Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Internet Censorship Plan Torpedoed

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-that-old-people dept.

Censorship 308

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has been scuttled, following an independent senator's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation needed to start the scheme. Anti-Gambling Senator Nick Xenophon previously supported the filter because it could also block gambling web sites, but today withdrew support saying 'the more evidence that's come out, the more questions there are on this.' This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship. Censorship Senator Stephen Conroy has consistently ignored advice from technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online. Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or 'revolting and abhorrent phenomena' that 'offend against the standards of morality.' Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."

cancel ×

308 comments

Block The Internet (5, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997465)

Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

So the filter would block the Internet?

Re:Block The Internet (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997513)

Unfortunately for Conroy, ridiculous web censorship mechanisms are themselves a revolting and abhorrent phenomenon...

Re:Block The Internet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997765)

OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake, America.

Re:Block The Internet (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997879)

yeah, we should have voted for the senior citizen who can't even remember how many houses he owns.

chris rock was right, the clear choice is to vote for someone who is closer to the life you life, in this case: one house.

Re:Block The Internet (-1, Offtopic)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997919)

Only Breathing Anaerobic Man, Awesome

Re:Block The Internet (4, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999131)

Oh Be Afraid Mister Anonymous

Re:Block The Internet (5, Funny)

MadDogX (1365487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997571)

I don't know about the rest of the internet, but by "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" I'm pretty sure they mean MySpace.

Re:Block The Internet (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997597)

I don't know about the rest of the internet, but by "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" I'm pretty sure they mean MySpace.

Couldn't the morality part also apply to anything for gay rights?

Re:Block The Internet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997803)

That would entirely depend upon who gets to decide what constitutes "abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality" ...And that in and of itself is a problem.
If you do not clearly (Without any ambiguity) define the behaviour you wish to be illegal, then how would one know when they are breaking the law?

Re:Block The Internet (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998135)

Exactly - so if you keep it vague and fuzzy you can block things you don't like without having to publicly declare discriminatory prejudices.

Re:Block The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997939)

Couldn't the morality part also apply to anything for gay rights?

Duh (I am so thick these days). It can apply to free speech in general, and political speech specifically. Whether sites like "for gay rights" or "anti-abortion" offend against the standards of morality is really just an interpretation of which party is currently wielding the morality axe.

Re:Block The Internet (2, Funny)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999239)

"abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality"

Depending upon your perspective of what defines morality this could also mean
1. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists with homosexual closet fetish's they act on in airport restrooms.
2. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists that test how many prostitutes they can bang on a quick road trip across state lines.
3. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists, but have a secret fascination with young make interns and sodomy in quite back room closets.

Heck, Senator Stephen Conroy might even be one of these just waiting for his moment to make the headlines.

Re:Block The Internet (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999335)

oops, misprint & correction
3. US congressional members that look like TV evangelists, but have a secret fascination with young *male* interns and sodomy in *quiet* back room closets.

Hate it when that happens
Note to self: don't post comments until the coffee has kicked in

Given that definition... (3, Funny)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999145)

...I would have assumed they were going to block sites like Rapture Ready and the Hannity forums.

Re:Block The Internet (5, Insightful)

moose_hp (179683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997575)

Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

So the filter would block the Internet?

If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.

Re:Block The Internet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997775)

If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.

Don't give them any ideas!

Re:Block The Internet (4, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998445)

Trouble is, these politicians don't actually have any ideas beyond their narrow-minded suburban little headspace. After all, they are just glorified parking attendants; they don't have any real skills. We (Australians) can see the silver lining in the cloud of the financial crisis, in that the Government are so busy tearing their hair out about something they can't do anything about, they don't have the energy to pursue something they can (sort of) do.

Re:Block The Internet (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997827)

If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.

How is that any different from the award winning programming currently broadcast on TV? ;)

Re:Block The Internet (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998209)

What's wrong with Black Noise? Huh? Or Yellow? Why only White Noise?

Re:Block The Internet (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999233)

Good news. Now that television has gone (or is going) digital, we'll have no more white noise. Instead we'll just have blank blue screens.

For example right now, for some unknown reason, I can't get channel 10. My television is taunting me with a BSOD and "no signal" overlay. That's just so much better than the fuzzy analog image I used to get. (cough) Not.

Re:Block The Internet (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998797)

If they applied the same filter to television, most channels would only display white noise.

That really would be the one thing that all countries could do to improve the world.

Turn off Everybodys TV's.

Re:Block The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997711)

i think that it is safe to say that there will be far fewer australians on 4chan in the future, should that pass

Re:Block The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997767)

i think that it is safe to say that there will be far fewer australians on 4chan in the future, should that pass

And nothing of value was lost?

Re:Block The Internet (2, Funny)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998707)

But how else will we hear stories of the Australian who locked his daughter up in the cellar for years? *ducks*

Re:Block The Internet (0)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999245)

The same way you always get your news. This is an article about blocking portions of the web for residents of Australia, not blocking out any news that comes from Australia. See the difference?
Next we will work on the differences between Austria and Australia.

Re:Block The Internet (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999333)

Someone obviously doesn't know the meme :p

Re:Block The Internet (1, Interesting)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997799)

Anything that's offensive will be blocked, so the aussies will stick to watch flowers and waterfalls and only happy news on the web.

Big brother is watching you! But who is watching the watchmen?

Another problem is that sites on the net changes all the time and one site may appear and another disappear. And who frees old blocked addresses?

Re:Block The Internet (2, Funny)

jggimi (1279324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998499)

Big brother is watching you! But who is watching the watchmen?

I'll guess [leasticoulddo.com]

One reason... (2, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998689)

One reason why support for the blocking is so low in this nanny state might well stem from the fact that there is still a significantly large proportion of the population who cannot get any connection better than dialup (if that), who would find their snail-like traffic grind to a halt.

If you're a city-dweller, you're fine, but there are lots of areas, not necessarily even very far from cities, where broadband access is poor or non-existent. Needless to say, our government's priorities are not appreciated in those areas.

Re:Block The Internet (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998133)

Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

So the filter would block the Internet?

Maybe not quite all of it. There may be a few web-sites which are bland enough to pass.

Of course, the parliament in Canberra would trigger a bunch of those filters (crime, sex, revolting, immoral, etc.) and get blocked immediately.

Re:Block The Internet (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998167)

You know, it's technically feasible, cheap, and 100% effective for their goals. STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!

Re:Block The Internet (2, Funny)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998211)

The only time where I wished such a filter existed was when my room mate in university set my default homepage to goatse.cx on my browser. Yikes!

Re:Block The Internet (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998225)

They're Australians, what the hell is sufficiently "revolting or abhorrent phenomena" to shock them? In fact, no, don't answer that.

Oblig. Bash.org (4, Funny)

frieko (855745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999037)

<FreeFrag> The most secure computer in the world is one not connected to the internet.
<FreeFrag> Thats why I recommend Telstra ADSL.

I am not an Aussie... (3, Interesting)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997495)

...but my daughter spent a summer there a few years aback and loved it and I've always admired the people so let me ask... Who can I send money to in order to get Conroy voted out of office ASAP?

Re:I am not an Aussie... (0)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997553)

I am not an Aussie...

So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

That makes you just as bad as the us in the US, always wanting to tell other nations what they can and can't do with their sovereignty.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997649)

I was speaking rhetorically (but that may be too big a word for you to understand and it certainly didn't require your rude response). My point being that censorship is abhorrent and I am willing to support its abolition.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (2, Interesting)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997851)

As a member of the Human Race, I, too, feel it is our obligation to do what we can to support the abolition of asininity.

Political borders notwithstanding.

However, I have very little money, but I can collect tabs from soda cans.

cheers,

Re:I am not an Aussie... (5, Insightful)

the-empty-string (106157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997973)

So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!

For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.

That makes you just as bad as the us in the US, always wanting to tell other nations what they can and can't do with their sovereignty.

Yeah, it's exactly like that. Only completely different.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999431)

The principle of self-determination holds that only citizens directly affected by a government should be allowed to influence its policies. Foreigners need not apply. i.e. Britain should not be trying to tell Australia or India or France or whoever how to run their affairs. Let the local residents determine for themselves what laws will or will not pass.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999367)

>>>So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

I wondered the same thing when those kooky Utahans were donating money & running ads in California to block gay marriage. This is MY home, and MY government, not yours. I don't interfere with your whacky Mormon sterilization program or whatever you do in Salt Lake, so don't interfere with my California loving. Butt out.

Same with Australia; let them decide for themselves if they do or do not want filtering. It's called self-determination, one of the few good ideas to come out of the mess known as World War I. Foreigners shouldn't be allowed to interfere with local elections.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (4, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998197)

I'm an Aussie! But I don't want your money - I'll do it for free as a public good. Virtually no one here wants this crap - it's just the nanny-state nitwits voted in by the over-60s, who probably don't even know what the internets are only that they're full of Terrible Things because Today Tonight told them so.

Re:I am not an Aussie... (1)

kingturkey (930819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998563)

Actually the majority of Labor's support was from the younger generations...

Re:I am not an Aussie... (1)

chrism238 (657741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999111)

Who can I send money to in order to get Conroy voted out of office ASAP?

One of the great things about Australia, is that the governing processing doesn't work that way. So, no thanks, we don't want your money.

Censorship (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997515)

Censorship is a "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offends against the standards of morality".

Re:Censorship (5, Funny)

MadDogX (1365487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997677)

By that definition they would be forced to censor censorship. The very concept is too mind-boggling for me to grasp.

Re:Censorship (5, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997863)

This is the third time in as many days we've had the self-referencing paradox.

Please, won't somebody think of the causality?!

Re:Censorship (4, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998751)

In Soviet Russia, self-referenced paradoxes cause you!

Ow. My head hurts just thinking about that one.

Re:Censorship (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998999)

By that definition they would be forced to censor censorship.

Hopefully that would be accomplished by making everyone in the country watch 2 chicks one cup.

Re:Censorship (2, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999345)

Kind of like my situation. I am really opposed to picketing, but I don't know how to show it.

Re:Censorship (1)

EatHam (597465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998099)

Really. If they block any revolting and abhorrent phenomena that offends against the standards of morality, none of those politicians will be able to have web sites viewable in Australia.

Senator likes his internet porn me thinks. (4, Funny)

JoshDmetro (1478197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997673)

Gambling is evil but midget porn is awesome apparently .

"revolting and abhorrent phenomena" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997691)

My guess is that in the end certain car manufacturers lobbies against it.

Bandwagon (1)

cyp43r (945301) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997723)

I suspect the Australian Government was just desperate to get on a bandwagon while it was new, any bandwagon. P.S. Ruddy: I hear free FTTN internet for everyone is an up and coming bandwagon.

Re:Bandwagon (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997945)

I suspect the Australian Government was just desperate to get on a bandwagon while it was new, any bandwagon.

I'm convinced they were doing it to get this idiot [stevefielding.com.au] on their side in the Senate.

Re:Bandwagon (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999033)

This looks to me a lot like a McCarthy moment; as in Senator Joe McCarthy [wikipedia.org] . Conroy sounds a lot like him in being a lunatic zealot suffering from severe self-righteousness to the point of being pathological. I mean, when a guy starts talking about banning anti-abortion sites and sites showing drug use, he's gone so far around the bend that those who back him, usually out of pure political expediency, can no longer do so.

What is sad about this, sadder than even Australia coming within an inch of this level of censorship, is that a government could let itself get so out of control.

Xenophobe? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26997727)

After RTFS, xenophobe doesn't even begin to describe Stephen Conroy. Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness. He should be tried for blatant disregard of personal freedoms.

it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence

Really? Is he also going to block all Hollywood movies from entering Australia.

Re:Xenophobe? (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997911)

Do you think Steve Irwing movies will be blocked as well? He seemed pretty abhorrent to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgHhHNC92M [youtube.com]

Man, I wish the stingray would pierce Conroy instead of him.

Re:Xenophobe? (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998223)

But you forget! Anything on television or in movies is blessed and brings families together so they can bake lamingtons and have barbies together (with shrimp!). Anything on the internet is evil because it isn't controlled by personal friends of the politicians and it Must Be Stopped.

Re:Xenophobe? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998767)

After RTFS, xenophobe doesn't even begin to describe Stephen Conroy. Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness.

The phrase exists in English too. In England we might describe such a person as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells [wikipedia.org] , but I doubt that phrase crosses the Atlantic well, never mind making it all the way across the Pacific too.

Re:Xenophobe? (4, Funny)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998937)

"Pluriphobe would be a better description, for want of a better word. In Holland we would use the phrase "more pious than the pope", but I know of no English expression that can explain his thickheadedness."

How about dickhead? nobend? tosspot? Here in England we've mastered our language to produce plenty of simple yet effective and widely applicable words for situations and for people like this. For additional effect you may prefix a language construct which could only be defined as a pre-offensive such as "fucking".

Hopefully we will soon update our finest Oxford dictionaries to include these useful and flexible language constructs and terms.

Give them an inch... (4, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997903)

and you know they'll try for a mile.

This is why those types of idiots have to be resisted at every single step of the way.

[subject censored in the public interest] (2, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998247)

If they have an inch, they'll brag to the girls that it's at least a foot. And promptly try to block any access to evidence and squelch any opinion close to the truth.

Look carefully at any would-be censors, for they likely have something to hide, and merely seek to conceal it behind a bigger screen...

Re:Give them an inch... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999049)

This is why those types of idiots have to be resisted at every single step of the way.

Hey now! I like to mess with australians as much as anyone, but calling them all idiots is just going to far!

Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997907)

Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality". Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."

He wants to block all of that content and has narrowed it down to a mere 10,000 sites? Conroy's depth of knowledge in this field is simply stunning! Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (5, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26997975)

Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!

Exactly! There's so much bestiality on the net now, that if you google for "People having sex with goats on fire", google responds with "Too many results. Please specify type of goat."

But when is having sex with goats wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998339)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_having_sex_with_a_goat_wrong

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998417)

Wow, I thought you were making that up until I actually googled it and saw "having sex with goats that are on fire" as the second link...

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998513)

Informative?!

I hope the four people who modded this up didn't check from a work computer...

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998859)

:( On one hand, I did check from a work computer. On the other, I'm one of the IT person that looks over other peoples website histories.

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998785)

And type of fire.

Re:Quick, somebody grab the cluestick! (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998763)

Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!

I think I know them:

usenet.us
usenet.eu
usenet.za
usenet.jp ...

It all makes my head hurt. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998009)

"If it offends me, I want it banned for everyone." seems to be the mentality of so many. I understand the general intent of blocking that stuff, but it'll never, ever truly work. Besides, people like him will never listen to any other opinions, let alone listen to numerous experts telling them their ideas are wrong.

Heck, you could tell him that water was wet while soaking him in a bathtub floating in the ocean during a rain storm. But if his mind is set on water not being wet, he'll never listen.

Old News SMH (1)

Macfox (50100) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998015)

Nick Xenophon actually announced is withdrawl of support for the filter around Jan 20th.

The news is, it was revealed the government will require full senate cooperation to introduce new legislation, that will surely fail to pass without Xenophon's support.

Now if only the UK would drop its stupid scheme (2, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998049)

Great to see that common sense has at last prevailed. I would like to see this as a triumph of democracy but it perhaps appears to be as much due to a lucky accident of the numbers in the Senate. Now, if only the UK would drop its misguided plans to implement filtering of the internet, albeit by different means iirc. And you in the US - don't think you're far behind. Your bunch of idiots wait to see what oppressive regime the bunch of idiots in Europe can impose on their populace before imposing it on you - at least that is what happened with the idiotic EU data retention laws and the current move in the US to force large numbers of wifi routers to keep logs.

Fight not over yet (4, Informative)

Xanni (29201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998051)

While it is true that a mandatory filtering proposal is likely to require legislation to implement (especially without the support of the Internet Industry Association and a voluntary code of conduct), it is not clear that any future legislation is dead in the water just yet.

http://www.efa.org.au/2009/02/26/xenophon-opposes-mandatory-isp-filtering-but-fight-not-over-yet/ [efa.org.au]

Yes! (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998171)

And I will now track down Nick Xenophon's address and mail him a letter of thanks. There may be hope for democracy yet!

Representatives of the People (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998213)

This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship.

Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it. How do we account for this?

Re:Representatives of the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998517)

It's because Labor party members are required to tow the party line or leave. So even though the population doesn't want it, if the party decides it wants it, and some Labor ministers oppose it, they have to support it.

*yay*

Re:Representatives of the People (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998583)

They were asked by somebody for their opinion, instead of having to get up from the sofa, turn off "Aussie's Next Top Model" or whatever, and voice their opinions by their own volition.

Re:Representatives of the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998593)

The vast majority of those representatives belong to political parties and are forced to vote along party lines.
Who would have thought there'd be POLITICS involved in POLITICS!?!

Re:Representatives of the People (1)

Bede EW (1002882) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998679)

The pervasive effect of the religious right in Australian politics

Re:Representatives of the People (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998739)

When you have the power of a censor list, you have the power to censor anybody.

Opposition party starting up and happens to believe that lolicon isn't child porn? Oh, that's obscene - filtered! Independent media outlet reporting on a war with gruesome photos of the carnage? Oh, that's too shocking - filtered!

The standards for blocking a site are also quite vague. What if you are on a shared host and one of the sites on the shared host has porn the nanny state doesn't like? Does that mean you get filtered by association?

There's a lot of room for this list to be played with against independent media and opposition political parties. That's why it's popular with the media and the politicians.

Re:Representatives of the People (2, Informative)

Trentus (1017602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999063)

Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it.

I recall someone busting Conroy's chops on the ABC radio show Media Watch a short while back. I also remember another ABC radio announcer slipping in some filter related questions to one of the people involved in a child porn ring bust. Something to the effect of:

interviewer: "What about filtering, does that help the problem?"
police guy dude: "Oh, they don't do anything."

I should really try and find a source for that. There were a few other radio shows talking about it as well (I think "Spoonman" on Tripple M dedicated an evening to the subject).

There were a few TV spots on morning chat show type programs, as well as a nice little piece on the 7:30 report [youtube.com] . They all (and rather surprisingly for the morning shows) seemed to convey a nice message of "While childporn is bad, and it would be awesome to be able to get rid of it, this filter thing is just stupid." There were also various newspapers who had people blogging about the subject on their websites. I don't remember seeing a whole lot make it to print though.

Re:Representatives of the People (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999125)

Yet almost 50% of their elected representatives, and probably media outlets, supported it. How do we account for this?

Hypothesis: Representation is a trailing indicator (that is, people's opinions flip-flop more often than they elect new leaders). The majority of people may have actually supported censoring when they first heard of it, around the time of the last election.

Consider US opinion on invading Iraq, and how long after that opinion changed it took for US leadership to follow suit.

Re:Representatives of the People (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999355)

I'd say voting them out would be a good way of accounting for it. Lynchings are good too.

R18 and X18? (4, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998391)

Is there like a master list of all the R18 and X18 sites...? I think I need to check it over to make sure they all deserve to be there.

The fix was in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26998465)

Aussies! Google 'lspfix' and find a mirror that your filter hasn't blocked yet. Should let you dig out that inane LSP filter quite easily, and most of the lower quality filtering apps won't even do anything to fix it. You're in compliance, at least to the casual eye!

If this bill were to pass... (1)

Jbain (1453725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998669)

does that mean all Aussies would go back to the days of the porn-dialer? This could actually turn into a profitable business strategy!

Scrubs (1)

choas (102419) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998691)

Look, Janice, Denise, Tiffany Amber Thiiiieeeessen! Lemme go ahead and share a little something special with you that I like to call Perry's Perspective.

One: If someone's standing in front of me in line at the coffee shop and they can't decide what they want in the half an hour it took to get to the register, I should be allowed to kill them.

Two: I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called "Bring back the porn!"

Three and most importantly of all: The only way to be respected as a doctor -- nay, respected as a man -- is to be an island; you are born alone, you damn sure die alone.

Isn't that right, Spike?

Re:Scrubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26999157)

Look, Janice, Denise, Tiffany Amber Thiiiieeeessen! Lemme go ahead and share a little something special with you that I like to call Perry's Perspective.

One: If someone's standing in front of me in line at the coffee shop and they can't decide what they want in the half an hour it took to get to the register, I should be allowed to kill them.

Two: I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called "Bring back the porn!"

Three and most importantly of all: The only way to be respected as a doctor -- nay, respected as a man -- is to be an island; you are born alone, you damn sure die alone.

Isn't that right, Spike?

I'm fairly sure if they took all of the _________ off the internet, there'd be a huge proliferation of new sites, all of which would be called "Bring back the _________!"

To paraphrase Morbo, "THE INTERNET DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY"

Squeeze (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998727)

The harder you squeeze the more you piss off the electorate.

Re:Squeeze (1)

BlastQuake (530459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999217)

The harder you squeeze the more you piss _on_ the electorate.

New site blocked! (1, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998793)

Conroy .. said [the list] would also block sites depicting ... "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

Latest site added to the list:

          http://australia.gov.au/ [australia.gov.au]

Not out of the woods yet (5, Informative)

amorphic101 (1224794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999039)

I'm elated to hear that Senator Xenophon has withdrawn his support and I agree that this is a major blow to the (dis)honourable Senator Conroy and his cronies. However this is still far from over, as the EFA point out: http://www.efa.org.au/2009/02/26/xenophon-opposes-mandatory-isp-filtering-but-fight-not-over-yet/ [efa.org.au]

However doomed, this is still government policy and it's entirely possible that Xenophon's vote could be won back if the government agrees to back other causes close to his heart. There's also the possiblity of Liberal senators crossing the floor, (the Liberals were the ones to introduce the "Black List" after all) or of Labor winning more Senate seats in the future to give them a more powerful standing in the senate.

Having said all that this is definitely the best news we've had for a while on the Aussie net censorship issue. In your face Conroy!

Transparent (3, Interesting)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999059)

Ignored all expert advice.. Expanded the scope beyond it's original intention despite this.. Decided to bypass the larger, more popular, more mainstream ISPs during trialling and instead used a very select few mainly used by 'ma and pa kettle' types who would be ignorant of anything should their net one day be slow and half missing.. Isn't it obvious? This was never about morality or protecting the innocent. This was about instigating a control mechanism. The ability to shut you up and control your perceptions. Or.. perhaps he really thought he was doing the right thing, and going about it the right way. Really, either way you look at it, either his motives or his competency do nothing but put Australians at risk of being subjugated. He needs to be impeached. Now, I'm all for his originally claimed intention. But I think we need to find someone else to implement it. Someone with half a fricken clue and no ulterior motives.

Re:Transparent (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999079)

NB: I'm aware iPrimus are by no means a small ISP, however their contribution for the trial was opt-IN, and only on a still-very-small select group...

The Letter and Site in Question (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26999129)

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/acma-anti-abortion-prohibited/

In response to a complaint about an anti-abortion web page showing photographs of what appears to be aborted fetuses, ACMA has declared the page âprohibited or potential prohibited contentâ(TM). The Whirlpool member who made the complaint, presumably to gauge ACMAâ(TM)s response to such content, has published the departmentâ(TM)s email:

Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100
From: online@acma.gov.au

Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278

I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm

Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.

Information about ACMAâ(TM)s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMAâ(TM)s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline

Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMAâ(TM)s attention.

Well... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26999191)

Any politician who gets behind this will not get re-elected. When less than 10% of the population supports something, it is political suicide to try and hitch your wagon to it. This can only weed out the moronic politicians, let them idiots say they support this. Then when it fails, everyone will know who NOT to vote for next time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...