity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea - how about the government gets gets on with the job of catching the people making child porn etc and gets the fuck out of my life. I don't need you to decide what is good for me and my family.
If the government "gets on with the job of catching the people makind child porn" they are deciding what's good for your and your family. What's this about me deciding? Do you think child pornography should be freely available in Australia, whether on the net or elsewhere.
I've been well able to do t
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you mean by "most Australians"? ... I wouldn't mind the filtering of extreme things such as child pornography.
I mean "most Australians," including you clearly. Some generalisations can be made without recorse to stats, surely. "Most Australians think child pornography should not be freely available," are you in all seriousness demanding I prove that with stats? C'mon.
As an Australian, I am opposed to the filter on several points.
As an Australian, I am opposed to the filter on several points.
I
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but URN12
Well I am actually.
By my understanding, "implied right to political communication" is an incorrect rewording of the right.
The phrase Brennan J used in Australian Capital Television [austlii.edu.au] was "freedom of political communication." The usage of "right" instead of "freedom" is not uncommon. I wasn't quoting, and I'm not sure that the use of 'right' in place of 'freedom' has the legal effect you seem to think it does (though I would not be so bold as to state it has none). Since most legal 'ri
Re: (Score:2)
What, exactly, do you want censored?
How about the log my ISP keeps when I go pr0n surfing? :o
To take an actual example of where censorship was applied, how about Hezbollah Children's TV where 4 year olds are taught (repeatedly) how glorious it is to become a suicide bomber? While you may have no problem with it, many people would. If there is truly widespread belief that people don't want the children of a particular ethnic group in our midst instructed to grow up and kill us, then in a democracy it is
Re: (Score:2)
No, 4chan is only a method of sterilization, not euthanasia. Although it does from time to time consider sloughing off the mortal coil just to end the pain in my frontal lobe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but first you have to make sure you elect h0t politicians... otherwise /me scrubs his mental eye with pure bleach
EWWWWWW!!!!!!
Streisand effect (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to censor something, having a list of censored things only makes people more curious. It's much better (for the censors) to keep the censored list secret.
This reminds me of the anecdote of the old lady who went to compliment Samuel Johnson for not putting any "bad words" on his dictionary.
-- "Why, did you look
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to censor something, having a list of censored things only makes people more curious. It's much better (for the censors) to keep the censored list secret.
This reminds me of the anecdote of the old lady who went to compliment Samuel Johnson for not putting any "bad words" on his dictionary.
-- "Why, did you look up all of them"? was the answer.
That doesn't quite follow because the list isn't the actual content being censored, but the addresses to the content. I can view the list and be satisfied (or not) that it's not being used for political censorship without actually viewing any illegal content - or, I could if it weren't a crime as it currently is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are lacking fantasy.
Wenn Austria under Empress Maria Theresia in 1754 published its own "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" (list of forbidden books, a 40 volume work), the index grew so successful and was in so great demand, that Austria in 1777 put the Index on the Index.
It's the same with all lists of things that are forbidden. They give you ideas.
Re:Streisand effect (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yes... a more recent example:
The Bundespruefstelle für jugendgefaehrdende Medien (the german Federal Control Institution for Media Deemed Harmful to Minors) prohibited publishing its own list of indexed media in 2003. For exactly the same reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the primary reason ill be at the protest is not the fact that the blacklist is secret, but the fact that there is a blacklist at all.
If they were to come out and say "we're going to blacklist sites, but at least we'll tell you who and why", I still would not find that acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Blanket bans such as this one proposed come directly from the left-wing handbook on public policy. The left has always sought for government to have greater control over individuals lives, individual freedoms and responsibilities are the traditional calls of the right.
I always thought that Howard was one of the most left wing conservatives we have ever seen. He greatly expanded welfare programs into the realm of every day middle class families, and used this carrot and stick approach to attempt to control t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Howard and Rudd are pandering to the religious right. The censorship in question is the type of "think of the children" mentality the religious want to impose on others. There is nothing progressive or liberal in censorship.
Howard was one of the most RIGHT WING Prime Ministers we have ever seen! It's almost as if you are living in reverse world where up is down and left is right. (Almost like you are down under or something)
Don't forget that in Australia our finan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mate, get yourself straightened out. Yes Howard was right wing, but the vast expansion of welfare under Howard was socialist policy. Left wing. Many in the media made this criticism.
The conservative or right wing approach to this problem would be to offer up the censorship service to those who want it (Howards policy). Note here individual freedom and responsibility is emphasised.
Here, I'll quote Jack the Insider [news.com.au] on this very topic for you:
Re: (Score:2)
Left wing does not simply equate with freedom! To say that Stalins rule was authoritarian and thus not left wing is utterly wrong. You can't talk about left and right wing social policy because you are on flimsy ground, they are economic philosophies. When you talk about social policy you talk in terms of authoritarian and libertarian.
The thing is that it is often hard to distinguish economic freedoms from social freedoms in many areas (not all!) so in this sense the left wing policies (economics) lead to a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is exactly where the Left/Right methodology breaks down. Many on the Right are actually anti-censorship and are libertarian in their viewpoints. Many on the Left are authoritarian and pro-censorship.
In this country we have more than two major parties anyway. We have Labor (center-left/union focus), Liberal (center-right/business focus), National (center-right/rural focus), Green (far-left/environment focus), D
Re: (Score:2)
The ABC?
No! They can't! Selling the alphabet, now that would be really low.
Re: (Score:2)
But it was on Slashdot, didn't you see the article and long discussion for of insightful posts about how to counteract it?
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Typical. That's censoring for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone else actually tried going to the web page [wikipedia.org] in question from the UK? Because I'm supposedly one of those blocked from seeing this page (with TalkTalk), and I can see it just fine. Also, I for one find this [wikipedia.org] much more disturbing, but that may just be me.
What's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
How Things Work Everywhere Else:
1. Concept.
2. Pilot.
3. Evaluation. bad: Return to 1, or continue to 4.
4. Real world trial.
5. Evaluation. bad: Return to 1, or continue to 6.
6. Implementation
7. Fine-tuning
5. Evaluation. bad: Return to 7, or continue to 8.
8. Maintenance
How Things Work in Australia
1. Concept.
2. Real world trial.
3. Public relations debacle. bad: Return to 2, or continue to 4.
4. Implementation.
5. Drink beer.
6. Maintenance.
As you can see, everything is going according to plan. Just check your boots before you leave the server room. -_-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You've never tried Censoring the Internet until you've tried Australian-Rules Censoring!
Re: (Score:2)
You've never tried Censoring the Internet until you've tried Australian-Rules Censoring!
With or without Tony Lockett [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You got it wrong.
1. Idea is mentioned in a bar.
2. Everyone implements something different based on what they think they heard.
3. Throw money at it.
4. Give up, mothball the system because no one can be bothered shifting/dismantling it.
That's the Aussie way!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1.Drink beer
2.Kneejerk reaction to public opinion
3.Concept
4.Implementation
5.Ignore public opinion about failed implementation.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guy guys guys, not even close, its more like this:
1. Drink Beer
2. Knee jerk reaction to minority public opinion
3. Implementation
4. Ignore public opinion, frame debate in terms of moral shades of black and white
5. Drink beer
Note the whole 'concept' part is where you have all been getting this wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
6. Chair sniffing
7. Drunken night at a strip club
8. ???
9.
Surprise, Surprise! (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is willing to bet that the testing is done over "carefully controlled" conditions designed to hide all the faults of the system?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is willing to bet that the testing is done over "carefully controlled" conditions designed to hide all the faults of the system?
Or even easier - any conditions that show up faults in the system can be safely ignored as "statistical noise"
Re:Surprise, Surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)
That might be the case if there was any chance it would even remotely work in the real world. But I think this is a sign of them finally coming to the realisation that it is going to flop spectacularly and this is a way to find that out away from the publics view.
A real world trial would have showed up all the problems that everyone has been pointing out, and it would have brought those problems right into the homes of voters all over the country.
This way they can continually have it in testing until it fades from the publics mind then mothball it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This way they can continually have it in testing until it fades from the publics mind then mothball it.
I think you meant until the next election, at which point it will be rolled out again to garner the religious vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say just that.
They're limiting the maximum throughput of the system to 12MBPS and trying to say that a real-world load of hundreds of customers at that rate will also work.
This closed trial is carefully designed to further "prove" that their flawed system isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that 12 Mbps is considered to be the absolute minimum for the other disastrous policy our embattled Senator Conroy is implementing (the National Broadband Network).
Even if that 12 Mbps is per user, under their own guidelines, it's practically obsolete already.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Australia, it would be a huge improvement.
Yay, protest. (Score:4, Interesting)
Seeing as these filters are so ridiculously easy to bypass, a major concern for me lately is how they'll be handling people who use these methods, especially since they have perfectly legitimate applications *besides* bypassing the filter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting bored of saying it. The purpose of the filter is to shield people from material they don't want to see. The reason why the filter isn't "optional" is because the government's belief is that no reasonable person should want to turn it off. As such, people who "get around" the filter are of no concern to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be, because circumventing the filter (in a blanket fashion, as is likely to be done by most who attempt to circumvent it at all, rather than simply enabling it for sites which are known to be filtered) is going to require a connection to a host outside of Australia. For local content, a second connection back IN to the country will also be required.
This is problematic because Australia's connections overseas are nowhere near equipped to deal with this sort of traffic increase, either from an IS
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meh, get the girlfriends to come along too - it's not like this isn't attracting mainstream attention. The sign-up for the event on Facebook seems to be going reasonably well - here's [facebook.com] the Melbourne one, and it's got links to the other capital cities' events too.
Protest: Now in Canberra (Score:4, Informative)
Garema Place, Civic from 12pm-2pm
Re: (Score:1)
Not quite - it's on City Walk [facebook.com], by the fountain outside the Canberra Centre
Re: (Score:2)
City Walk does make more sense though.
Political horse trading (Score:2)
IMHO the "Family First" party should be renamed "S
Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
Smaller test group = confidence in the "solution"? (Score:1)
" gather no further information"? (Score:2)
So it will just prove the government is 'right' and remove any reason not to implement.
Nice move there.
Editorialism? (Score:2)
Spidey and Ock rob bank.
To demonstrate how wide ranging this filter is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital Economy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And surprisingly, they're accepting some strongly negative posts as well (an overwhelming majority of the posts there, actually). There's just a backlog of about 12 hours worth of posts that need to be approved first.
I'm quietly hopeful that this means they're looking for a quiet excuse to drop it (and Senator Conroy).
How incredibly naive (Score:3, Interesting)
You really believe that? Surely more likely is that this is being done to further remove the possiblity of yet more criticism of what is universally regarded to be a stupid idea so they can go ahead with it regardless.
Not that it really matters because we all know, as Senator Conroy has already revealed, that anyone that against this idea is in support of child porn anyway. I wish I could find the article to quote.
Re: (Score:2)
"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."
High speed National broadband Infrastructure! (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is it? Come on Rudd, where the hell is the broadband infrastructure promised during the campaign?
This is what gets to me the most of all in this debate, they have not even begun to build the infrastructure they promised to build, and here we are bogged down in this utter waste of time instead! I am dead set against the censorship plan, but what I am even more pissed off about is that the national broadband scheme has taken a back seat to this bullshit!
The one reason this government appealed to me is that they appeared to understand the importance of infrastructure to the digital economy. But it seems like they are not even close to getting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is it? Come on Rudd, where the hell is the broadband infrastructure promised during the campaign?
Well it's been in the news recently: the tender deadline just closed. Telstra were holding out because they didn't like the conditions - probably that the Government would even consider any other provider in the first place! They eventually submitted a tender that was supposedly 12 pages long (compared to the hundreds of pages for the others).
Here's a place to go [news.com.au] to for some recent news stories.
Move! Take Action Now! (Score:4, Informative)
Melbourne:
Saturday 13 December
State Library
12pm-5pm
Sydney:
Saturday 13 December
Town Hall
11am-4pm
Brisbane:
Saturday 13 December
Brisbane Square
11am-3pm
Adelaide:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament
12pm-4pm
Hobart:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament Lawns
11am-1:30pm
Canberra:
Saturday 13 December
Garema Place, Civic
12pm-2pm
Please also consider taking the following actions:
1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.
2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
Senator Stephen Conroy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here [aph.gov.au].
4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.
6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.
Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!
The power of Facebook (Score:2)
Given the power Facebook had in making Canadian copyright didn't get out of hand, has anyone in Australia started a Facebook group to invite all their friends to the cause?
Internet Filter (Score:2)
An internet filter such as Senator Conroy is proposing is at best a misguided attempt to provide a safe environment for children and at worst a totalitarian tool to placate the population.
The internet is a social tool that will continue to grow in its scope and penetration. As the internet evolves from the teenager that it is, filtering will become less and less effective - despite developers best efforts, just look at how SPAM filters have failed to meet the raising tide since 1993.
A better use of the prop
Re:Its not such a bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is they plan to block "unwanted" content, with no definition of "unwanted" being offered. They can legally block anything they don't want. That is incredibly dangerous.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As for your other comment - There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the c
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, because Conroy thinks the question is as stupid as I do. There's a national classification system. Go read it.
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem.
Really? You honestly believe this? Please, do explain.
Re: (Score:1)
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often t
Re: (Score:2)
The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.
Again.. if you read the legislation, you will find that it does apply. I declare that you don't know what you're talking about.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school?
Sigh. What does restricting the material children are taught in schools have anything to do with the wanton censorship of adults. Do you have any actual opinions or are you just trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
It may have passed youyr attention, but ,art of a ministers job is to explain their policies to the public.
You can repeat your mantra "Read the legislation" as many times as you like, but Conroy should be able to explain his own legisaltion to we the Aust public. Most legislation is virtually incomprhensible to the genreal public anyway.
Please stop hiding behind your strawman!
I have an opinion that you are trolling, going by your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? It's not his policy. The classification legislation has been on the books since the freakin' 70s dude. I really don't think it is too much to ask that people read it before commenting on policy that is just enforcing it. People should be reading the legislation and calling for its reversal. But, apparently, censorship is ok... fucking hell.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem confused
The classification law was not put in place to apply to the internet. (Which did not exist at the time).
This is new legislation, as evidenced by the need for it to be passed by the senate.
That said, I am totally against censorship of anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The filter is to enforce existing classification rules. The dude I was talking to, not you, said that exactly what the filter would be blocking wasn't well defined. It is. He just doesn't know because he gets all his information from the media instead of just reading the freakin' legislation. Most of the media get their information from, get this, the media, they don't read the legislation either. Some people, apparently, feel that reading legislation is something only lawyers can do.
Re: (Score:1)
Restriction of material is by definition censorship. Censorship is not inherently bad. Again, as I've discussed earlier, it is the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that can be bad. In this case, I'm certain everyone will agree, it is a terrible implementation.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over cen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
I will say it one last time. You have clearly not read the national classification legislation. Otherwise you wouldn't be consistently making incorrect statements. Stop being ignorant, go read it, or shut the fuck up. I don't think this is unfair. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have the means to educate yourself, but you choose not to.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship.
I agree.
Censorship is not inherently bad.
I disagree. Would you care to make an argument? I really am interested in hearing it. You have an open platform. Please, let us know why yo
Re: (Score:2)
Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.
I'll chime in and give a simple example. If someone illegally took a photo of me or one of my family naked, using a hidden camera, I would like there to be legislation in place which allows me to control (ie. stop) distribution of that photo. This would be censorship, and I personally think it is entirely valid.
Copyright is a form of censorship, too, and though personally I believe it has vastly exceeded its remit, I do believe especiall
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read all your comments. You have said:
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Repeating yourself and declaring your opinion to be correct does not an argument make. Why do you think censorship is "useful"? What are these "good reasons" you have for censorship? I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give it a shot.
Rights are whatever we define them to be. In an atheist's world of matter and energy, there are no rights inherent to human beings. There are only the rights we grant ourselves. That leaves the question: how do we choose what rights to grant for ourselves? We grant rights for a purpose. We grant them for our enjoyment, and for our survival. Everyone's needs must be weighed up when granting those
Re: (Score:2)
Gee thanks. In school, did you do the other kids homework for them too?
If an envelope is dropped on the ground saying "private and confidential", you don't have the right to read it, whether or not you personally agree.
Quite simply, this is false.
What about child pornography, where the child is raped in front of the camera?
And completely unable to make an argument from first principles, you jump to the hot button issue. Think of the children!!!
These exceptions open up the concept of censorship. If we have no right to view certain materials, surely we could be allowed to use some enforcement? Ignoring the multiple problems with censorship for now, the theoretical concept of blocking materials that a vast majority of people have deemed to be harmful if kept in the public eye doesn't seem too bad.
And they say the slippery slope is a fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always construct your arguments entirely from snide remarks?
Too bad for you. I'm in too much of a good mood today for a crotchety old slashdotter to bring me down. I do have one more thing to say, though.
The slippery slope was always technically a fallacy, but then again so are many other useful arguments. When used properly, it's no worse than the rest of them. The problem is that slippery slopes are applied to just about everything that a person doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
You have to show that people truly won't be offended by the extremes towards which you are heading.
The burden of proof is (or should be) on the person asserting that the "extremes" necessary to offend people will ever be reached.
What you are describing is the reason the "slippery slope" is a fallacy to begin with. It's begging the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as an Australian - I would rather this than the "freedom" the US people strive for where the most immoral things are allowed to survive in the name of individual rights.
Just as one mans 'freedom fighter' is another mans terrorist, one man's shitty scorpion cd is another mans child pornography. I'm sorry their is a cost to this game we call life, collateral damage and what have you. I'd much rather take the hits and be free to figure things out on my own and for myself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Aussie aren't like that... We all agree we can settle this over a drink, a blu, and it'll come out in the wash. That leave only one idea to argue over.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking as an Australian - I would rather this than the "freedom" the US people strive for where the most immoral things are allowed to survive in the name of individual rights.
Speaking as another Australian - I built a Time Machine, would you like to use it for getting back to 1930's Germany?
Far be it from me to be rude normally, in this instance your commentary has stirred me to it - Sir, or Madam, you are an ignorant idiot.
Re:Its not such a bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why bother to implement a system that will only affect the people that it is least aimed at?
Child pornography (and the other psuedo legitimate targets of this filtering) is already illegal, this should be an enforcement issue, not a censorship one.
Whilst ISP's may be reluctant to cooperate with the MPAA/RIAA to catch "pirates", I can't imagine any of them shielding a child predator for a single second.
As an aside, yes I am Australian, yes I've lodged an official protest and YES if implemented, I intend to bypass these retarded filters.
Re:Its not such a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is never a good idea (or even "not a bad idea" ). You probably think that because you probably never lived in a country where real censorship existed (and often with "immoral" people "disappearing", after all, it's easier to silence the critics as they appear than to dismiss and censor all that they say).
If you let the government tell you what is "immoral" and what isn't , you go in a pretty slippery slope. Today you may have a "good" government; but no one knows if tomorrow the members of your government go insane and define that now you will live under a dictatorship which will allow them to filter anything they consider "immoral".
Now, what is a good idea is parents educating their children for the real world , teaching them that different opinions exist and some of them are (according to some societies, religious or political groups) immoral . Shielding children from the world will only lead to a mass of sheep that can be easily controlled by the media and the government and can't take their own decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is never a good idea (or even "not a bad idea" ).
I believe censoring child rape videos is probably a good idea, if only for the wellbeing of the child in question. If you really believe censorship is never a good idea, I don't want to live in your society.
Re:Its not such a bad idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good thing you don't get to speak for the rest of us.
Honestly, I am quite able to make up my own mind as to what I can read or look at. I don't need anyone making that determination for me.
As the great Frank Zappa once said, "There is no sound that you can make with your mouth, or word that will come out of your mouth, that is so powerful that it will make you go to hell", and in the same vein there is no image or word you can see or read that will 'sabotage your mind' against women and children. What you decide as content that 'leads to a depraved mind' might be classified by others as just simple harmless garbage which most people will just ignore and never seek out anyway.
It doesn't matter what kind of censorship they do, nobody can ever do a thorough job. There is simply too much garbage out there that would need to be filtered, and stuff will always slip through. Even the tests that showed they were blocking large amounts of legitimate content also showed that they were letting through some content that should have been blocked. So much of the truly abhorrent shit that they're wanting to block, child pornography, isn't even traded out in the open via the web anyway; it's traded via DCC on efnet or other IRC networks, or on private SSL secured boards that change IPs regularly.
One of the many stupid things about this is that given the above being true, the amount of money required to implement the government's plan will end up increasing our connectivity costs even more than they are today, for no discernible benefit.
So, in summary, whether or not you think censorship of the internet is a good idea or not, it's pointless because no matter what you do, you'll fail in your objectives, and end up just costing the public more money trying to force your morality on them.
Re: (Score:2)
I am ashamed to be Australian right now.
Well, it could be worse, you could be French or Canadian, then you wouldn't just be ashamed right now, you would have your whole life for shame.
I'm sure it's been said before, but... (Score:2)
You have the right to remain silent.