Internet Censorship

[Jazman]

internet censoring will happen one day maybe not this time ...all part of a New World Order to come

 

[bum]

No, thats not it at all Bum. The point is that presenting arguments in terms of political left and political right obscures and confuses the real issue in any debate about policy, law, or government.

That is, does it enhance our freedom, or curtail it?

The left and the right are differing views. To listen to the person in power when they tell us to ignore that notion is an invitation to the slavery you suggest we avoid. What Reagan basically said boils down to is "My way or the highway."

Enhancing freedoms has nothing to do with an equitable society. Curtailing freedoms (responsibility) is the only way to enable freedoms for all.

 

[manticle]

While the subject itself has been done to death, I'll play devil's advocate for just a moment and reveal my small amount of sympathy for Stephen Conroy on this one -

I watched the episode of Insight where Stephen Conroy tried to defend the scheme. Now don't get me wrong, I'm against it, and he gave no good justification for the scheme on the program, but my sympathy is for the number of times that people said that Stephen (or the Government or ACMA) would be implementing 'the blacklist'. Stephen was reduced to facepalms trying to tell people that the list will be controlled by the Classification Review Board - a third party, and a completely separate entity - based on submissions, rather than a blanket list of 'naughty stuff'.

The scheme is bad. It's a stupid thing to do, and worthless to boot. But FFS people - there are better flaws than the list to argue. A perfect list and list-committee wouldn't make this a good idea. I really don't blame Senator Conroy for not listening anymore - it's bad enough from the sidelines.

Most of the arguments aren't about the list (at least not the arguments that hold any weight)

The main arguments against it as far as I can see are that it will slow down an already laughable system we have as well as block legitimate sites as well as allow the supposed targets (eg Child Porn) and ignore the 'harmless' social networking sites (chatrooms, facebook, myspace etc) which child predators can use for grooming/preying.

In a nutshell: Expensive, unworkable and unlikely to achieve its main goal while simultaneously stuffing up legitimate business concerns and personal freedoms.

Add to that Senator Conroy is just as guilty of accusing anyone who opposes the filter as being 'pro child porn'. Some of his arguments have been pretty facepalmingly puerile as well.

 

[peas_and_corn]

As long as pornotube I mean AHB isn't blocked I will be fine

 

[manticle]

This is one of the 'itsy bitsy points' I mentioned - if you're going to argue that 'X is bad', you need to be able to back it up with 'not X is good'. In this case, you are complaining that the having the Classification Board involved would be a bad thing. Would the problem be solved if it wasn't the Classification Board? What if it was a perfect system of accept/reject for refused classification material, or hell, some other criteria? No.

Arguing over this point is moot - The filter scheme won't get better if you fix this problem. We the public need to stop trying to push the point over the fine details, and attack the problem at it's root.

Good points.

 

[fraser_john]

The left and the right are differing views. To listen to the person in power when they tell us to ignore that notion is an invitation to the slavery you suggest we avoid. What Reagan basically said boils down to is "My way or the highway."

Enhancing freedoms has nothing to do with an equitable society. Curtailing freedoms (responsibility) is the only way to enable freedoms for all.

Don't agree with that either, curtailing freedom does not enable anything, it takes something away, even if its just taking away from a small group within society its not fair. And curtailing something cannot be classified as a form of responsibility. You can have all the freedom you want and be responsible or have no freedom and be totally irresponsible! Society has a long way to go both in terms of freedom and responsibility, but I dribble on......

Americans have a totally different view on freedom than we Aussies do, their country was founded on the belief of freedom for individuals, regardless of what they think. It really is built into everything they do and was quite confronting to me whilst I lived there. But now I am really getting off topic......

Anyway, I registered on the site as I don't want my right to browse deliberately or even accidentally browse certain websites.

Its my right(and responsibility) to manage my own censorship and the morals of the children I raise, not the role of government or third parties.

 

[tcraig20]

The left and the right are differing views. To listen to the person in power when they tell us to ignore that notion is an invitation to the slavery you suggest we avoid. What Reagan basically said boils down to is "My way or the highway."

Enhancing freedoms has nothing to do with an equitable society. Curtailing freedoms (responsibility) is the only way to enable freedoms for all.

No, you miss the point again. Perhaps this is due to my ineloquence more than anything. Here is Reagan's original:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down - up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order - or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

The views of the left and right arent that fundamentally different. The underlying agendas are much the same, and both Australian 'left' and 'right' have led to progressively more government and more centralisation of power over the last century.

But I see little merit in this argument - it would require us to go back to first principles, and Ive learnt time and time again that people have neither the patience nor inclination to explore these.

 

[haysie]

my ineloquence

that people have neither the patience of inclination to explore these.

HEAVY thread!! Who gives a faark on a beer site, then again have another beer.
INELOQUENCE, I love it!

 

[altstart]

Don't agree with that either, curtailing freedom does not enable anything, it takes something away, even if its just taking away from a small group within society its not fair. And curtailing something cannot be classified as a form of responsibility. You can have all the freedom you want and be responsible or have no freedom and be totally irresponsible! Society has a long way to go both in terms of freedom and responsibility, but I dribble on......

Americans have a totally different view on freedom than we Aussies do, their country was founded on the belief of freedom for individuals, regardless of what they think. It really is built into everything they do and was quite confronting to me whilst I lived there. But now I am really getting off topic......

Anyway, I registered on the site as I don't want my right to browse deliberately or even accidentally browse certain websites.

Its my right(and responsibility) to manage my own censorship and the morals of the children I raise, not the role of government or third parties.

I agree with this completly and to say this censorship wont work is wrong. Try googling euthanasia in particuarly Dr Nitschke and see if you can access his site. I tried and it was off limts from Australia. I got someone in the USA to access the site and it was accessible from the states. This is a freedom under threat and we should not under estimate the severity of the threat or the implications.
Now its time for a beer. Cheers Altstart

 

[AndrewQLD]

I agree with this completly and to say this censorship wont work is wrong. Try googling euthanasia in particuarly Dr Nitschke and see if you can access his site. I tried and it was off limts from Australia. I got someone in the USA to access the site and it was accessible from the states. This is a freedom under threat and we should not under estimate the severity of the threat or the implications.
Now its time for a beer. Cheers Altstart

Hey Altstart, maybe it's your provider thats blocking that site, I can access his site no problems.


Cheers
Andrew

 

[Ross]

I agree with this completly and to say this censorship wont work is wrong. Try googling euthanasia in particuarly Dr Nitschke and see if you can access his site. I tried and it was off limts from Australia. I got someone in the USA to access the site and it was accessible from the states. This is a freedom under threat and we should not under estimate the severity of the threat or the implications.
Now its time for a beer. Cheers Altstart

Accessed without any problem, or is this not the site?? http://www.exitinternational.net/page/Home

Cheers Ross

 

[pdilley]

Accessed without any problem, or is this not the site?? http://www.exitinternational.net/page/Home

Cheers Ross

Some ISPs in Australia are currently participating in trials of the filtering, some are not.

Mine (Internode) is not, that I am aware of.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete

 

[PostModern]

This is one of the 'itsy bitsy points' I mentioned - if you're going to argue that 'X is bad', you need to be able to back it up with 'not X is good'. In this case, you are complaining that the having the Classification Board involved would be a bad thing. Would the problem be solved if it wasn't the Classification Board? What if it was a perfect system of accept/reject for refused classification material, or hell, some other criteria? No.

Arguing over this point is moot - The filter scheme won't get better if you fix this problem. We the public need to stop trying to push the point over the fine details, and attack the problem at it's root.

I'm suggesting that the classification board is defunct. Censorship has no place in a democracy. I chose the itsy bitsy point about who the govt plans to make responsible to maintain the list as an illustration about the whole process being faulty. I don't want to see a bureaucracy, whether this board or ANY other, determine what I can and can't see on the internet.

It does not work! And it slows your connection at best by 20%, and at worst, makes it 80% slower.

Actually, my ISP did a test recently and there was no noticeable slowness. I think their method may have been flawed tho.

 

[bum]

Don't agree with that either, curtailing freedom does not enable anything, it takes something away, even if its just taking away from a small group within society its not fair. And curtailing something cannot be classified as a form of responsibility. You can have all the freedom you want and be responsible or have no freedom and be totally irresponsible! Society has a long way to go both in terms of freedom and responsibility, but I dribble on......

What I am getting at is that unless certain restraints are established there will be people who will step on the freedoms of others in the execution of their own - this is not equitable.

Americans have a totally different view on freedom than we Aussies do, their country was founded on the belief of freedom for individuals, regardless of what they think. It really is built into everything they do and was quite confronting to me whilst I lived there. But now I am really getting off topic......

Yes, they do - but what you describe is a textbook definition of the US concept of freedom - unrestrained (i.e. uncurtailed) personal freedom.

Its my right(and responsibility) to manage my own censorship and the morals of the children I raise.

But there are people who are not so inclined - does that mean governments should do nothing about it?

No, you miss the point again. Perhaps this is due to my ineloquence more than anything.

Not at all. I think we're just opposed on this issue.

The views of the left and right arent that fundamentally different. The underlying agendas are much the same, and both Australian 'left' and 'right' have led to progressively more government and more centralisation of power over the last century.

The underlying agendas are not the same. The similarities come from them being both sides of the same coin - that coin being democracy. Left and right are opposed - though, admittedly, not as much as they should be.

I agree with this completly and to say this censorship wont work is wrong. Try googling euthanasia in particuarly Dr Nitschke and see if you can access his site. I tried and it was off limts from Australia. I got someone in the USA to access the site and it was accessible from the states. This is a freedom under threat and we should not under estimate the severity of the threat or the implications.
Now its time for a beer. Cheers Altstart

I haven't seen the page myself but if I've been correctly informed there is a how to section. A how to section in what is technically murder. I do not want to open up the euthanasia debate (I'm for it, if you're wondering) but I think it is reasonable for governments to try to limit access webpages that give one step by step instructions on how to commit crimes.

 

[PostModern]

I agree with this completly and to say this censorship wont work is wrong. Try googling euthanasia in particuarly Dr Nitschke and see if you can access his site. I tried and it was off limts from Australia. I got someone in the USA to access the site and it was accessible from the states. This is a freedom under threat and we should not under estimate the severity of the threat or the implications.
Now its time for a beer. Cheers Altstart

If you're talking about Exit International Dot Net, I can see it just fine. Only a handful of ISPs are currently trialling the filter.

 

[Darren]

HEAVY thread!! Who gives a faark on a beer site, then again have another beer.
INELOQUENCE, I love it!

You will if the government of the future (possibly muslim) decrees that homebrewing is now an ILLEGAL past-time. Make no mistake that the censorship is ultimately aimed at silencing the masses. If they don't like it they will have laws in place to automatically stop you receiving it.

Now freedom to associate.....don't get me started

cheers

Darren

PS: I feel like eating some cinnamon buns 8)

 

[Sammus]

I haven't seen the page myself but if I've been correctly informed there is a how to section. A how to section in what is technically murder. I do not want to open up the euthanasia debate (I'm for it, if you're wondering) but I think it is reasonable for governments to try to limit access webpages that give one step by step instructions on how to commit crimes.

There is no 'how to' section. And if anyone needs a 'how to' on how to kill someone, they probably have trouble turning on a computer, let alone using the internet and finding a murder tutorial.

 

[haysie]

You will if the government of the future (possibly muslim) decrees that homebrewing is now an ILLEGAL past-time. Make no mistake that the censorship is ultimately aimed at silencing the masses. If they don't like it they will have laws in place to automatically stop you receiving it.

Now freedom to associate.....don't get me started

cheers

Darren

PS: I feel like eating some cinnamon buns 8)

I`LL see you in the slot!

ps, bring your cinnamon buns too finish off the potato peel punishing pale ale.

 

[tcraig20]

What I am getting at is that unless certain restraints are established there will be people who will step on the freedoms of others in the execution of their own - this is not equitable.

Actually, that is a fundamental consideration of personal liberty: no person's right to liberty may infringe on the liberty of others. The principle argument for government is that it is a necessary evil to ensure the liberty of the citizen. Thats more or less what Reagan meant when he said 'the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order'.

But there are people who are not so inclined - does that mean governments should do nothing about it?

Yes. Even the most cursory glance at the history of the 20th century will show that the evils inflicted by governments invested with too much power are far greater than those that result from governments having too little power.

The underlying agendas are not the same. The similarities come from them being both sides of the same coin - that coin being democracy. Left and right are opposed - though, admittedly, not as much as they should be.

They are really, or, at least, the small underlying differences are insignificant when compared to the idea of personal liberty. The small differences that exist are used to create false dichotomies that do not encompass the real issues. In the blandest terms, we are presented with communism at one extreme, and facism at the other. We are expected to believe that we have to negotiate a suitable middle ground between these. Both of these extremes are collectivist philosophies that serve the interests of entrenched minorities, with little room for personal liberties. As stated earlier, the choice between liberty and slavery is a real dichotomy and should be what we consider when assessing the merits of particular policies and laws.

 

[bum]

There is no 'how to' section.

Yeah, I've since clicked the link posted and there is no how to section.

However, they do SELL DRUGS WITH WHICH TO KILL PEOPLE.

Not appropriate.