Australia - Censorship Overload 249
VooVoo writes "The Australian Broadcasting Authority has taken Australia to new heights of ignorance following hot on the soon to be implemented draconian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill. It has proposed to introduce an access restriction system where Net users will have to supply personal details if they wish to access R-rated material online. (R-rated is softcore and way tamer than X-rated and XXX-rated).
The scheme was announced on October 27 and Australian's have until November 7 to object.
The ABA wants people seeking R-rated or "likely to be classified R by the Classification Board" material to provide their name, address, birth date, email address, and credit card.
Check out what the ABA has to say about it.
"
Re:Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything (Score:2)
On another note, I cannot for the life of me see how they can regulate this unless they do like singapore ( i believe ) and put government control on all pipes in and out as well as set regulations to the ISP's. If that is the case aren't they going to loose the tech sector (do they have one?) to such restraints?
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
No it doesn't (Score:1)
However, with the right technology, the Internet could route around censorship. Any interested should take a look at The Freenet Project [openprojects.net].
--
Re:Why Credit Cards??? (Score:1)
THe other interesting and Fun part is that this may contravene Privacy Laws. It may be illegal to keep a register of who is access "R" Rated information as this could be seen as a licence or information that could be deemed harmful if released. You don't need a special PORN licence to by Penthouse!
Also you can get a drivers permit at the age of 16 so even a licence is not fool proof.
Re:Could someone define these terms....? (Score:1)
It is what you as an individual under your own choices of morals and conscience take offence to.
Guns have been regulated for years . . . (Score:1)
I couldn't give a fuck what you Americans think about this - the "right" to bear arms is a crock of shit. If you can't come up with a better way to retain your freedom of speech (a little hint here for the intelligence impaired: it starts with a `D' and sounds absolutely identical to `Democracy') then you're probably too stupid to be safe with firearms. And don't try telling me that you need to fight to get democracy in the first place, because that's pure bullshit - Australia, that poor little nation whose citizens you seem to despise so much, never fired a single shot in it's move toward democracy. No, we somehow managed to get there by deciding that we wanted to, working out how we were going to do it, and then _peacefully_ telling Britain that we wanted our independance.
Force of arms is _not_ a necessary precondition for freedom. Nor is the idea that the populace should be able to win a war with it's own government. So please, just shut up. And you might want to consider looking at the history of those nations that have managed to remain peaceful and prosperous without fighting wars left right and center. You can start with Australia, then maybe consider Canada, New Zealand, the UK, most of Scandinavia . . .
himi
Re:Fight censorship with technology (Score:2)
Instead, and without fear tactics or moralist rhetoric, the Government could have instituted a public education campaign informing parents about the need to restrict unsupervised/unfiltered access to the Internet with young children (5-13) and begin a dialogue about personal responsibility and self moderation with older ones (13 and up). As a young person that has grown up in the midst of computers and communication technologies, I believe this would have achieved a much more productive outcome.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I was having a computer discussion with my somewhat *cough* less computer literate sister. She was discussing how quickly her 4 year old had learned to use their computer. My advice to her was to learn more about the Internet so she could teach her children when the time came. These actions will help keep us from having to legislate behaviour.
The War on Drugs(tm) in the U.S. is a perfect example of how silly it is to try and control content(substances) that your citizens want and will get either way. Fighting against yourself is never productive and leads to a waste of valuable resources. Widely spreading information is the best way to fight these battles, not limiting/controlling/spinning it.
Re:Freedom around the world (Score:1)
Neither rating is meant to indicate porn of any kind.
The ratings are based on the MPAA's opinion of the level of sex, drugs, violence, nudity and profanity in the movie. I saw an article at synge.com that stated that the difference between an NC17 rating and an R rating for the movie American Pie was "two pie thrusts". They cut it from 5 to 3, and that was all it took to change the rating. 2 seconds of film. It is because of the moralising of people who equated NC17 with porn that the rating practically does not exist any more.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
> professionals.
So, if you're not a trained professional (professional what, I might ask?), you've no right to defend your person, your family, or your property from a malevolent other? That sounds to me like you're taking away 99.99% of the population's right to defend itself.
Not to mention that the Constitution secures the right to keep and bear arms to the citizens of the United States. That viewpoint has been backed in other decisions by the Supreme Court, who have stated that the intent of the founders at the time of writing the Constitution should be taken into account when interpreting the words on the paper.
Our founders were prolific writers, and reading their works will give you the guts of their intent in writing the Second Amendment. In short, they made a distinction between the militia and the military. The military, called an Army in the language of the Constitution, was an entity whose purpose was a necessary evil. The founders realized that a powerful military would be a government tool to oppress the citizenry, and therefore included language to prohibit the quartering of troops and the assemblage of a standing army on U.S. soil. This is done to protect us, the citizens, from us, the government.
The "well-regulated militia" was seen as a citizen's check over the power of the military, and was deemed necessary by the founders to ensure the liberty of the citizenry. This viewpoint should not go unnoticed in today's society, where government is all-intrusive and where our rights are being attacked "for the good of the children" and "to further the war on drugs".
> [population control is NOT a yearly "in season" thing!]
How else, then, would you propose to regulate hunting? Hunting of, say, deer, is a necessary evil. Sport hunting kills off about as many deer from the herd as would have been killed in a year by a healthy population of predators (whom we've killed off, and keep driven away). Here in the St. Louis region, the deer herd is out of control. There used to be hunting in the region, and there was no problem with overpopulation. The herd remained healthy, and able to feed without problems and without causing problems for their human neighbors.
We created the problem when we killed off the wolves, and we must steward the animal herds for the sake of proper conservation. Nothing worse than seeing an animal starving, and nothing could be worse than feeding it and making it dependent upon you and a nuisance to yourself and to your neighbors.
Licensed sport hunting (deer tags, etc.) as a means of herd population control is a Good Thing [tm]. It's only in the last ten years or so that it's been thought of as a Bad Thing [tm], and in that time period we've seen a problem with population control in the herds.
I suspect that, while my example pertains to the deer herd in a given area, the principle is the same for other animals and for other areas. We have a moral obligation to the lands and animals that we steward to fill the ecological niche of predator, when we've driven the natural predators of the species in question away for one reason or another.
The Bill of Rights is not the origin of our rights as citizens and as free men in this country. The rights we enjoy are ours as human beings, and are inalienable (check out Locke), endowed upon us by our creator (whomever you choose for that creator to be, even if it be fate). I like to think of these rights as being "human rights", and believe that all men are endowed with these rights, and would like to see all men free to pursue their lives with those freedoms. The only reason, to my mind (and, I might add, to the minds of the nations' founders), that all men all over the world don't have the same rights as we enjoy in the U.S. is that their governments are oppressing them. That is, and should be, cause for revolt by the oppressed.
The Bill of Rights secures those rights to us from the oppressive force of the government.
--Corey
Get your pr0n here! (Score:2)
A consititution doesn't guarantee you anything. (Score:1)
The whole idea of democracy is that the power in a nation is vested in *the people*, *all the people*, not in some small group, be they the government or some nobles or whatever. Elections are merely a means of delegating that power to a group that's small enough to run a country reasonably practically.
This is something that most Americans seem to have forgotten - no matter how powerful their government might be, that power comes _directly_ from the populace. All the power in a democratic nation is owned by all of the people. If that isn't the case, then that nation isn't really democratic - it just thinks it is. And that seems to be where the US is heading, based on the way that a majority of people don't even vote, and on the number of people who seem to think that the government is some all-powerful group that has to be threatened with armed retaliation in order to stop them doing nasty things to people.
Truth is, the government couldn't give a damn about armed retaliation - they're infinitely more worried about being voted out in the next election. There's your power over the government, and you don't need a gun to use it. Vote! Vote every damn time you get a chance, because if you don't you're abrogating the power that you rightfully have as a member of a democracy - it doesn't matter what rights a constitution gives you, they mean nothing if you don't use them.
himi
Re:No - moderate that DOWN - it is not 'informed' (Score:1)
a Catholic as Harradine: he is just more
constrained by his party membership. Basically
the entire Coalition (Liberal and National
parties) has a hard core of ultra-conservative
wowsers who can swing the rest of the party
behind them. (A bit like the Republicans in
the US, I guess.)
Danny.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
I know there aren't any other parties out there. But the way the political and voting systems work, they are the only ones for all practical purposes. It is more beneficial to me personally to vote for which ever of the two big parties is more in line with my views, because if I vote for a third party, most likely that vote is a "waste" and it makes it that more likely that the one I want least is in office.
In fact, I hope to see more and more republicans head on over to the Reform Party. Why? Because if the republican party loses a big block of voters to the reform, then it makes it more likely a democrat will get elected (the lesser of two evils in my mind).
Until they create a voting system that actually allows you to vote for a fringe candidate that fits your ideals perfectly and yet still have an influence on who gets elected, the two party system is going to be what we're stuck with. And there ain't a chance that they'll go about trying to change the system, since it benefits them the most as it is.
---
How's about... (Score:2)
Re:Parental Responsibility. Good, now continue... (Score:1)
A poster mentioned "R&J" and Grey's Anatomy. Those are good problems to solve. I don't know the best way to work in a "Parental Checkbox" on this (Shakespear="Yes", Larry Flint="No").
That's because there is no way of just making a checkbox electronically. The computers aren't smart enough to distinguish the two. Only a human being can manage that.
The other problem is that what you thing your kids are too young for, someone else might think is just fine for theirs and vice versa. Since government regulations apply to everyone, you have to either write them to the least restrictive subset or wind up preventing people from making choices they reasonably should be allowed to make. And remember that, while you're reasonable, other people aren't. The US has problems with fanatics who would consider the Mona Lisa part of that "sewage flowing down the street and over the curb", and the US isn't the worst in the world I'm afraid. When thinking of government regulations on content, think first of the most fanatical, uptight, prudish, irrational bunch you can imagine, and then ask yourself if you want them able to dictate to you what you can allow your child to see. Because, frankly, that's the bunch that'll take full advantage of a law like this to do precisely that.
What's that got to do with anything? (Score:2)
How is this anything other than a superficial gesture of human rights?
-A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
I do think that certain material should be withheld from minors. What constitutes "certain material" is another
question altogether though
Well, maybe the "age verification" and censorship should be done at the recepient's end. The Internet community is not your children's babysitter. Something to think about before you give your kids unsupervised access to the Internet.
The Internet *can* route around censorship... (Score:2)
You are right of course, but don't you think that's a little implicit
I hate to cite the facts, but... (Score:1)
The article doesn't say that the government is the one collecting this information. The content providers themselves do this. (Mind you, it sounds like the gov. has the right to look at your records any time someone makes a "complaint", so this may be a pointless distinction in reality, see my rant below)
The article also doesn't say anything about requiring a credit card as part of the registration process -- it simply provides that as one possiblility (the others being a "digital signature -- whatever that gets legislated to mean -- or a standard government ID).
Now that I've shown that it's not as bad as it seems, I'll tell you why it's worse than it looks...
The scary thing is (well, the first scary thing, there are a few) the way this is likely to work in the real world. It costs money to run a "registration service", especially if there are government-defined hoops you need to jump through. A lot of people will just decide that it isn't worth it, and pull their information off the web. The sad part is that these will most likely be the non-profits and artistic sites, not the "Cum-guzzling teen sluts" (register that, you bastards!) that most (uninformed) people where thinking about when they passed this law.
The scary thing (part 2 in a series) is that even the people who stay online and register users are unlikely to maintain the databases themselves -- they'll contract out to another company (like AdultCheck). Competition will slowly drive most of these companies out of business. Then there are maybe a half dozen companies with the keys to our privacy. And these companies depend on their government licence to stay in business. So when the police ask for "just a peek" into the database (without a warrant, of course), they'll have the implicit them down if they say no.
The (third and final) scary thing about this is that the list of offensive material is likely to be a lot longer than most (again, uninformed) people think. This isn't just about "pornography"! This is where the online community is failing in its education efforts. Most people love this kind of law. Whenever you can say "but, what about the children", you've automatically got most of the public on your side. (see "drug war", "gun control", "COPA" for details) It takes a lot of activism on our part to counteract that.
There is one major benefit of this legislation for the linux community. All of these registered users will be counted in the new W2K server pricing model, driving prices up dramatically and forcing even more webmasters to dump their IIS for Linux/Apache!
Re:Some Background - for those who haven't heard t (Score:1)
Australia say NO to a repulbic, we need guidence (Score:1)
The changes in the constitution are to sever remaining ties with England.
We should say no, we NEED others to follow, we need to seek the guidence of other countries to help form sensible policies. Decisions like this proove we cannot stand on our own two feet.
If only we were going to the polls to vote on wether Australians had the right to privacy, or the right to free speeech or something.
This confirms Australias status as the "Global Village Idiot"
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
trust politicians? (kinda offtopic) (Score:1)
Right now we're on the cusp of referendum to become a republic. The big point of contention is the method for electing the president. The proposal before us has the parliment electing the president and the prime mister being able to dismiss the president more or less on a whim.
Sounds grand doens't it? Damn it though if one more talking head says "if you can't trust your politicians who can you trust" I'm gonna go balistic. Seems to me anyone with an ounce of good sence knows people in power can't be trust. Period.
This latest insult is just more salt in the in the wound. Hoo-fucking-rah.
End Rant.
Re:Tech sector? (Score:2)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
Not true, the Australian system has a High Court which is similar to the American Supreme Court. Its function is to test that the laws made by a government are within the spirit of the Australian constitution eg. the recent Mabo (sp!) case where the High court ruled that the Federal govt. law on native land rights to be unconstitutional
Re:Fucking yanks and their guns . . . (Score:2)
Historical reasons mostly: had to kill the natives to take the land, had to kill the British to get away from them, had to kill the animals to eat, etc. We're a bloody group of people.
Why do so many of you seem to think that the only way to achieve and maintain freedom is by force of arms?
Mostly due to a historical (and still current) complete lack of trust in our own government. Some of us view the U.S. government agencies as a bunch not far removed from the Nazis, and distrust both their motives and their methods. Periodically the government provides various events as evidence to continue this distrust.
Are you completely impervious to the lessons of history, in places like India (everyone seems to revere Ghandi as some kind of demi-god, but they conveniently forget that he taught people a way to achieve freedom _without_ using force), and in Australia, too.
Impervious, no... just not as selective as some. Violence has been part and parcel of the history of mankind -- part of the reason Ghandi is so rightfully revered is that he was such an exception to the usual violent methods used by so much of mankind. But gaining freedom from a far off empire is a completely different story from keeping freedom from your moronic next-door-neighbor who isn't going to go away. Oh... and wasn't Ghandi murdered?
We were once a penal colony, ruled by Britain; now we're a free, sovereign nation who are on the verge of cutting the last of our ties with Britain. Did we ever even dream of fighting a war _against_ Britain? No. You see, we didn't need to - all we needed to do was ask them, and provide them with what we considered to be a good constitution, which they gladly ratified and set us free to follow our own course.
Gee, we didn't even want freedom from Britian at first, we just wanted a few seats in Parliment -- like they'd given to Scotland a few decades before that. Funny, they weren't so nice to us... amazing what a difference a couple of hundred years can make.
Please, will someone explain to me why this kind of thing is so hard for Americans to accept? Is there something in your psyche that makes you blind to the possibility that things do not have to be done exactly as you did them? That there might be other ways of life that are just as valid, and possibly more so, than your own?
Well, *I* accept that. The world would be a boring place if everywhere and everyone were like the U.S. Ugh.
Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto the rest of the world?
I don't. Most Americans don't either... most don't care about anything beyond the borders, really. It's just that the ones that DO care tend to go into the government (see why a lot of us don't like our government?) and go bother a lot of people overseas. I don't understand it either, really. They give the rest of us a bad name. But may I ask this: why do you listen? When an American comes to tell you how to live, laugh in his face and tell him to bugger off. (Or whatever local cursing is most effective.)
Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own mistakes than yours.
[shrug] Fine by me. Just please don't confuse what Americans want with what the American government wants. Perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, they are NOT the same.
I've heard much complaining for several years about how America forces other countries to do this or that... I've always wondered why. Seriously. Tell our government to shove it, and do as you see fit. The world *would* be a better place.
Direct election would have got a YES vote (Score:1)
You dont mention that only 13% agree with the 2/3 majority presidential election method.
Australia has had good stable government (with the occasional stupid decision) for 100 years.
Changing to a system where the watchdog (president) is elected by all parties coming together and mututally agreeing on something wont work. We will end up with some half-baked idiot thats elected because of some back room deal, similar to the way we got this censorship deal.
We need NEED the queen to be head of state, we NEED the head of state to be
- Someone who has power in there own right (so they cannot be unduely influenced by others).
- Honourable (If they do the wrong thing theyl
- Someone who wont abuse the power they are given
The Queen currently fits the bill pretty well, time may come when the british monarchy cannot fullfill the job, until that day why not let em keep doin it.
People say it should be an Australian, i think it would be good to have an Australain do the job, but thats not to say that only an Australain can do the job. Why limit the eligibility to an Australain?
The PM will always have some power over all Australians, the PM cannot threaten the Queen, if it came to the crunch an we elected a truely evil PM the monarchy would be in a better position to say it how it is than an australian who has "other" factors to consider.
Strails are weird (Score:1)
Come on Australia, get real!!
Re:Tech sector? (Score:1)
You'll have to forgive me, getting riled about the very Amerocentric tone to 99.5% of posts!
In absolute terms, no, not as big as either. Relatively? Quite large. You have to remember Australia is about 98% the size of America, with 8% the people. So actually, maybe even a little larger. Two major "guarantees" of employment: CCIE (as with anywhere) and *sigh* MCSE :)
Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
Australia has always been on the edge of the censorship issue, and it is really no surprise to seem the placing the same draconian limits on the Internet that they have been known to do in traditional media.
Makes one appreciate our bill of rights here in the US.
--
William X. Walsh - Email: william@dso.net
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ [dnspolicy.com]
Re:Geeks with guns--but not in Australia (Score:2)
Whoa Boy (Score:1)
Re:Women can be president (Score:1)
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
No, I don't think so, let's look at history. Back during the Great Depression we had a popular, powerful President who managed to get a lot of the things he wanted done, done. However, when he ran up against the Supreme Court, he basically tried to undermine the Constitution by packing the court with judges who would do his bidding. He didn't succeed because of the huge public outrage (he was trying to change the size of the court, I believe, something unheard of.) Changing the Constitution wasn't even considered an option in this case, or else I'm sure he would of considered it. I'm not trying to make out here that FDR was bad, just that he was powerful and good at pushing through legislation, some of which ran afoul of the Supreme Court.
Now, I will admit that the unwritten Bill of Rights that exists in Britain and Australia will have a similar effect when people try to create laws which violate it. However, the fact that it is an abstract concept (based on things like British Common Law precedents rather than enumerated rights) means that if their is no massive public outrage against a given law, there is a good chance it will be enforced for many years without it being challenged, and even if it is challenged it might not be defeated. By defeated, here, I don't mean "ruled unconstitutional" because as far as I know the British courts haven't had that power (at least since Star Chamber ceased to be an active part of the government), just rendered unenforcable because a previous precedent is held to have more force of law. In the United States, you have an extra check, the Supreme Court can toss out any law that is at issue in a case brought before them by ruling it unconstitutional. This is an added level of protection against people making an unconstitutional law. Changing the Constitution is, currently, a long and involved process. It is true that ridiculous Constitutional Amemendments have been made (Prohibition springs to mind) but these Amendments haven't yet destroyed one of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. There is an awesome majesty that goes along with the Bill of Rights that makes it hard for American politicians to tamper with it, even if they privately think that Americans could do with less liberty than is afforded them by this document.
British law is fascinating, complex and very well thought out in most cases. US law is based on the firm foundation that British law gave us. However, I still prefer to be able to look up what my enumerated rights are rather than trying to hunt through mounds and mounds of old case law to find them, though
While I don't agree with your thesis that the Constitution is easily amended, I will admit that your thesis could be properly applied to the Supreme Court, which if "packed" with bad jurists can indeed make our rights disappear through bad case law. There have been a few cases in US history where the Supreme Court has done just that. (Ok, I'll bring up the infamous Dredd Scott decision which precipitated the American Civil War.) By and large though, I think that the system works well, as long as good politicians are elected by the voters. But I think the British system works well with the same caveat, it is just a more protean system than the US.
Re:Strails are weird (Score:1)
First they vote to throw the Queen out, now they won't even let the citizens of the New Republic see her web site.
Re:Wrong!!!! (Score:1)
In fact, "true" libel receives harsher punishments than "false" libel for the very fact that it is true makes it more strongly defamatory. This allows public figures to sue any time they receive harsh, yet true, criticism of their public actions, and therefore discourage people from criticizing their government.
The UK and U.S. libel laws are very, very different. Do not confuse them.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything (Score:3)
I'm puzzled, and worried, by what appears to be very vague wording, even for an intitial draft.
An electronic application requires either credit card details, or a digital signature. A requirement for these is an excluding measure, which removes web access from those citizens who don't have credit cards - it leads to an information-impoverished underclass, built from an already economically disadvantaged section of society.
Fortunately the paper-based application doesn't appear to require credit cards, as other proof of age is accepted. However, we then read that such applications may be invalidated if "credit transaction is not approved by relevant credit provider".
Does this mean that credit cards are still required ?
Does it mean that registration also requires a fee to be paid ? (and if not, who does fund this huge scheme ?)
About South Park (Score:1)
Read it again. It's not censorship. (Score:1)
First, this is not a censorship law. It is an age-verification scheme. The distinction is that the 'censorship' part is already enacted under other legislation, (especially the On-line Services Act of recent fame) restricting the sale of pornography to those 18 or over. (Legal adulthood in this country) which ALREADY applies to any physical vendor in this country. And yours, I'd bet.
This official declaration (not a law. there's a difference, though not much of one) is a direct result of using a bad argument against censorship. Learn from it. Basically, ISP's said 'we can't restrict content, because there's no way to verify age!' To which the legislators said 'Sure there is.' and this is the result. And it would work, if everyone was honest.
The present legislation already says that Rated content must be restricted behind some sort of access-control system. This document just defines what, technically, that means.
Will it work? No. Does it have much effect? No. Porn sites already ask for Credit Card details, from which the rest of the information is obtainable. The reason they ask for it again is to (a) cater for the situations where someone might be legitimately using another's credit card, and (b) so that the 'declaration of correctness' means more more than 'this credit card number is correct'. Still doesn't stop Johnny from using dad's identity.
Some things you've overlooked. This is a technical spec, and it's a pretty good one. (Leaving aside the moral issues for a moment) Privacy implications are catered for. It allows for digital signatures. It knows about cookies! It's what any of us would come up with if asked to design something similar. There is evidence here of a clue on the part of the ABA. That in itself is interesting.
And to be fair to the ABA, it's not their fault. They have been legally required to do this. And within those bounds, they've acted fairly honourably, despite the impossible position they've been put in. From what I've seen, the ABA isn't very keen on doing this job, since they know what a mess it's going to be. (I've got a lot of unrelated beefs with the ABA on spectrum issues, though.)
The recommendation itself is OK. It's a decent, well though out age verification scheme. And though it can't actually work, it performs the social task of telling kids that maybe they're doing something naughty. Never stopped them before, but at least they're aware, and that seems to be the point.
And it admirably performs the job for which it was written: site operators will know exactly the minimum they have to do to keep the government off their backs.
So, don't get mad at this. Get mad at the On-Line Services Act which goes into effect Jan 1st. This is just the spec for how to do passwords. The Act is what sends you to jail for not doing them, and tries to bulk censor international content even for legal adults.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
Not mentioning the cases when artists selfsensor themselves like with South Park for a US release.
Anyway let's do not talk about the bill of rights until US elects a woman for a president.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
Ironic (Score:1)
Tsk, Tsk (Score:1)
;>)
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
On the other hand, I'm not stupid enough to knock the Australian form of government without more knowledge of it. I think it is extremely arrogant when other Americans do so. Just understand, some of this rhetoric is driven by fear. "Oh, well, that happens in Australia because their system of government isn't as good as ours. It won't ever happen here." When deep down most Americans know that it could very well happen here and indeed does quite often. So, just feel some pity for us poor Americans who have to listen to wild-eyed, fire-and-brimstone, witch-burning Puritan fanatics propose absurd and obscenely intrusive laws on an almost daily basis and understand why some cling to the Bill of Rights like a security blanket
That said, I still believe that the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and seperation of powers was a good idea. But in any democracy, it is the quality of the people you elect to represent you which determines whether you have good or bad government, everything else is close to being window dressing.
Re:Confused Aussies (Score:1)
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:1)
I was told when I did a law course in university that it Britian our rights are spread accross many laws. For example to remove what we would consider a right many laws would have to be repealed. (This is relavent because Aussy law, and to some extent US laws in based on the UK system.) This is quite hard to do.
In america all you would need would be one dodgy government, and don't for one moment think that this couldn't happen in america, to make a few amendments to the constitution and voila, no rights. (For example no right to move without government permision)
Mind you I do not know what I am talking about. Please feel free to tell me I am talking rubbish!
Xerox shootings (Score:1)
Actually it was a maniac with 17 legally held weapons. Why he thought he needed all of them I don't know.
A deep and frazzled sigh... (Score:1)
Re:Politicians vs. public (Score:2)
actually, the bill was very much about politicking and not particularly about any real government objections to freedom on the internet.
The deal basically was that the government needed support of an independent senator to pass the bill to sell off of another part of the mostly government owned telecommunications giant, Telstra. This was going to the government squillions of dollars, so getting the ultra-conservative senator on-side was pretty much the key here. This guy is also highly anti-pornography and i suspect doesn't have much idea about this little fad called the Internet, bar that it has lotsa naughty pictures on it. This bill was introduced pretty much entirely to make this guy join sides with the government and let them sell off Telstra. So in another words, one senator, who hails from the tiniest state in Australia in which (correct me if i'm wrong) they are so backward that homosexuality is still illegal. Surely most states would have gotten over that by now...
There seems to also be a bit of a moan and groan about how the Australian public haven't really joined forces to rally against this. I think one of the main reasons is that being so "laid back" we don't seem to really notice this creeping in. I mean i haven't heard anything about this for months now in the mainstream press; it's hardly big news. The general consensus in the public, I think, is that the bill is so unworkable and vague that nothing's really going to be done about it. Even the opposition party admitted that it was just a worthless token bill to suck up to the senator (who i STILL can't remember the name of...). Apathy seems all that it deserves...
But basically the chances of this bill really making any practical difference is virtually ziltch
Re:Ironic (Score:1)
Re:Big Brother: Who has actually read 1984? (Score:1)
Re:Some Background - for those who haven't heard t (Score:2)
The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.
#endif
What most people in Australia seem to have conveniently forgotten is that Harradine (the Tasmanian Senator) is not the only backer of this legislation. A group within the current Liberal Party (conservatives) known as the Lyons Forum are just as much behind this. Harradine is a convenient smokescreen for their conservative (extreme religious) agenda.
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/lyons.html [efa.org.au] has more information.
Why Credit Cards??? (Score:1)
Re:Strails are weird (Score:1)
Think about this: you see all these stories in the press: "Austalia backpedals on Kyoto Accord" or "US mulls CDA". It's not _us_, it's the scum who've got into power (because most of us would rather do something useful, so the papershufflers with power cravings percolate to the top).
The ABA are just one facet of a whole system symptomatic of those portions of the society which want everyone else brought down to their level.
My primary concerns about this crap are that (a) the privacy implications because to check _every_ id they must reveal who's doing what to a central system (b) the checks are _more_ intrusive than apply at, say, an R-rated movie (where generally you must show some id if you're not obviously "old") - if you're obviously "old" no id is needed and thus no intrusion is performed at all and (c) the crippling effect this will have on web indexers, which now can no longer index a lot of useful material.
Mass media shows no interest? (Score:1)
The only reason the bill passed was because most of the politicians voting for it thought that it would do nothing more than a very effective job of halting the flow of porn to unsupervised Australian children. Why they're unsupervised is perhaps more troubling...
Nobody in the international community did anything at all until after the bill was passed, and the problem with that is that such things won't be reviewed without cause. That is, _after_ any ISP with fewer than 10000 users gets dragged underwater by the weight of higher bandwidth costs, required proxying and filtering, and customer dissatisfaction.
Australia has grasped the cause of the internet. It has one of the highest usage rates per capita in the world, and living in Sydney I can tell you there's rarely a commercial on television that doesn't inclue a URL or email address, and alot of those sites are maintained by smaller ISPs or developed by small-time web design companies. This bill will not just restrict our freedom, it will take away our jobs and our passion for the industry, and I can't help but think that a few thousand emails from slashdot readers could've given these idiot politicians a vague idea that it wasn't just what they assumed were providers of pornographic content (but were merely concerned Australians) that saw this as a bad thing.
Re:Wrong!!!! (Score:1)
Not correct.
The difference is that in the US the author is in the clear unless the plaintiff can prove that the author knew the statement was false and published regardless.
In the UK the burden of proof is reversed: the author has to prove that their statement is true; moreover it is not a defence merely that they had reasonable grounds to believe it at the time.
This of course makes libel very much harder for the author to defend. But trying to prove the truth of their statements did enable the McLibel [mcspotlight.org] defendants to force McDonalds to disclose an enormous pile of embarrassing documents.
Other defences are fair comment on a matter of public interest, and certain other exemptions such as parliamentary privilege.
FUD (Score:1)
The FUD of internet censorship ("Somebody PLEASE think of the children", "Teenagers are blowing limbs off").
The FUD of the republic ("Major constitutional change", "A new constitution [yes, they talk crap]", "Do you want the same thing to happen here as in East Timor")
I am 17. I can't vote this weekend. I know more about the preposed changes then most adults I have spoken to. My well studied YES opinion is worthless, because I don't deserve a vote.
I haven't blown off any limbs recently (weird, i'm sure thats what people my age do wiht the internet). Yet, I, and people my age, get blaimed for the "internet misuse".
Australia is headed to 2 major mistakes (understated), and they are both created by lies and FUD. How can so many people be fooled by so few? This country is run with lies!
Re:What does it take to be a moderator? (Score:1)
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:1)
Really? Can I take you up on that?
I've seen porno films, I've seen the Americanized version of Eyes Wide Shut, and they are nothing alike.
I think anyone going to their local porno and getting an uncut Eyes Wide Shut will be severely disappointed, and probably demand their money back.
To sum it up, there's little wanking material in Eyes Wide Shut, so unless the cut scenes were 1 hour and 40 minutes of XXX action, the uncut one will be just as wank-free.
That said, the idea that seeing people nude and engaged in intercourse, with thier genitals hidden or unobvious is so dangerous to American mores that clumsy digital tricks had to be used to prevent this repulses me. Has any international slashdot readers seen an uncut Eyes to comment?
George
Can you say off shore internet hosting? (Score:2)
Digital Signature problem (Score:1)
Is it not the case that I can just go out and generate a "digital signature" (at least in the PGP sense of using my private key to encrypt something) corresponding to any identity I choose to assume?
Or do I not understand digital signatures?
Gerv
Re:Fucking yanks and their guns . . . (Score:1)
(Disclaimer: Skullhunter does not, nor does he claim to speak for all of America, as he has not yet succeded in taking it over)
Okay, now that I got that out of the way, let's start with point one.
"Why do so many of you seem to think that the only way to achieve and maintain freedom is by force of
arms?"
Okay, first thing, I hate blanket statements. I personally don't think that that's the only way to achieve and maintain freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one. But I do realize that it is a viable option. There is nothing harder to subdue than an armed populace. And yes, today's modern military does have weapons that make civilian arms look pathetic, but that same modern military would probably be a bit wary of trying to fight an entrenched civilian population. Not the best option, but still an option.
"Are you completely impervious to the lessons of history"
No, nobody is, whether they choose to acknowledge them or not. After all, "Those who forget the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them." Yes, Ghandi's example was a wonderful one for all, one that was followed in more recent times by Dr. Martin Luther King, another great man. But there is another lesson of history that some people, like myself, are also not impervious to, and that is this: The most important act of any totalitarian regime is to remove from the populace the tools of self-determination. Limit what they can read or view, and the people can't speak out or hear dissenting opinions. Limit their movement and travel, and they cannot escape. Take guns and other weapons from their hands, and they cannot resist. Since you use historical example to try and prove your point, so shall I. One of the first acts of the Nazi regime in Germany was to confiscate all firearms that were owned by people with "Jewish-sounding" surnames. Coincidence? Not likely. And the example can be taken back even further; the ruling class of feudal japan decreed that no one but the samurai, the elite warrior caste, could own swords. Ownership of such a weapon by a commoner was usually punishable by death.
"Did we ever even dream of fighting a war _against_ Britain? No. You see, we didn't need to - all we needed to do was ask them, and
provide them with what we considered to be a good constitution, which they gladly ratified and set us free to follow our own course. "
Well, we tried that. Apparently the rulers of England back then were a bit more upset about the idea of losing control of one of their protectorates, and decided to press the issue. We made them pay dearly for it, and we also paid in the lives of our countrymen. But I'm very happy that your change of government went more peacefully than ours.
"Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto
the rest of the world? "
I personally don't try to force anything on anyone. Most people I know could honestly care less about what you folks are up to, unless it affects us. But, this new censorship law DOES affect us. It sets an international precedent, and what's more it gives a lot of fat-assed lazy politicians funny ideas about feel-good legislation that they can make a name for themselves with, at the expense of the very people they're supposed to be working for. So you'll pardon us for having an opinion about it.
"Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your
country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own
mistakes than yours. "
No, you're not part of our country, so despite your vitriolic verbosity, our ability as a people to affect the policy of your nation is nonexistant. But the ability of your nation's policies to eventually affect us as a people is very, very real.
"But all too often these days I find myself absolutely _HATING_ America and how they interact with the rest of the world. It's not
much fun, believe me"
Then don't do it. Hate is a blinding, wasted emotion, especially when applied to a pretty damn large group of people that you don't know.
Skullhunter
Big Brother!! (Score:1)
this is insane!
Re:No it doesn't (Score:1)
FYI - Post to the EFA list (Score:1)
--Begin Fw--
The ABA has issued a 'Consultation Paper' containing draft
specifications/criteria for restricted access systems for sites providing
content that is (or is likely to be) classified R. A copy is available at:
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/ABAconspaper_ras.
Closing date for comments is Tuesday 9 November 1999.
The proposed system requires adults wishing to access material that is
unsuitable for children on Australian sites, to provide significant
personal details to register to access a site. After registering and
obtaining a PIN or password, on each access to the site, the user must
enter their allocated PIN or password together with their date of birth.
It seems highly unlikely that most users will be willing to provide
sensitive personal details to web site operators, as such information could
then be used for blackmail, personal or professional exposure, fraud and
predatory behaviour, etc.
These provisions appear designed to silence sites in Australia providing
material unsuitable for children (which includes considerably more material
than "porn" and violence). As R rated sites outside Australia are not
subject to any potential action by the ABA, sites will move offshore in
order to maintain an Australian and international audience. ISPs will face
higher bandwidth costs as more content is drawn from overseas and will lose
income from hosting services to overseas ISPs/ICHs.
---End Fw---
No - moderate that DOWN - it is not 'informed' (Score:2)
No, this s just bullshit. I am sick and tired of having to correct people on slashdot with huge opinions and no facts behind them. Haradine (the independent to which Goonie is referring) did not vote for the tax package. Another balance of power party, the left-leaning Democrats voted it in. And they voted against the internet censorship bill. And they voted against it long after it was clear that the internet censorship bill was going to get through. The bill was not, as previous posts have suggested - one senator's 'crusade'. Much more worryingly, it was put together by a committee containing members from several sides.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Gun owners do not feel the need to be apologetic about their rights. When the KKK gets their parade in NYC, do people in the press sulk around, afraid to exercise their freedom to speak?
Anyway, to the topic, I think the Aussie public will eventually give this one a good fight and win. Idiot anachronistic polititians have to die sometime, though having sold your soul tends to prolong your life, it seems. -kabloie
When will it be illegal to give birth to a child? (Score:1)
Sometimes I wonder if those persons who makes this kind of laws believe that their own body is ugly, and then imposes restrictictions on other peoble, so that these peoble wont know any different.
Now I just wonder when it will be illegal to give birth to a child "because it could offend someone".
How 'bout getting out there and voting? (Score:1)
If more poeple acting cared enough to vote, perhaps you would get more people in office who cared about what you wanted.
PacketOfCrisps
Re:No - moderate that DOWN - it is not 'informed' (Score:1)
Re:Big Brother: Who has actually read 1984? (Score:1)
One Gun, One Vote (Score:2)
However, events in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo have brought about a 180 degree change in my opinions. Specifically, I find it very interesting that Montenegro (which does have an armed populace) hasn't yet been decimated by the Serbs, yet the others have. There is something to be said about making such repressive activities expensive for the oppressor, and while guns may not enable a populace to claim military victory against a well equipped, modern army, they can make using such a military for such purposes prohibitively expensive in terms of resources and soldiers' lives. Given a number of other disturbing trends in the United States today with respect to privacy, freedom of speach, etc., that particular check and balance, however dubious, is IMHO becoming ever more important.
Re:Some Background - for those who haven't heard t (Score:1)
"#endif"
Do you, by any chance, have trouble compiling your code?
Australian censorship (Score:2)
one: you must use an 'approved' filter, and if you don't your ISP must filter your connection for you and can charge you for it. Linux users may start saving now since no Linux filtering scheme is even being considered.
two: you cannot store your 'possibly' illegal content overseas, because the regulations make the ISP responsible for what you access.
It should be noted, the UK had a case where they court decided that even though the content of a site was hosted overseas, the owner was a local and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the local laws.
The censorship laws are going to kill the internet, because they even have the right to filter your email, and if you use SSL connections they can be terminated if there is a suspicion you are accessing illegal material. I watch jennicam [jennicam.org] and there is often scenes which would be bannned under the new laws, so I guess I will be denied Jennis' smiling face.
Also as a funny aside, the source code for the Linux kernel is littered with swear words that would make it restricted.
Re:Australia say NO to a repulbic, we need guidenc (Score:1)
Er, our own prime minister is anti-republic. There is anything but a consensus on this. Which is good.
And which country would you choose to guide us? The Poms, who put us up as cannon fodder in WW1? The Yanks, who show their political panache by electing Reagan and Clinton?
You might need to be led around by a ring in your nose and be afraid of thinking for yourself, but don't be so patronising as to assume that all your fellow Aussies (me included) do.
Putting your future in the hands of others is a poor recipe for survival.
Re:Australia say NO to a repulbic, we need guidenc (Score:1)
"Computers should be
The "We Must Protect The Children" excuse! (Score:1)
http://www.fadetoblack.com//ourfuture/ [fadetoblack.com]
Re:Fucking yanks and their guns . . . (Score:1)
Especially because... (Score:2)
How? (Score:1)
Tech sector? (Score:1)
Australia has a similar *proportion* of IT workers to the States.
Re:The Internet routes around censorship (Score:1)
I think the massive street riots also had something to do with this, too...
Frightening how easily the Governments worldwide adopt the nanny mentality for their politically motivated agendas (eg poll tax) - and how much opposition from the populace they must face before they will back down. And yet, difficult social policies which people would readily agree to if draconian legislation was to be introduced (eg massive reduction in pollution - everybody wants it but nobody is volunteering) - governments shy away from...
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:3)
In regards to the ease of Things Going To Hell Rights-Wise in the US:
There is actually a second way that things could go to hell. Specifically, the Constitution provides for a Constitutional Convention (or "Con-Con") to be held once the "governments" of 3/4ths of the states call for a Con-Con.
The rather scary things on this are:
1) It is unknown and there is considerable debate over whether a "Con-Con" is limited to discussion of one amendment or if the entire Constitution becomes fair game. (No procedures exist for determining which is the case--this is relevant because many states have called for Con-Cons on specific issues such as anti-abortion amendments or tax reform amendments to the Constitution.)
2) There is legal debate over whether a call for a Con-Con can be rescinded once the "government" has called for one, and most legal theory tends to lean towards the idea that Con-Con calls CANNOT be rescinded.
3) There is some question as to what constitutes approval by a government of a Con-Con--specifically, whether it is restricted to state legislatures. (Some legal theorists have stated that technically a meeting of the state governments--where representatives from each state are sent by approval of the legislature and the governor--could legally call a Con-Con due to the vague way it is defined in the Constitution.) According to whom you speak with, we are either not terribly close or dangerously close to a Con-Con being able to be held in the US. Assuming a worst-case scenario, we are approximately two states away from the legal requirements for a Con-Con being held.
In a REALLY worst-case scenario, it is entirely possible that a Con-Con could be held and a fundamentalist theocracy (or something similarly un-republican), monarchy, parliament, or dictatorship could well result (especially since the only requirements would be for the authors to show it to the states for ratification). Many feel in a Con-Con the entire Constitution is fair game.
Of course, I'd proffer that it doesn't take amendments or Con-Cons to destroy the effectiveness of a Constitution. Pure apathy, or even worse, apathy combined with a charismatic leader who is more than able and willing to whip people into a froth against the "Enemy of the Week" can wreck a constitution just as well as a Con-Con can. (Look at how most of our rights have been whittled away to "protect the children against the evils of sex and violence", or how many of our rights have been effectively destroyed between the Cold War and the "war against drugs". I'm not even going to go into how the country has gone literally so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a liberal in the modern US political spectrum...let's just say there are some rather frightening parallels to the government of Germany just before Hitler got elected Chancellor. And incidentially, Hitler was elected...)
Freedom around the world (Score:2)
Well, freedom (as in speech, not beer) comes in many parts and countries can (and do) selectively pick parts to tighten and to loosen. For example, the US has a very stong tradition of free speech. Speech that would be banned in, say, UK (because of libel laws) or in Germany (as hate speech) is perfectly legal in the US. So as regards speech, the US is one of the most free countries in the world.
Unfortunately, the US also has a weird hangup about sex (I am not going to go into reasons why). A lot of sex-related stuff that is perfectly OK in countries like Australia, or the same Germany is prohibited in the US -- either outright, or by coercion. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a good example: there is no government censorship involved, but a film with NC-17 rating cannot be a commercial success or seen widely (many movie theaters just do not show any NC-17 films).
Kaa
Re:Freedom around the world (Score:2)
Hey... (Score:2)
It'd also be interesting to set up an encrypted VPN between various points in the world and various users in Oz. We have the technology...
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
Apathy? While us Americans have it in droves (latest polls show only about 50% of Americans seem to really care about the freedoms in the Bill of Rights), it really doesn't matter when the only people we can vote for are ones who are trying to whittle those freedoms away.
Look at the current crop of presidential candidates we get to pick from with regards to freedom of religion, for example. There isn't a single republican candidate that's not highly religious (Christian), and even the two democrats which are visible are putting forward anti-seperation ideas. Heck, Bush has said he would put forth and Executive Order to ban Wiccans from the military (religious discrimination - illegial in the US except in the military?) Gore wants the gov't to fund more faith-based (religious) programs to help people, and Bradley wants to experiement with school vouchers (which fund religious schools).
Is there ANY goverment in this world that thinks of freedom and civil rights for everyone as more than just catch-phrases that are convienently forgotten when laws are made?
---
R is not always softcore (Score:2)
As far as movies are concerned, R is softcore. The X rated movies are non-violent hardcore. They are illegal in each state, but can be acquired by mail-order from the capital city ( Canberra . )
As for print media, there are two types of R rated publications. R-category-1 is soft ( for example, it includes most "detailed" nudie pics ), while R-category-2 consists of similar content to the "X-rated" movies.
I am not clear on how online content is classified ( or even if the censors have made any clear rulings ).
Cheers,
Some Background - for those who haven't heard this (Score:4)
#define RANT_MODE
The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.
#endif
The local Internet industry didn't know whether to protest, laugh, or cry. Most seem to be taking a fourth option - relocating both themselves and their servers to the States, happily beyond this stupid law.Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] is working as hard as they can to publicise the impact of the new law, but the mainstream media isn't interested.
In any case, I intend to treat the law with the contempt it deserves and set up a secure proxy connection to a US-based server. It's my guess that, before too long, the bill with either be quietly discarded through ignorance, or cause an uproar when people can't get to their favourite porn sites. Either way, watching the next few months would be fun if it wasn't so tragic.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
Australian's have enjoyed words like 'shit' and 'fuck' uncensored in our music on free to air radio and have seen full frontal nudity on free to air TV since the late 70's.
(ie JJJ Radio / The Box / #96 / Chances / Nude Hobbies)
Try doing any of the above on 'Ricky Lake'
'Gerry Springer' (maybee)
The Internet Censorship bill was passed to win the favours of a single puritant politician who held the deciding vote for some vital government legislation.
Pure and simple it was a BRIBE, but the irony is that the member who they tried to bribe voted against them and we are now stuck with the legislation.
Problem is now that although we all know that the legislation is UNWORKABLE no politician will admit that it is flawed (Surprise! Surprise!)
The legislation is due for review in a year or two and then the govermant will have an "out" clause
without losing face.
Politics as usual.
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
No government is perfect. On the other hand, this is a perfect example of one place that the United States' system is demonstrably superior to that of Australia.
--
Re:Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything (Score:3)
What happens when an aussie tries to access my site (which contains the w*rd 'fuck') which isn't in Australia?
How many minutes would it take for 'cypherpunk/cypherpunk' type logins made it around the country? There's no provision (that I can see) for prosecuting fakers. And if they did include some sort of prohibition, it'd be unenforcable unless you were willing to throw the book at anyone whose PIN got out accidentally (say through keylogging on a public terminal).
It's unworkable, and will eventually be scrapped or replaced by another unworkable system.
The Internet routes around censorship (Score:3)
As far as I am aware, it should be possible for people to work their way around these systems quite easily - whether people will choose to take the "risk" (however slight it may be) of doing this remains to be seen. From what I have read (http://www.aba.gov.au/what/online/overview.htm) of the scheme, it sounds like there at least isn't a countrywide firewall in place, it's more of a scheme whereby ISP's are held responsible for the viewing habits of their customers (No common carrier status there then) and that in practise this will mean they need to introduce some kind of filtering system.
There have been several suggestions I have read about in earlier discussions on this topic to try and make the system unworkable - deluging the classification board with material, people in other countries mirroring prohibited content etc. What it is really going to take to stop this bill though is some form of mass protest - and that unfortunately sounds like it is unlikely to happen. It seems as though people in Australia just aren't spreading the word properly, or there aren't enough people who care about the subject to put up much of a fight.
One problem that I have encountered in discussions about censorship is countering the argument that anyone who opposes such a scheme is in some way condoning pornography. In this particular case it seems important to counter such an argument with arguments about the failure of filtering software to be accountable, about how almost all filtering software in the marketplace has had problems with the blocking of legitimate information sites. Warn people that the next step in such filtering is the filtering of viewopints that are unpopular. Explain to people that filtering should be something that is used as a tool to help parents keep bounds on what their children are up to and not as a method of controlling the whole population.
I guess a lot of people are hoping that this bill will go away, or be proved unworkable. I would just like to finally say that mass resistance *does* work sometimes. Look at the fight against the Poll Tax that happened in the UK, where mass civil disobedience (non-payment of the tax by over 30% of the population) led to the government backing down and withdrawing the tax.
Above all else, if you are Australian, don't just sit back and let this happen - because if it is implemented successfully in Australia, it won't take long before the idea gets exported - and I don't want a similar system in my country!
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
Fucking yanks and their guns . . . (Score:4)
Please, will someone explain to me why this kind of thing is so hard for Americans to accept? Is there something in your psyche that makes you blind to the possibility that things do not have to be done exactly as you did them? That there might be other ways of life that are just as valid, and possibly more so, than your own? Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto the rest of the world?
Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own mistakes than yours.
himi
(and no, I don't support any of these censorship bills, and I don't support the idea that governments know better than individuals what is right or wrong. But all too often these days I find myself absolutely _HATING_ America and how they interact with the rest of the world. It's not much fun, believe me)
Fight censorship with technology (Score:2)
--
Re:Without a bill of rights.. (Score:2)
I live in Australia, have done so for the past 23 years (I'm 23, so yes, I was born here) - but I've travelled, and am reasonably aware of what's going on in the world around me, especially when it comes to the Internet (I've worked with the Internet in one way or another, directly for over 4 years now), and I know that up until recently with this ridiculous Internet censorship law (which incidently has only gone through parliment because some old, backward, conservative to the point of being absurdly old fashioned Tasmanian politician holds the balance of power in our parlimentary system, and without his support, the current government would never have been able to sell off Telstra the way that they have - don't even begin to ask me about the ramifications this alone is having on our telecommunications industry, especially in relation to Internet access prices, technology and performance, I just won't stop, and I don't think I'm yet qualified to write feature articles for Slashdot).
If you consider Australia to be on the edge of the censorship issue, where do you put countries like China, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philipenes and other such countries?
So yes, it is a surprise - at least to people who actually know what's going on in this country.
Re:Geeks with guns--but not in Australia (Score:2)
Well, at the moment, there's a big debate in Sweden as to whether membership in a fascist organisation should be made illegal. (A result of fascist gangs blowing up police cars, journalists and almost anyone else who seems to say anything against their views).
I'm not going to get into the ins-and-outs of this, but suffice to say that I think such a move is *extremely* dangerous, whilst at the same time I would like to silence every fascist out there!
It seems to me that existing criminal laws should cover such sitations, restricting freedom of speech is *always* wrong in my opinion.
Oh
I'll accept that on the whole Sweden is a much more relaxed place when it comes to government attitudes than most places, but it just goes to show that such crap goes down everywhere!
(And I moved to Sweden to get away from the UK's attitudes!! It's an improvement, but it's still not utopia
R-rated content (Score:2)
Does the bill get you if you link to r-rated material?
I do agree with the other poster that established media don't mind erecting more barriers to entry for new content providers, and thus will prove to be more enemy than ally in fighting this legislation.
Politicians vs. public (Score:2)
PS. Yes, I know all politicians are beaurocratic idiots, Australian or not. It's just that Australian ones seem to be very conservative (with a lower case "c"), and seem to be far more concerned with the moral wellbeing of the nation than you'd expect, given the attitude of the main population.
Re:Fight censorship with technology (Score:3)
We are the most vocal Anti-Censorship Group in Australia and have been getting more press/radio coverage than all the other goups combined.
If you're and Aussie, you WILL be affected by this law, join our mailing list and help us speak out.