Censorship in Oz - We need help! 229
Gimila writes "Despite previous proposed censorship being decided against here in Oz our esteemed leaders (*sarcasm*)have decided to introduce internet censorship legislation to buy one uptight politician's vote on a GST tax - he holds the balance of power and wants to "protect children from the internet", while the government want to intoduce a GST *roll*. 'Net users in Australia need to act now to prevent the proposed legislation - see the EFA Action Alert for more information. The government are ignoring all past and present expert advise including their own studies. We need a backlash down here!
" Yeah, yeah, I know--that's the America Declaration-but it seemed appropriate.
Update: 04/22 06:08 by CT : Hemos needs some more high school: "We the People" is
from the Constitution, not the D.O.I.
Another british proct. Canada has censorship (Score:1)
Who cares if you can watch your child? (Score:1)
search for materials that you feel they shouldn't,
then you have already failed in your duty as a
parent. If you have instilled in them the idea
that this material is interesting and desirable,
then it's _far_ too late to run and hide behind
your government and expect others to foot the bill
for your mistreatment of your own children
-Greg Mildenhall
"A well regulated militia..." (Score:1)
The most recent Supreme Court decision in this area holds that the Second Amendment is a collective right. It has nothing to do with any supposed right to self-defence by individuals. As I said, this is the Supreme Court's latest stance. However, a lower federal court (US v Emerson, I think) said that it was an individual right rather than a collective one. (cf Hickman v Block, Love v Pepersack, US v Warin, Cases v US, Hamilton v Accu-Tek, and US v Miller.)
I'm not sure how exactly that all gets sorted out but I think that since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land their opinion holds more weight. However the Miller decision is pretty old (60 years ago).
With any luck the more recent Emerson case will end up before the Supreme Court and they can make a more definitive ruling. Regardless of the ruling I doubt it will stop advocates on either side from trying to pass the laws they want.
Quite so. And worse than that... (Score:1)
Amendments limiting the states' laws (for instance, preventing any state from permitting slavery) I can see as essential in rare but existant situations. Allowing the federal government to outlaw slavery directly (with the usual Congress-may-make-laws-to-enforce-this bit), however, allows excessive top-level government. Not a good thing.
Absolutely right. (Score:1)
How in hell could any responsible parents not notice SOMETHING to be up with their children constructing bombs and procuring guns? Not very easy activity to miss. For that matter, it's very likely that there was some other incident/warning sign (harming animals or the like) that they missed.
It's not the school's responsability to be sure that children are psychologically well-balanced (censorship being part of this). It's not the government's. It's the parents.
I wouldn't exactly go as far as saying these people should burn in hell (be jailed, whatever) but they'd damn well better get some solid child psychology education/counseling and apply it to their practices towards any other children they may have.
I have the right to not put up with this shit (Score:1)
"Television in the US is censored like you would not believe, with the stark exception of the news where they have no problem showing you anything and everything."
This is where I see the problem. From my own experiences the VAST majority of children have little or no difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. It's the reality that they see on the news what does the most damage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the news in and of itself is a bad thing, its just the way it is presented. "Bad thing numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 happened today as well as pointless things 1, 2, and 3. But first, we bring you, LIVE, the horrific event of the week in full color!" "Excuse, me Miss, I appologize for stopping you on your way to get that nasty injury taken care of by those nice paramedics, but I really need to fill some time here, so I'm going to subject you to a fifteen minute interview while you slowly bleed to death."
Is it any wonder why youngsters today turn to violent acts when they are desperate for attention? That's all the news media cares about, and in far to many cases, it's also the only time they get any feedback from their parents.
The entertainment industry doesn't force anything down anybody's throat. It produces what sells. If we're worried about the content, lets figure out why so many people go for violent content and fix that, not sue the entertainment industry into the stone age.
Stop whining. (Score:1)
This seems to me to be the attitude of the typical American redneck when subjected to anything they don't like. "Lets go find the person that we think is responsible, and shoot them. What could be more American than that?"
Do you support the actions of the youths in Colorado that decided that they would start shooting people in a school randomly as a valid form of protest? I don't think that getting a gun and going to shoot politicians is going to get much of a better response from anyone.
In this particular case, the government is trying to buy the vote of a key member in the Senate by pushing fluffy happy 'Family Values' legislation through. That's great, because we all want to live in Pleasantville, USA right?
.. D
Curious Irony (Score:1)
An interesting aside, the 2nd ammendmant has been considerably watered down. It was drafted in the first place with the intent that citizens should have a level of firepower equal to that of government forces. After all, all the government had at the time was rifles and small cannon.
Today, we the people are not allowed anything like what the military has. Step by step, the class of weapons included in the 2nd ammendmant seems to shrink. Pretty soon. we'll be allowed a bandanna and a rock at most.
firearms == fundamental freedom? (Score:1)
Enjoy paying for the largest prison system per capita in the world.
Several years ago, the town of Kennesaw, Ga. passed a law REQUIRING a handgun in every household. (In practice, the requirement isn't strictly enforced). Crime went down 33% there, and has stayed down. Less crime, less prisons.
Other countries may have found even better ways to keep crime low, but there is no evidence that gun ownership (in the general population) has any effect on crime rate.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
I'd like to know which spoken words can kill.
How about 'Deutsland uber alles?' For more examples, visit any KKK or Neo Nazi site. You will find many words with the potential to kill. And in each case, I will support their right to say them even if I lament their desire to say them.
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:1)
I agree that parents can't be everywhere all the time. Especially in today's two income and single parent households. However, the idea is to come up with the least restrictive system which can be made to work.
Personally, I support standardizing ratings tags on websites. The tags should be strictly on a volenteer basis. The browsers should support a maximum allowable setting as well as an option to not display unrated material.
Personally, I am a male in my 30's w/ no children. I find pornography mildly offensive, but prefer to click the back botton rather than have censorship and the associated risk that the definition of obscene material will gradually expand to include 3rd party cantidates' websites, or anyone else who is politically inconvienient
Hmmm. (Score:1)
I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception,every one of them was deeply involved in pornography . . .
They also all went to elementary school, let's ban that too.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
And in all three cases above these are words backed with guns.
These days, the Neo Nazis mostly back their words with chains and knives. The KKK seems to have always preferred ropes, wooden crosses, and gasoline, and a mob. They used the guns because they were there, and their victems might have them. If they hadn't had guns, do you really think they would have just called the whole thing off?
Same s...tuff here in the UK (Score:1)
No freedom protections? (Score:1)
Nick
Right to bare(sic) arms and good manners (Score:1)
People keep to their best behavior when they know it is in their interest not to piss anybody off.
That works much better than any legislated politically correct behavior ever will.
Is it all that bad? (Score:1)
Problems for everyone? Or problems for a few people who care a bit too much about what other people are doing, whether or not it hurts others?
I'm not saying that I promote censorship, nor am I saying that I'm against it. I'm just saying, it has its obviouse advantages.
Yeah, so does living with your parents. The question is whether or not one wants to move out and grow up some day.
Personally, I prefer being a grownup, even when it's scary.
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:1)
politicians. sheeesh (Score:1)
if you can't handle those sites, turn off your machine. geez lately all of todays society is taking the easy way out, ban this, ban that. get real! the parents are the ones who should be supervising their kids and not some stupid ass 'guessing proxies' as they propose!
it is so typical as of late in this world, everything has to be politically correct, sociably acceptable.. how's about a bit of commons sense people, and we all know that our politicans have none, they're the biggest crooks around!!!
well.. personally, kick the parents up the bum and tell them to start parenting like they should. nuff said!
long live the corporations!
-- cx
Newer updates. The government speaks. (Score:1)
http://greek.blm.net/augov-censor.html [blm.net]
Same s...tuff here in the UK (Score:1)
The Government will introduce stronger measures to protect Australian citizens, especially children, against illegal or highly offensive material on the internet, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, announced today. The internet, and other online services, have the capacity to significantly improve the lives of all Australians by providing access to services, by creating new jobs and new categories of jobs, and by providing access to information and entertainment sources around the world. But the internet can also be used as a forum for the dissemination of offensive or illegal material. The Government takes very seriously its responsibility to provide a workable and effective regime to prevent the publication of this material.
Lack of clue-bats is global (Score:1)
comment i'm no expert on this subject but digesting the article found on this page I figure that the government is trying to regulate the internet muck like it does with other media, classifying content deemed as unsuitable with a rating system.
if a piece of online content is deemed unsuitable for australain audiences (epecially all those kiddies) the australain government will try to block the site if possible, password it or notify the host country....
so they are going to attempt to apply the same australain classification system that we have to film, books, videos, tv and radio to the internet.
but here's the real sinister part.....
the internet can also be used as a forum for the dissemination of offensive or illegal material. The Government takes very seriously its responsibility to provide a workable and effective regime to prevent the publication of this material.
lets them block embarassing leaks, comments they dont agree to. Nice way to use a law to block freedom of speech?
Another british proct. Canada has censorship (Score:1)
As for Canada, they're a bit uptight and they've got some loopy Marxist-feminist ideals in places. I recall reading about some Canadian who was convicted and fined for defamation against the concept of women and children. That would be equivalent to an American being fined for saying bad things about motherhood and apple pie.
Don't know about the current state of free speech in Britain, except that public performance of some types of electronic dance music is illegal under the Criminal Justice Act, a law passed specifically to demonise ravers. Things may be more liberal now that the Tories have been out of government for some time though.
Is it all that bad? (Score:1)
Why pay all that money for high-speed access and then not get a proxy? Caching proxies not only allow logging and blocking, but can speed up access. I don't think the blocking is desirable or necessary. Logging, however, means that if anyone pulls a stunt like they can be tracked down and disciplined. If students know that, they won't do it.
Censorship threatens freedom, always (Score:2)
This thing about protecting children is the most overused excuse for censorship ever invented. In reality, censorship will never protect children, and frankly politicians don't care. Taking away someone's rights is not protection, it's a direct attack on that person.
No emotional appeal for protecting the innocent among us, should allow political leaders to seize the rights of the people and hold them hostage. This is a problem in America, in Australia, and all over the world. There is never a point where some group of people needs protection so badly that the government should take away the rights of everyone.
The world has always been a dangerous place for those who aren't wary. If a child can access X-rated web sites, that reflects on the child's parents more than on society as a whole. Parents should be the ones who protect their children from perceived threats, not the government, and certainly not the whole of society. The idea of censorship is and should be repugnant to a free society, let us take steps to protect the freedom that we have been given, and prevent its sacrifice for some utopian vision derived from political whim.
Loader of Code and of BricksI have the right to not put up with this shit (Score:1)
As for looking down on other lowly nations, I wonder about that sometimes because Americans are essentially immigrants from these lowly nations. Perhaps, this looking down is due to the fact that established Americans judge a foreign country by the immigrants or tourists from those countries. These people can't speak English, have strange customs, strange food, etc... I would also guess that if your neighbor was Canada, you too would gain a feeling of superiority.:)
As for television, the founding fathers did not foresee the establishment of the Fed. Communication Commission. OTOH, the censorship on TV in the US is easing up (thank you R. Murdoch and the Fox TV Channel).
And for your last point, America needs to be very careful about implementing laws that supress the rights of minority groups. In fact, the US needs to be very careful not to pass laws that infringe on the BOR's. I cringe everytime there is talk about laws prohibiting the burning of the US flag, or about allowing prayer in public schools.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
When the government loses this trust that the American people can find a solution to a problem, it essentially is saying that our society has failed.
Bad timing (Score:1)
Central to all of this is the explosive issue of gun control and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans probably know only three part of the 10 part BOR's; free speech, right to bear arms, and the right to remain silent. Unfortunately, the internet censorship issue falls within the domain of free speech (in the US), and hence, this Aus. censureship issue is being swept into the vortex that surround the Colorado massacre.
Also remember that the *only* thing keeping the CDA from being fully implemented are court rulings that this bill violates the US Constitution (1st Ammendment, free speech).
Once again, sorry. But emotions are running pretty hot in the US right now.
Harradine not known for making sense (Score:1)
Senator Harradine doesn't really have a history of making sense.
Actually, he seems better informed than the Minister for Communications at times; it's just unfortunate that he's on the wrong side, so to speak.
Lack of clue-bats is global (Score:1)
Note: There was heavier censorship in the fiftiess and sixties. There always is under liberal government.
I think you mean "Liberal government". Despite their name, the Liberal Party is conservative.
Hmmm. (Score:1)
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts?
Minister...minister......ministry...
Let me see...I seem to recall reading something about a ministry somewhere...
Oh, yes!
``1984'', by George Orwell. The ``Ministry of Truth''!
Listen, you beady-eyed little bureaucrats, look at my sig and realize the truth of it. You cannot ``censor the Internet''. You can only restrict people's access to it; restrict the free flow of information. Which makes you no better than the dictator your planes are bombing now, or the people who ordered the tanks into Beijing.
No better.
What is this about? Porn?
Young people are more harmed by guilt that is instilled by a repressive Ministry of Information, than they are by viewing non violent sexual or erotic imagery.
The only persons who have any business protecting children from certain material are the children's parents.
Period.
If your society has declined to the point where the government believes it has any role in how children are raised; keep your guns close, because the time when you must stand with your fellow freedom loving citizens against it is near.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
LOL! (Score:1)
Yes, Ted Bundy, one of our more prominent sociologists.
Bzzzt!
Try again!
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
The Marine... (Score:1)
No freedom protections? Not quite. (Score:1)
No freedom protections? (Score:1)
And yes, I realise this has almsot nothing to do with the article at hand. Appologies to the annoyed.
A summary of the bill (Score:1)
http://gomed.rodos.net/censor/bill- summary.html [rodos.net]
The summary of the summary is
In summary, individals in Australia will :
No freedom protections? (Score:1)
It's worth mentioning that in practice , despite our weak constitution, by and large, Australians do quite well in terms of rights compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the world ( INCLUDING THE US ... )
Labour should let the GST through (Score:1)
Labour can and should kill this deal. The liberals probably aren't too happy with it ( though their far rightists would like it ) since it is a big vote loser ( most Aussies do not approve of censorship )
BTW, Harradine is a fruitcake. His only notable acheivement was using his balance of power to kill a budget , losing a fortune for his country. The only reason he got into senate in the first place was because our proportional representation system of senate elections allows people to gain senate floor space with a very low percentage of the vote. Unfortunately, the tendency of Aussie politicians to blindly vote on party lines means that 1% of senate floor space often amounts to 1/3 of the power-share.
cheers,
Porn and school labs (Score:1)
cheers,
Enjoy your rights (Score:1)
Meanwhile, you guys have your guns, but how much has it helped you really ? Guns will not help you deal with the tough issues like homelessness, drug abuse, health, crime , and education. And guns have not saved you from the censors.
cheers,
--
Primary vote makes not a government (Score:1)
I didn't know about the primary vote( Im an expatriate so dont follow closely ) I guess this weakens the lib's position. Still, I'm a firm believer in *NOT* blocking budgets.
Of course, you'd be perfectly justified in pointing out that the libs hardly have established a long precedent of fair and unobstructive opposition ...
cheers,
--
Voting districts are a good thing. (Score:1)
Do the football team that win the most games deserve to top the ladder , or the team with the highest percentage? ( for the benefit of non Aussies, in Aussie football, percentage is basically your goals scored divided by goals against you )
The answer is simple: the team that wins the most games deserves to be on top , because it is a consistent winner.
Likewise, parties that can not get any support outside their "heartland" do not deserve to win.
If Australia was gerrymandered the way QL was under Joh's tyranny, you'd have a point. However, it's not clear that the electoral boundaries are overwhelmingly pro-Liberal. They certainly haven't been subjected to much political abuse favouring the libs, since labor had the lions share of political power ( federally ) in recent years.
You'd do your POV more service by pointing out that the libs only have a slight majority in the house ( as you'd expect given the vote ) and this weakens their mandate.
I have the right to not put up with this shit (Score:1)
Styx.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
I respect your opinion, and believe that you think big government does know best. I am not trying to change your mind, I agree to disagree.
I just prefer people to be consistent in their beliefs. Here is a unix helper, apply it to the above quote:
s/firearms/freespeech/g
s/firearms/freedomofassembly/g
s/firearms/freedomofreligion/g
s/firearms/freedomfromunreasonablesearchandsezi
s/firearms/presumptionofinnocence/g
You get the idea. All of the above have been a "social cataclysm" in many ways at many times. You believe that the best protection is for the power to reside with the government, I believe that the best protection is for the power to reside with the individual, neither of us has a perfect solution, both of us would like it to be better.
Bill "Not trying to start a fight" Kilgallon
Curious Irony (Score:1)
Are you trying to limit my free speech?
:)
(sorry, could not resist)
Curious Irony (Score:2)
Anyway, a number of posters from down under stated in the other thread about what a stroke of genius it was for the Australian government to make it completely illegal for private individuals with no criminal background and no crimnal intent to own a firearm.
Presumably, this was done because the benefits of the vast majority of legal firearm use and ownership (I bet around 99.999%) were deemed not as important as the damages caused by the remaining
Well, Australians, make up your mind. Here in America we have the first two ammendments to the consititution, the first protects the right to free speech, the second protects the right to own firearms. The founding fathers knew that both of these rights will cause some damage, but that also knew that each was far more dangerous in the hands of the government then in the hands of the individual.
Guns and words are both very dangerous. The spoken word has killed far more people then firearms ever will. If guns kill people, then words kill nations.
The founding fathers of the United States got one thing right... Governments are far more dangerous (and as an aside, far more stupid) than individuals. The bill of rights explicitly empowers the individuals at the cost of the government specifically for the purpose of protecting the individual from the government. Both the first AND the second ammendment are critical towards those ends. The first two ammendments protect each other... they simply make Tyranny mathmatically impossible.
So I guess what I am saying is that you should either decide that the government knows whats best and should have strict control and licensing of all dangerous behavior (like free speech and firearm ownership), or you should decide that the individual knows best and minimize governmental controls wherever possible (like limiting free speech restrictions to libel laws and limiting firearm restrictions to preventing felons and psychopaths from possessing firearms).
Make up your mind!
Discusted. (Score:1)
I would like to make a couple of points about the conversation so far.
First, I am a little discusted that what started out as a plea for support against a fairly ill-informed and poorly motivated piece of legislation, to do with Internet censorship, turned into a round of US-based Aussie-bashing.
This is particularly disturbing when coming from Slashdot subscribers, which, until this point, I had considered fairly open-minded and intelligent.
Second, I find the notion that Australia's restrictions on gun ownership and Internet censorship being related in any way absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that a large majority of Australians fully and passionately support the gun control that Australia has, and the issue has been debated heavily though the media and in public.
However, what has not been debated or even explained fully is this legislation on internet regulation. The current government (in Aus.), is trying to ram through a piece of legislation aimed solely at satisfying a poorly-informed independent senator on a morals campaign, in order to get his crucial vote on tax legislation. It has nothing to do with the good of the people, nor have they checked whether or not the legislation is actually capable of achieving its goals. Its a pity this situation gained no sympathy from Slashdot, given the stand they have taken on CDA.
BTW, if a half-hour, grossly-inaccurate, though somewhat funny Simpsons episode is all you know about Australia, then please refrain from commenting on it. To the rest of the world you merely look ignorant (and arrogant).
Matt.
Maybe we could all pitch in... (Score:1)
Hehehe. Personal T1 for everyone! All the porn you can choke down! Choose any OS you want! Paradise.
But that is just me.
So you can't police your child... (Score:1)
You know, you shouldn't have to police your child at all. If children are raised right, they will make the right decisions. If you allow porn, or even TV or violent video games take the place of a parent, they won't make the right decisions. But that is just my experience.
So you can't police your child... (Score:1)
You know, you shouldn't have to *police* your child at all. If children are raised right, they will make the right decisions. If you allow porn, or even TV or violent video games take the place of a parent, they won't make the right decisions. But that is just my experience.
Sorry bout the double post. Please ignore. (Score:1)
Sorry, I'm a parent... (Score:1)
Be careful what you wish for... if the government legislates what your kids can see, guess what?? They'll also get a specific political and moralistic agenda pushed down their throats... for 'their own good', of course.
Censorship threatens freedom, always (Score:1)
Well, it's obvious that this poster has no idea what a fallacy is. Can we say non sequiter?
The incident in Colorado reflects only on two disturbed teenagers who didn't get the help they needed.
In the same way, people are individually responsible for their actions. Censorship only serves to make the censored material more interesting. The censored material is a convenient scapegoat for those who demand to find a cause, even when there isn't one, or when it is based on complex interactions that we cannot yet understand. The cries for censorship are the result of hysteria on the part of those who want to be protected from something they can't understand, and who are willing to make things worse in order to give themselves the illusion of security.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
Curious Irony (Score:1)
Over a century of domestic peace, the longest-lasting constitution in the world, and you call it Social Cataclysm?
Any credibility you may have had has now been lost.
Alan R. Light
Monroe, North Carolina
Curious Irony (Score:1)
Don't ever link freedom of speech with firearm ownership. What do you think the flipside of "an armed society is a polite society" is?
I quite like the fact that I can walk down the street without every disgruntled One Nation voter having the option to blow my brains out because they don't like the way I dress.
The gun lobby has made the American government gutless. Fortunately we haven't let that happen here.
"We won't use guns, we won't use bombs, we'll use the one thing we've got more of, that's our brains." - Jarvis Cocker.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
Not the bloody republican debate. (Score:1)
Indeed. (actually, technically she's the Queen of Australia, she just happens to be the same as the Queen of England.) Actually, we're going to have a referendum on this question later in the year, unfortunately a group of elitist republicans, the Australian Republican Movement, gazumped the Constitutional Convention last year and pushed through an entirely unsatisfactory republican model where parliamentarians will appoint the president, which will serve as the "Yes" option in the referendum.
The ARM had the somewhat patronising attitude that the Australian people shouldn't be allowed to actually elect the president directly, which really isn't much better than having a foreign monarch. And as for the monarchists...
Consequently, even though I do definately want an indigenous head-of-state, I am still in two minds as whether to vote for the status quo (the constitutional monarchy) or the degenerate republic-lite later this year.
I should also add that Australia is already technically independent, and has been so since the 1930s, with Britain relinquishing its remaining privileges since then. But an Australian head of state still has an symbolic importantance.
But this getting way off topic, isn't it?
Stop whining. (Score:1)
Hahahahahah! Oh yeah. Well, for a start most of us have never really had guns to start with. And those of us that do tend to use it for sensible uses, instead of trying to hold off the coup etats you lot richly deserve.
Sad sad Americans, who will never truly know freedom.
Australia == Oz (Score:1)
Well, I'm an American studying in England, and I know a lot of Australians here. In my experience, the Australians are the only ones who call the place Oz.
If you want to see where it comes from, try saying "Aus" and "Oz" or "Aussies" and "Ozzies" and I think it will be pretty clear.
We the People (Score:1)
Sorry to nitpick, Jeff (Hemos), but the words "We the People" appear in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Of course the Constitution is the right document to cite, because it is its amendments which did the most to establish the rights of Americans.
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:1)
Hmmmm. Okay. (Score:1)
In my state, South Australia, the ALP did not gain a majority of the "primary vote" (42.05% vs 34.48 and that is just the Libs, not the coalition - the National party is small in SA). The Coalition EASILY won the two party preferred tally (53.11% vs 46.89%). The Democrats won 10.14% of the primary vote in this state (in the Lower House, even).
There have been numerous times the ALP has not won a majority of the primary vote but they have still formed government.
The fact remains that the Liberals went to this election with a policy to introduce the GST, and they won. Or should we overthrow our political system just when it doesn't suit our favourite party? Even the Democrats are willing to negotiate with the Government about this.
NZ, AUS & women in politics (Score:1)
Stop whining. (Score:1)
Rheingold's Law (Score:1)
Well, why not use that FreeS/WAN thingy to make a pipe out from Australia's pristine shores to a server in a more enlightened place and circumvent the national restriction?
Bloody Brian Harradine (Score:1)
Brian-bloody-harradine shouldn't have the ""monopoly"" he has with the current government situation. It is just a joke. Why should howard and the other senators reach out to harradine's every wish?
BTW I'm not pro those kinds of sites but i am really against net censorship. We should be responsible enough to look after ourselves....
- An Unbelieving Aussie
NeuRix~# mail sniper02@hotmail.com
Subject: Assassination
Please assassinate brian harradine - money's in
the usual place
^D
:)
- NeuralAbyss
~^~~~^~~~^~~~^~~~^~~~~^^^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Real programmers don't comment their code.
Topfree == legal. Censorship is a different beast (Score:1)
Topfree is legal here (stateside) as well. A friend of mine was one of the women arrested in an act of CD to get the sexist law thrown out. Thanks to her and her friends, it is now legal for women to dress the same as men in public places.
BTW, nudity/naturism is not the same issue as censorship, even though censorship is sometimes a factor with nudists/naturists. Censorship is an evil that is much more pervasive than just affecting body parts and their display. Much!
(This is NYS law, btw. YMMV. IANAL. blahblah #include std_disc.h)
Labour should let the GST through (Score:1)
The independent senators only have balance of power when the two major parties disagree. What makes you think that Harradine should not be allowed to cast his own vote, rather than being forced to vote with the liberal? (the whole point of being an independent is not following a party line)
As for blocking the budget, the method of raising the money for the budget was by selling off a profitable publically owned company (Telstra for those who don't know). The majority in the senate were against loosing control of Telstra, so they voted against it.
As for the percieved problems in the distribution of power, you will never find a totally fair political system (I think some mathematician proved it once). I don't know what the best system is, but I wouldn't discard the current system just because of this problem. There are many systems that are worse.
Yep, it's bad... and i live there :( (Score:1)
other recent censorship in the land of Oz (Score:1)
A summary of the bill (Score:1)
I had a look at the speech (though not the bill itself). Unfortunately, it looks like a relatively sensible and well thought-out proposal. I say "unfortunately" because if it was as silly as some of the other proposed legislation, it would be a lot easier to stop (as happened in New South Wales). I don't condone censorship, and I don't think new laws are necessary here. Truly vile stuff like child pornography is illegal in Australia under existing laws, whether it's in print or on the Net.
Australia has a spotty history on censorship; mostly (as other people have pointed out) we're too laid back to make much fuss. One of the great ironies here is that X-rated material is banned from sale in all the states except the Northern Territory and the ACT (Australian Capital Territory, which unlike NT, isn't a state; it's like USA's District of Columbia: somewhere to stick the nation's capital so the government doesn't bother you while you're working). But - where was I, oh yes - sending X-rated material in the mail is *not* banned, so the ACT, and Canberra in particular, has become the centre of Australia's porn industry. At least Canberrans now have something to do when Parliament isn't sitting. (Imagine Washington, only twenty times smaller, and without the guns or drugs. Now take out the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress, and anything else that might be interesting. Add a rather nice lake. Ta da! That's Canberra.)
And the Film and Literature Classification Board (newspeak for Censors) seem to be a bit confused anyway. Playboy's Book of Lingerie - which I buy for the articles, of course - will be "Unrestricted" one month (i.e. any 12-year old with too much pocket money can buy it), and "Category 1 Restricted" the next (Adults only and wrapped in plastic). And for the life of me I can't work out what criteria they use (I spent many hours researching this). Plus the stickers are really hard to get off...
And yes, they do put an "Unrestricted" sticker on it when it's unrestricted. Doh!
And yeah, if there's a protest march on in Sydney, I'll be there. A plague on Senator Harradine, and on Senator Alston too. Where have all the decent politicians gone? Come back Nick Greiner, all is forgiven! (Nick Greiner was premier of NSW, scuttled by his own Independent Commission Against Corruption, but later cleared in court.)
I shall put them on my list, and they'd none of them be missed...
SQL Error
I have no pity! (Score:1)
You might as will sit back and TAKE IT now, since youve all been sitting idle for so long as your freedoms are stripped from you one by one..
no pity,
KidGloves
I have no pity! (Score:1)
Our lack of a contitutuionally guaranteed set of rights hasn't stopped us from having a free, safe and largely uncensored society. I think Asimov said that 'Violence was the last resort of the incompetent' - if you need a guarantee to carry guns to feel safe there must be something fundamentally wrong with your society.
Our challenge in Australia is that people are charactising Internet Cencorship as a fight to protect children. Unfortunately it is really a fight to buy a vote and the real effects could be to lose jobs and opportunities for our children.
Why do children need to be on the Internet anyway - at their level of education a library is a much better resource for learning.
Right to bare arms and historical absurdity (Score:1)
I must admit, this one thing I prefer in the French culture - the ability to talk about most subjects without any hang-ups.
I know this is ls slightly off-topic, but I needed to share that.
Australia and Censorship (Score:1)
This is odd, considering Australia has a whole set of laws granting censorship powers to various arms of the government and public service (mostly resting in customs, and the attorney-generals department). The reason for the lack of censorship last decade was the decision of the attorney-general Michael Lavarch to deliberately NOT censor. This all changed when Government changed hands. Almost as soon as the liberals had moved into their new offices, censorship was a big issue.
The best solution to censorship is people in power who don't want to censor. That is, almost noone in our current federal government.
So, with this in mind, my best solution to Australian internet censorship: Don't push them.
The liberal government is highly reactionary. If you point out that their laws are unworkable, they will make them workable. I'm not saying ignore it and it will go away, so much as this is not a problem anyway. If you must have X rated material, you will get it one way or another. I can't see ISP's having even a 40% success rate at blocking any class of download. Especially if it is non-text based.
In addition, these laws are as you describe them, a dealmaker with Senator Harradine. The gorvernment is not so likely to put them on the front burner. Chances are, they will sit in commitees and review sessions until the next election, when the government will more than likely be voted out of power, as they nearly were last election. In the unlikely event of them reaching the senate, chances are they will be blocked by the Labor party and democrats until the government is either forced to give up, or call a referendum (unlikely).
Summary: Just because Australian politicians say thy're going to do something, doesn't mean they will, or even intended to in the first place.
Censorship threatens freedom, always (Score:1)
One of the hallmarks of a successful modern nation is a free press, and by extension minimal censorship. There are very few countries which could be deemed successful economically, which have anything but the most minor censorship.
By economically successful, I mean nations with high GDP, low poverty rates, and acceptable foreign debt.
Lack of clue-bats is global (Score:1)
A summary of Australian censorship powers is as follows:
The Government has the power to censor anything, if they see fit. It's in our laws.
Freedom of the press is NOT assured in Australian law at all.
The bulk of censorship power is held by the customs office, whose policies on the matter are set by the attorny generals department. For most of the last two decades, the attornay-general's policy was not to censor. This seems to have changed with the new government.
Australia is the least censored country in the world, or at least it was in '95, when I researched all this stuff.
Essentially, the only reaon Australians have ever avoided censorship, is because the government didn't want to censor.
Note: There was heavier censorship in the fiftiess and sixties. There always is under liberal government. Just adds weight to the argument that anyone claiming to be liberal just wants to tell you what to do "for the sake of society."
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:1)
Childraising should not (in my inexperienced opinion) be about policing your child. If you teach them right from wrong when they are young, they will most likely figure out the right thing to do in most situations. You don't have to watch their every move. Sure, they'll go off the rails here and there, but they will more than likely straighten out with a little help.
If you look on childraising as a "police" situation, they will view themselves as criminals. The best way to raise a problem child is to punish him/her for every grievance without explaining why what they did was wrong. It teaches them to push you until you snap. Soon they realise they can keep pushing a long time.
Admittedly, censorship laws could aid the parent, but so could laws against private cars. You teach your child how to cross roads. If you teach him/her that it is wrong to look up porn, they probably won't much until they are at least 13, at which point no force in the world could prevent them.
Every problem child I have ever met I could trace back to shabby parenting. I know, it's my experience, it isn't particularly valid, but I have met dedicated drug-users who were otherwise model citizens with a strong work ethic, morals and a sense of purpose. And I have met people who didn't drink and were the most arrogant, self-obsessed cases of arrested developement I have ever known. Guess which ones were the children of divorced marriages.
Parents bear in my opinion, responsibilty for the person they raised. Complaining that it's not as easy as all that is ridiculous. Didn't you know it was going to be hard?
Labour should let the GST through (Score:1)
More Australians voted Labor. (it's spelt without the 'u', just so you know. It has a lot to do with their original anti-mother England stance from when they formed) Liberal won more seats, hence liberal is in government, when the majority wanted labor.
For those who cant figure this one out for themselves, here's my explanation:
Imagine there are 100 seats in parliament. liberal wins 60 with each of their sixty receiving a vote of 51% liberal, 49% labor.
Labor wins 40 with a vote of 99% labor, 1% liberal.
All seats are approxmately the same size. (They are in reality too.) Labor has a vast majority of the vote. But liberal has more seats.
This is something like what happened in our last election, albeit far more extreme.
That said, I am not entirely opposed to the GST. It would make good economic sense in the long run, with a short term drop in standard of living (which we have coming, like it or not).
It won't work well with the current system. The idea is that it increases propensity to save, because when you spend money, you lose money. Liberal has driven down our propensity to save immensely by deregulating the banks and leaving the path free for banks to charge exorbitant fees. (I'm getting ATM use charges as high as $2 per withdrawal). For the GST to do what it is supposed to, the government would have to reintroduce bank regulation and cut bank fees by 80-90%.
Lack of clue-bats is global (Score:1)
I did in fact mean "Liberal", but I feel that liberal/conservative do not have such clear cut definitions.
Don't kid yourself that a liberal politician (as opposed to a Liberal one) wouldn't try to damage your freedom on the internet. Of the two US parties the democrats are the more liberal yet the republicans are frequently more libertarian. (Quick question: Which US party has tried to introduce encryption key escrow as a law?)
And the Liberals are not much more conservative than the Labor party. There is far more overlap than you might think.
Conjecture (Score:1)
Curious Irony (Score:1)
.xxx (Score:1)
The real problem is trying to provide everyone with my standard of morals
There is no way to block it all. Some of the worst sites are "health" sites such as NYs university of columbia where they tell you how to clean blood and gore from your s&m devices (plus a whole lot more). The internet is like the world--user beware.
Right to bare arms gets even MORE off topic (Score:1)
"Having the right to be able to kill" != "having the right to kill"
The right to bare arms does not imply the right to use them indiscriminently.
So now you ask, why would I want to have a gun if I can't use it? Think of a martial artist, trained 30 years in all forms of weapon-less self-defense. He/she can probably kill an aggressor any number of ways, but will not want to. Likewise with owning a gun or any other dangerous device. You don't _want_ to be forced to use it, but if your rights are being threatened by circumstances beyond your control, you want to have the right to be prepared to defend those rights.
Your comment is almost akin to "Why should the right to oppress the populace (what else can a police force be used for?) come before other government rights?"
This may relate... (Score:1)
It sounds like you need GUNS.
First they take away guns, then they take away speech. Sound familiar?
--Corey
Ah, refreshing... (Score:1)
Your perception of the courts' "interpretation" of the constitution is the correct one. Poor, unwashed constitutional non-literalists can't seem to understand that sometimes people say and write exactly what they mean.
--Corey
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT STATE TO OWN FIREARMS (Score:1)
> AFTER 20 INNOCENT CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN COLORADO YOU HAVE ENOUGH BALLS TO BREAG ABOUT
> OWNING SEMI AUTOMATIC GUNS!
If I owned semi-automatic guns, I would likely not brag about them... oh, wait, I _do_. Now, have I gone out and shot anyone? No.
The fact is, the wackos in Colorado used _shotguns_ to perpetrate their crime. Not semi-automatic weapons (the likes of which technically include all hand guns, including revolvers, semi-automatic hunting rifles, even my
> THese werent people who were killed. They were children.
And since when have children not been people? If you're a radical leftist, that may be the case (pulling up the abortion issue, just to incite your ire).
> ITs because of liberal gun laws made by NRA extremist who only make up 3% of
> America's population.
No, it's not. The fact is, in places where the gun laws are the most strict you'll find the highest incidents of violent crimes commited with firearms.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It's not just a quaint saying, but the stone truth.
> ITs embarasing calling myself an American while all the Canadians and Europeans scratch their
> heads at us.
Renounce your citizenship. Move to Canada or Europe. No? Why not? Perhaps you are not that embarrassed after all? Why are you embarrassed calling yourself an American (at least, over this issue... there are a number of other issues wherein I will agree with you)?
What you fail to realize is that the first two amendments go hand-in-hand, and the first would not be secure without the second. Nor would any of the others. That little piece of paper in the hermetically sealed cabinet in the museum in Washington, D.C. isn't just a novelty. It's a living, breathing document and a shining beacon of reason in an otherwise hostile world. The Kosovar Albanians didn't have guns, nor do the people of Iraq. We do, and because of that, we will never be as bad off as they. If the government gets too nasty here, assuming the people don't act like sheep and foolishly give up their rights to bear arms, we can overthrow it. That idea is not a tinker-toy, either. It's a moral imperative.
"The tree of liberty is fertilized by the blood of patriots."
> THe constitution says that in case the government becaomes a tryant and abasues its
> pwoer then we as the people must bear arms agaisnt the power. NOT OWN GUNS! Read it yourslef.
The logical fallibility of that statement should be clear even to you, but if it is not, I will point it out.
How can We, The People, bear arms THAT WE DO NOT OWN against the power of a tyrannical government? Do you think such a government will supply us with arms as a gesture of good will? No, We The People _MUST_ be able to own arms. Note that the Constitution (the paper in the sealed box in D.C.) does not mandate that people own and carry guns, but SECURES THAT RIGHT via the Second Amendment. If you value the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights, then you must value the second. It is there for a reason, and is the underpinning of the guarantee that the others will remain secure for us.
> THE NRA missinterprets the constititon for their own greedy agenda.
That agenda being... ? The death of more Americans, or maybe the wanton destruction and blight caused by crime? I don't think so.
> WHy would the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights mention personal firing arms
> when discusing how to build a governemnt.
Because they were Very Wise Men [tm] who had just fought a war for their independence from a tyrannical government, and did not want their progeny (us) to face the same threat from their own government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly that, and for the reason given, the necessity of such for the security of a free (speech, assembly, citizenry...) state (the U.S.).
>The whole idea of the framers thinking about oppreson and liberty all of the sudden think
> aobut their own personal fireamrs.
Umm... yeah? They saw their firearms as the means for securing that liberty against that oppression. We should see things in much the same way. Do you honestly think that, if the populace was not armed, the U.S. would be any less prone to tyranny than any other place on the planet? Why do you have this delusion?
> ITs obviously out of context.
What is out of context? The founding fathers had that belief, and it is still a valid belief. I can only hope that, if they were around today, they would have written the same provision in a much clearer fashion which irrefutably secured that right to the people. I believe they would.
> The nra supports crazy stuff like ammo that can peirce bullet proof vests of police officers (I
> can't see how this would benifiet deer hunting)
The constitution said nothing about deer-hunting. And the armor-piercing variety of bullets would be necessary to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. If the Marines decided to take over, say, Boston, do you think they would go in in tee shirts or standard-issue BDUs? I doubt it. I think they'd wear flak-jackets. People in Boston would be _thankful_ for the armor-piercing ammunition, and don't think they wouldn't.
> and making it legal to conceal a semi automatic weapon in your jacket.
If you're speaking of "assault rifles", they're hard as hell to conceal in a jacket, even a trench coat. If you're speaking of, say, a 9mm Beretta, that's easier. Why shouldn't I be able to carry my weapon inconspicuously? If I wear it on my belt, it's more likely that some wacko will try to take it from me and use it against me by just grabbing it out of the holster. If I have it under my arm, in a shoulder-holster, I might have a better chance of stopping an ongoing rape or robbery, or of defending myself if I am not disarmed _first_.
> I heard on cnn in Missouri the nra tried to do just that.
Yeah, but Missouri is on a different planet. Seriously, though, I'm from Missouri. I live in Missouri. I wanted Proposition B to pass. The fact is that it did pass by overwhelming numbers in the outlying counties. Only St. Louis and Kansas City kept the bill from passing due to turnout by ill-informed urban votes, drummed into action by media hype. But it wasn't the NRA that put this before the people. The state legislature put it before the people in a direct vote (a referendum, for the uninitiated).
> Missouri made it ilegal in the 1800's when outlaws were everywhere and the crime went down
> when criminals couldn't hide pistols in their coats.
I had not thought it possible for someone to be so ill-informed.
Missouri did, indeed, make it illegal to carry a gun on your person in the 1800s. But only if you were going further than two counties distant (the distance one could reasonably be expected to travel on horseback in a day's time). So, there is nothing in state law that says I can't sling a belt around my waist, hang a six-shooter in it, and walk down the street. The fact that the police would, in short order, arrest me is an abridgement of my rights under state law.
Besides, I'd be willing to bet that in over 95% of crimes committed in the U.S. (and in Missouri) where a gun was involved, the gun involved was not legally registered to the wielder. The proposition in Missouri would have required a concealed-carry license and a properly registered handgun.
One question I'd pose to you: given that a criminal will use an illegal gun to commit his crimes (95+% of the time), what is to stop said criminal from concealing an illegal gun in his jacket?
Another question: if that criminal can conceal his illegal gun in his jacket (which he will do, in order to avoid or at least defer detainment by the constabulary), why can I, a law-abiding citizen, not conceal my properly registered and duly-authorized gun in my jacket?
> Now tell me how concealing semi automatic weapons benifets deer hunting or even shooting
> semi automatic weapons on rural property for fun.
Semi-automatic weapons of what kind? Assault rifles? Those are difficult to conceal even in a trench coat. Handguns? Who would hunt deer with a handgun? What does deer-hunting have to do with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
> Their is no need to conceal them. THe NRA are nuts the constition does not state to own weapons
> but rather bear arms agaisn't the foriegn or dictatory power. Jeez
Okay, so, if we go up and wave our arms at an invading army (our bare arms, no guns), they'll turn tail and run away? The kids at Kent State waved their bare arms at the National Guard, and some of them ended up dead because of it. If we have no arms to bear, then all we can do is bare our arms at the oppressor, and that won't do a damn bit of good or secure a single bit of freedom for anyone. Except, of course, the oppressor who will slaughter all of those who come at him with bare arms like sheep. He will have guns, shouldn't we?
> For all you europeans and australinas reading this, remember that the vast majority of
> Americans don't agree with this madness but are rather captive by powerfull nra politicians.
No, all you Europeans and Australians, believe that the vast majority of Americans DO agree with the second amendment. We are not captive to powerful NRA politicians, but are rather fond of the idea of maintaining some semblence of common sense and civility. The last couple of generations notwithstanding, this is a decent country. It can be again, but only if we take our rights more seriously, as well as the responsibility that goes along with them.
> Bill Gates is having a fund raiser to raise money against the volience of handguns. This is
> the only thing I have common in Bill Gates.
Well, I have to say this: I sympathize with those who have been victims, directly or indirectly, of handgun violence. I would give money to a fund that helped to counsel those victims, or pay benefits to those who are so afflicted. I would not, however, give up my right to bear arms. Just because Billcutus gives money to a cause doesn't mean he thinks one way or another about it. I suspect that he, in the guise of Microsoft, gives a good rate to the Exxon Corporation for the purchase of MS Office. Does this mean that he believes in the senseless killing of animals and the wanton destruction of the environment?
Think about it. Just think about it. Hell, just think period.
--Corey, NOT an NRA member.
Your arguement is flawed - wrong. (Score:1)
I can refute your argument by pointing out two or three cases of the opposite.
It is your assertion that no civilized country which allows firearm ownership by the populace, including handguns (France, as you say, allows the private ownership of hunting rifles... as I have no knowledge of this, I will give you this point), is "safe".
Would your idea of civilized countries include such countries as Switzerland, New Zealand, and Israel? These are all "western" countries, and as such are "civilized" by your criteria from what I can see.
All of these countries allow, and in the case of Switzerland and Israel (not sure about NZ), PROMOTE the keeping of arms by the citizenry. The difference: they TRAIN and EDUCATE their citizens on the proper use of these arms.
I would venture a guess that Switzerland and New Zealand are among the safest nations in the world. Now, where was your argument?
Also, there have been reports of "civilization" in the far East. One little nation there, called Taiwan, strictly forbids the ownership of firearms. That little nation sports one of the highest incidents of violent crime in the world. So, where was that argument again?
--Corey
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:1)
Aforementioned parent gave up.
A little background. I'm 32, married, contemplating my own short people... having had some practice. I had a roommate for seven years who had two sons, and I helped her raise these young gentlemen (for that's what they were) for those seven years.
No, you cannot be there every second - but you CAN teach them proper respect, for themselves, for others, for dangerous tools including weapons. You can also teach them how to react when proper respect is not shown. When you do that, you don't need censorship, you don't need gun control, because you have raised a kid who is, in short, bullshit-proof.
Been there.
Done that.
But noooooooooooooo, the Nice Nellies want to take all the sharp edges off the world and put warning labels on bottles of water "warning, too much of this and you could drown".... Yes, I can see a certain standard of merchantability, but they refuse to require that one of the requirements for remaining in the gene pool is a certain amount of common horse sense. What these idiots want to do is select for their own kind - idiots.
Am I the only one that is outraged that the free exchange of ideas, the right to defend oneself, and the concept of excellence are in the current sociopolitical climate topics to be reviled and demonized at all costs? THIS is genocide... slowly and painfully.
It means us, too. -- epilogue, Brave New World
Curious Irony (Score:1)
best" ????? Methinks not.
The fact is, the Constitution of the United States
has been amended numerous times, and previously-
existing portions removed. The fact that the
citizens of the United States have not seen fit
to rescind the Second Amendment in the 212 years
of the American Republic should tell you
something: namely, that we don't see the need to
remove it. .
Curious Irony (Score:1)
Not that any of this is germane to Slashdot, but the bottom line is this: every time a major effort to ban guns, as a whole, nationwide is tried, it fails miserably. Reality: Deal with it. . .
And on that note, I'm out of this argument. . .
Right to bare arms and historical absurdity (Score:1)
Who was it that formed this country? It was the gun wielding citizens of the American colonies that fought the British. Did you know that the head of every household in colonial America was required by law to own a firearm? Remembering why they fled their respective countries, why do you think the colonists would have created such a law? Perhaps they were sick of being bullied around by all the king's men!
Our right to own, the 2nd amendment, is our last and final check on the government.
Feel free to disagree, it is your right as an American. Remember who fought for that right.
robert
This may relate... (Score:1)
politicians. sheeesh (Score:1)
short term. Equally unfortunately western economies are becoming increasingly service
based. Even more unfortunate is the fact that governments need money to run, and printing
the stuff for such purposes is not a hot idea. We need to tax services. I know there is this
perceived problem and that perceived problem, but these are the basic facts.
The real solution is for the democrats to deal with reality, then no one has to pander the
Harradene.
firearms == fundamental freedom? (Score:1)
That Drug Law fact is unsubstantiated. Show me statistics, please.
And I'm well aware that lobbies may well be running my government. At least they aren't running them into the ground though.
As for senseless mass violence being on the rise, unless I'm the ignorant victim of a lot of censorship, I've missed a lot. Frankly though, I won't say that violence may not be on the rise. But mix violence with firearm availability and the odds of those firearms being mixed into the violence increases. And I agree to it being a social problem. That being the social mindset that owning a device that is meant soley for death and killing is an acceptable thing.
T
firearms == fundamental freedom? (Score:1)
I know this is a fairly huge differnece but think of it as this: Guns have the potential to kill. As do nukes. Last I checked, mutually assured destruction was only something I'd want to leave in the hands of someone with something to lose. Because perpetuating guns to everyone everywhere, you'd soon reach someone with NOTHING to lose. And they could go ballistic, knowing perfectly well that they would die.
The nuclear detterent was one of the most costly endeavours that mankind ever embarked on. Don't be so quick to pass the detterent of violence onto the common man.
Curious Irony (Score:1)
I wish I could read off more examples and I know they are there. Being a Canadian, US history isn't my strong suit. However, your credability is just as easily lost as you cannot hope to gloss over simple and fundamental violations of basic human rights.
I have no pity! (Score:1)
Someone far far up said that words are as powerful as guns. Well this is out of his context, but it applies both ways. I can use words, not guns, and maybe even make a differnece.
And I tell you, I really wish I was an American. I could walk down the street with my Trusty Person Killer (tm), safe in the knowledge that that awfully corrupt government won't be robbing me of my freedoms soon because if they do, I'll shoot them all.
Of course, in reality, that's not the case. Television == Censored. No doubt about it. Tell me how much nudity and sex you can view on NBC or CBS or Fox or whatever after midnight? About the same as before. I'm a Canadian. I can get Showcase. Only then, we call it art (which it is, foreign film, not a porno). It's still after midnight of course. Can you say though, that you get it on cable?
You can't ever tell me you're totally free. Because that's just delusional and forms itself in statements like yours. I have no pity for YOUR delusion and I sincrely hope that you won't ever have to be put in a situation to use your Trusty Person Killer (tm) because you'll likely die. I don't need your pity, I have my freedoms and I find it sad that you falsely believe you have yours.
Is it all that bad? (Score:2)
It may not suite some people, but it has its advantages. For one thing, Internet access can be made available anywhere in the country (resteraunts, schools, kindergardens even) without having to worry about people visiting offensive sites, and causing problems for everyone.
The high school I used to goto in Toronto, Canada has full, high speed Internet. This thing started where everytime a lab was left unattended, people would pull up a porno site on all the computers in the lab. When the teachers, or visitors came into the lab
I'm not saying that I promote censorship, nor am I saying that I'm against it. I'm just saying, it has its obviouse advantages.
Beware Slashdot Advice (Score:2)
Most users here have no idea what it means to raise a child. Here's a small hint - you cannot watch everything that a child does, or police all of their actions. That is why there are general standards on the distribution of adult print materials in every industrialized nation. This notion of parental accountability and responsibility can realistically only go so far. Even the most anal-retentive parents must leave their children to the whims of society for part of the day.
Once most Slashdot users come to have children, they'll realize that their "maybe the parents should get involved" rhetoric is quite unrealistic.