Australian Internet Censorship Plan Torpedoed 308
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has been scuttled, following an independent senator's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation needed to start the scheme. Anti-Gambling Senator Nick Xenophon previously supported the filter because it could also block gambling web sites, but today withdrew support saying 'the more evidence that's come out, the more questions there are on this.' This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship. Censorship Senator Stephen Conroy has consistently ignored advice from technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online. Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or 'revolting and abhorrent phenomena' that 'offend against the standards of morality.' Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."
Block The Internet (Score:5, Funny)
So the filter would block the Internet?
Re:Block The Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about the rest of the internet, but by "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" I'm pretty sure they mean MySpace.
Couldn't the morality part also apply to anything for gay rights?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality"
Depending upon your perspective of what defines morality this could also mean
1. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists with homosexual closet fetish's they act on in airport restrooms.
2. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists that test how many prostitutes they can bang on a quick road trip across state lines.
3. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists, but have a secret fascination with young
Re: (Score:2)
oops, misprint & correction
3. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists, but have a secret fascination with young *male* interns and sodomy in *quiet* back room closets.
Hate it when that happens
Note to self: don't post comments until the coffee has kicked in
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Block The Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Actual it can't apply to politics the high court has ruled that in order to have a free election politics can't be censored
Sounds simple if it went through. Got a site that is blocked? Want it UNblocked? Add some political commentary to it... I can see it now...
Naughty Nurses Narrate Politics!
Tiny Teens showing you just where to stick your vote!
Bound, Gagged and Beaten - how to vote with sign language!
Favorite Fetish - Why we all like to fill in an election card differently!
Gay Political Watch - Is your bread buttered on the other side?
Given that definition... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
So the filter would block the Internet?
If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Easy. White noise is at least soothing and tolerable. :)
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Funny)
No commercial interruptions!!!
Re:Block The Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news. Now that television has gone (or is going) digital, we'll have no more white noise. Instead we'll just have blank blue screens.
For example right now, for some unknown reason, I can't get channel 10. My television is taunting me with a BSOD and "no signal" overlay. That's just so much better than the fuzzy analog image I used to get. (cough) Not.
Re:Block The Internet (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anything that's offensive will be blocked, so the aussies will stick to watch flowers and waterfalls and only happy news on the web.
Big brother is watching you! But who is watching the watchmen?
Another problem is that sites on the net changes all the time and one site may appear and another disappear. And who frees old blocked addresses?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'll guess [leasticoulddo.com]
One reason... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're a city-dweller, you're fine, but there are lots of areas, not necessarily even very far from cities, where broadband access is poor or non-existent. Needless to say, our government's priorities are not appreciated
Re: (Score:2)
So the filter would block the Internet?
Maybe not quite all of it. There may be a few web-sites which are bland enough to pass.
Of course, the parliament in Canberra would trigger a bunch of those filters (crime, sex, revolting, immoral, etc.) and get blocked immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They're Australians, what the hell is sufficiently "revolting or abhorrent phenomena" to shock them? In fact, no, don't answer that.
Oblig. Bash.org (Score:5, Funny)
<FreeFrag> Thats why I recommend Telstra ADSL.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I am not an Aussie... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am not an Aussie... (Score:5, Insightful)
That generation have been running things now for almost 20 years. This was the same generation that benefited so from the emancipation of youth culture in the 60s and into the 70s. They enjoyed sex, drugs and rock and roll, inventing a whole new cultural paradigm out of the Beat Movement of the 50s, tearing down boring conventions, raising hell. When they became politicized, they demanded accountability from authorities and youth participation. Some refused to go to Vietnam and get killed. They demanded the lowering of the drinking age and the age at which you could get a license. They wanted to be treated as adults at 18 or before. They wanted free love, meaning no social restrictions on sexual intercourse. They reveled in the contraceptive Pill. They got all of their demands.
But as they grew a bit older, they got married. As their kids hit teenage years, they panicked, knowing from experience just what they could get up to, because - remember - this generation had already done it all.
Steadily, they began to pull up the ladder they themselves had climbed. They decry the promiscuity of young teenagers, saying it is harmful. What killjoys they became. In many cases, they want to raise the drinking age and the age at which kids can get a drivers license because young people are too "irresponsible". Having themselves fought for 18 to be regarded as the age of majority, now many want to increase that upwards. Having fought to lower the age of consent for themselves, many now want it raised.
This is the ex-free love generation that now wants censorship.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you talking about Australia or America now?
Re:I am not an Aussie... (Score:5, Funny)
That's easy, you send your money to Conroy - you'd be surprised what politicians would do for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a member of the Human Race, I, too, feel it is our obligation to do what we can to support the abolition of asininity.
Political borders notwithstanding.
However, I have very little money, but I can collect tabs from soda cans.
cheers,
Re:I am not an Aussie... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?
Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!
For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.
That makes you just as bad as the us in the US, always wanting to tell other nations what they can and can't do with their sovereignty.
Yeah, it's exactly like that. Only completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
The principle of self-determination holds that only citizens directly affected by a government should be allowed to influence its policies. Foreigners need not apply. i.e. Britain should not be trying to tell Australia or India or France or whoever how to run their affairs. Let the local residents determine for themselves what laws will or will not pass.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The principle of self-determination holds that only citizens directly affected by a government should be allowed to influence its policies.
I would agree that foreigners shouldn't vote in the elections and shouldn't be allowed to contribute to candidates. Other than that, they are well within their rights to express their opinions, and also to support groups opposing or favouring policies that may end up affecting them. This is how various NGO's work, and it's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no objections if foreigners from the United States lobby for passage of a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (or clone thereof).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you have no objections if foreigners from the United States lobby for passage of a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (or clone thereof).
They already do that here in Canada, through their corporate subsidiaries. Trying to shut them up has as much chance of succeeding as the censorship laws; it's better to speak up against the ideas. What I object to are the DMCA-like laws themselves, which is why I support both local and U.S.-based groups like the EFF.
I understand and generally agree with your point regarding self-determination. At the same time, I recognize that borders lose their relevance with every passing day when it comes to laws of a
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?
I wondered the same thing when those kooky Utahans were donating money & running ads in California to block gay marriage. This is MY home, and MY government, not yours. I don't interfere with your whacky Mormon sterilization program or whatever you do in Salt Lake, so don't interfere with my California loving. Butt out.
Same with Australia; let them decide for themselves if they do or d
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is a "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offends against the standards of morality".
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Please, won't somebody think of the causality?!
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, self-referenced paradoxes cause you!
Ow. My head hurts just thinking about that one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too late. The causality was a casualty.
Re: (Score:2)
By that definition they would be forced to censor censorship.
Hopefully that would be accomplished by making everyone in the country watch 2 chicks one cup.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they would only censor the information about censorship, which I don't think they'd mind too much. Think of it as a gag order.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator likes his internet porn me thinks. (Score:3, Funny)
Xenophobe? (Score:2, Insightful)
After RTFS, xenophobe doesn't even begin to describe Stephen Conroy. Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness. He should be tried for blatant disregard of personal freedoms.
it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence
Really? Is he also going to block all Hollywood movies from entering Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgHhHNC92M [youtube.com]
Man, I wish the stingray would pierce Conroy instead of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After RTFS, xenophobe doesn't even begin to describe Stephen Conroy. Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness.
The phrase exists in English too. In England we might describe such a person as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells [wikipedia.org], but I doubt that phrase crosses the Atlantic well, never mind making it all the way across the Pacific too.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>"more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression t
>"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"
Wow that's obscure. In the U.S. we say "holier than thou" or "holier than God" meaning somebody who committed the sin of pride. They think they are so self-righteous that they are better than Jesus himself.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>"more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression t
>"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"
Wow that's obscure
Not in England :-)
Re:Xenophobe? (Score:5, Funny)
"Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness."
How about dickhead? nobend? tosspot? Here in England we've mastered our language to produce plenty of simple yet effective and widely applicable words for situations and for people like this. For additional effect you may prefix a language construct which could only be defined as a pre-offensive such as "fucking".
Hopefully we will soon update our finest Oxford dictionaries to include these useful and flexible language constructs and terms.
English Language Lesson (NSFW) (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the puddle, we already have this useful word fully incorporated in our official lexicon, even to the point of being included in English language lessons, such as this one [youtube.com] (though the atrocious spelling might also be indicative of something...).
The useful and versatile F word is one of the few that may be used in just about every major grammatical category -- sometimes even all in the same sentence.
(And, lest I miss out on the Meme Train:)
Also, fuck you. :)
Give them an inch... (Score:5, Insightful)
and you know they'll try for a mile.
This is why those types of idiots have to be resisted at every single step of the way.
[subject censored in the public interest] (Score:3, Funny)
If they have an inch, they'll brag to the girls that it's at least a foot. And promptly try to block any access to evidence and squelch any opinion close to the truth.
Look carefully at any would-be censors, for they likely have something to hide, and merely seek to conceal it behind a bigger screen...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If they have an inch, they'll brag to the girls that it's at least a foot
I just tell them that all the nerves are at the entrance, and therefore you don't need more than 1-2 inches anyway. ..... Ooops. I've said too much.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why those types of idiots have to be resisted at every single step of the way.
Hey now! I like to mess with australians as much as anyone, but calling them all idiots is just going to far!
Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality". Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."
He wants to block all of that content and has narrowed it down to a mere 10,000 sites? Conroy's depth of knowledge in this field is simply stunning! Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!
Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (Score:5, Funny)
Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!
Exactly! There's so much bestiality on the net now, that if you google for "People having sex with goats on fire", google responds with "Too many results. Please specify type of goat."
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the four people who modded this up didn't check from a work computer...
Re: (Score:2)
Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!
I think I know them:
usenet.us ...
usenet.eu
usenet.za
usenet.jp
It all makes my head hurt. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If it offends me, I want it banned for everyone." seems to be the mentality of so many. I understand the general intent of blocking that stuff, but it'll never, ever truly work. Besides, people like him will never listen to any other opinions, let alone listen to numerous experts telling them their ideas are wrong.
Heck, you could tell him that water was wet while soaking him in a bathtub floating in the ocean during a rain storm. But if his mind is set on water not being wet, he'll never listen.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>understand the general intent of blocking that stuff, but it'll never, ever truly work.
Even if it did work, I do not understand the intent. NOTHING I've ever seen on the net has offended me. Nothing. Therefore I don't see any reason to block any of it. I want access to every website created all around the world, without censorship.
As Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson observed (with modification): "Whether my neighbor worships one [goat], many [goats], or no [goats] matters not to me.
Old News SMH (Score:2)
Nick Xenophon actually announced is withdrawl of support for the filter around Jan 20th.
The news is, it was revealed the government will require full senate cooperation to introduce new legislation, that will surely fail to pass without Xenophon's support.
Now if only the UK would drop its stupid scheme (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Great to see that common sense has at last prevailed.
Because ONE man in power is not a complete asshole? What if he gets hit by a bus?
Fitting, and a Quote from Reagan! (Score:2)
Oh, there's no doubt about this. I mentioned in a previous post that we in the US appear to be using things like this as a test case (without actually committing to it) to determine if the concept would fly. There are a few members of Congress who have openly expressed their sentiments as pro-filtration.
Unfortunately
Fight not over yet (Score:5, Informative)
While it is true that a mandatory filtering proposal is likely to require legislation to implement (especially without the support of the Internet Industry Association and a voluntary code of conduct), it is not clear that any future legislation is dead in the water just yet.
http://www.efa.org.au/2009/02/26/xenophon-opposes-mandatory-isp-filtering-but-fight-not-over-yet/ [efa.org.au]
Yes! (Score:2)
Representatives of the People (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it. How do we account for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you have the power of a censor list, you have the power to censor anybody.
Opposition party starting up and happens to believe that lolicon isn't child porn? Oh, that's obscene - filtered! Independent media outlet reporting on a war with gruesome photos of the carnage? Oh, that's too shocking - filtered!
The standards for blocking a site are also quite vague. What if you are on a shared host and one of the sites on the shared host has porn the nanny state doesn't like? Does that mean you get filtere
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it.
I recall someone busting Conroy's chops on the ABC radio show Media Watch a short while back. I also remember another ABC radio announcer slipping in some filter related questions to one of the people involved in a child porn ring bust. Something to the effect of:
interviewer: "What about filtering, does that help the problem?"
police guy dude: "Oh, they don't do anything."
I should really try and find a source for that. There were a few other radio shows talking about it as well (I think "Spoonman" on Tripple
Re: (Score:2)
Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it. How do we account for this?
Hypothesis: Representation is a trailing indicator (that is, people's opinions flip-flop more often than they elect new leaders). The majority of people may have actually supported censoring when they first heard of it, around the time of the last election.
Consider US opinion on invading Iraq, and how long after that opinion changed it took for US leadership to follow suit.
R18 and X18? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there like a master list of all the R18 and X18 sites...? I think I need to check it over to make sure they all deserve to be there.
Squeeze (Score:4, Insightful)
The harder you squeeze the more you piss off the electorate.
Not out of the woods yet (Score:5, Informative)
However doomed, this is still government policy and it's entirely possible that Xenophon's vote could be won back if the government agrees to back other causes close to his heart. There's also the possiblity of Liberal senators crossing the floor, (the Liberals were the ones to introduce the "Black List" after all) or of Labor winning more Senate seats in the future to give them a more powerful standing in the senate.
Having said all that this is definitely the best news we've had for a while on the Aussie net censorship issue. In your face Conroy!
Transparent (Score:3, Interesting)
The Letter and Site in Question (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/acma-anti-abortion-prohibited/
In response to a complaint about an anti-abortion web page showing photographs of what appears to be aborted fetuses, ACMA has declared the page âprohibited or potential prohibited contentâ(TM). The Whirlpool member who made the complaint, presumably to gauge ACMAâ(TM)s response to such content, has published the departmentâ(TM)s email:
Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100
From: online@acma.gov.au
Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm
Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.
The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.
Information about ACMAâ(TM)s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMAâ(TM)s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline
Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMAâ(TM)s attention.
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
After it blows up in his face, his peers in the Labor party would have a good excuse to push him out. It does sound a bit far-fetched but hope springs eternal...
Anti-abortion website blocked for good reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Extreme groups are (almost) always wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not going to argue against abortion or defend fringe groups, but your logic does not follow.
If there was a serial killer who had escaped from maximum security prison several times to continue killing, then by killing him, it would preserve more lives. Therefore, killing someone is in line with protecting all life, because all alternatives lead to more lives lost.
Re:Anti-abortion website blocked for good reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anti-abortion website blocked for good reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are certified physicians performing a legal, albeit controversial, practice.
Would murder be perfectly acceptable if it were legal? Because that is the crux of the issue: Is abortion murder?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tools parents use are of a good example of why this cannot work, they do not have never and cannot stop kids looking at anything they want on the internet ...
The only "tool" that works is put the computer in a family room and be around them when they are using it, this is 100% foolproof and may even lead to them speaking to their children occasionally ...
Stephen Conroy (Score:4, Insightful)
Stephen Conroy is an asshat.
That is all. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the Australian Government was just desperate to get on a bandwagon while it was new, any bandwagon.
I'm convinced they were doing it to get this idiot [stevefielding.com.au] on their side in the Senate.
Re:Bandwagon (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks to me a lot like a McCarthy moment; as in Senator Joe McCarthy [wikipedia.org]. Conroy sounds a lot like him in being a lunatic zealot suffering from severe self-righteousness to the point of being pathological. I mean, when a guy starts talking about banning anti-abortion sites and sites showing drug use, he's gone so far around the bend that those who back him, usually out of pure political expediency, can no longer do so.
What is sad about this, sadder than even Australia coming within an inch of this level of censorship, is that a government could let itself get so out of control.
The Frightening Aspect... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's frightening about this, though, is that other Western governments are probably using this as a test case to determine the efficacy of such censorship (and whether public opinion will effectively bend over and take it).
Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the US and UK alike that would very much appreciate this level of censorship, perhaps even under the guise of limiting/preventing piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I suspect the Australian Government was just desperate to get on a bandwagon while it was new, any bandwagon
I hear 700 billion dollar bailout/stimulus bills are currently in vogue. Maybe the Aussie government can try that next?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should hear what this crazy George W Bush was doing....
Winning an election with a minority, reading books upside down, sending people off to illegal wars and making hilarous mistakes in speeches.
All polititians look stupid if all you see is foreign news - bad news travels much faster. That said alot of them look pretty terrible in the local new too ...