Slashdot Mirror
Draconian Censorship Push In South Australia
Diabolus writes: "Australian IT are reporting that the South Australian Government are about to pass a bill which mandates censorship of the Internet. Discussion of any "adult themed" content online now about to be outlawed - effectively anything worthy of an 18+ rating. Not only do Web pages fall under its scope, but also newsgroups and publicly archived mailing lists. Offshore content is also subject to this legislation if controlled by a South Australian. As a resident of SA, my freedom of speech is about to disappear ..."
This implied right to freedom of speech already is limited under various state and federal laws - for example, libel and slander are illegal. In states such as NSW there are anti-vilification laws under which you can be punished if you publish material that could be deemed to incite hatred or violence.
I know that some of the American libertarian types out there may not like this - but I look at it this way, when speech is as 'free' as it is in the US, it basically becomes meaningless. At least in Australia, because we don't traditionally talk about having a 'right' to 'free speech' as such, it seems that we value using our speech wisely and responsibly _as well as_ valuing the freedom that we do have to speak our minds.
This is not to say that our governments don't occasionally pass some stupid laws... Hmm... don't you guys have an election this year? If so, make mandatory internet filtering an election issue. Think of it this way, a goodly chunk of the Bible would be filtered/banned! I am sure that those forces that are pushing for such filtering aren't aware that the GoodBook(tm) would also become invisible to kiddies..
Yeah well, thats Islam for you, a religion still stuck in the middle ages.
...er... christianity is stucked in the antique age ... is it not?
' far as I know, the only "modern" religion is Pokemon.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Speak for yourself! Wheres the pr0n?
Come move to Western Australia.. our draconian net censorship laws came into effect years ago. Back then they hadn't thought of half the things that they have decided to ban in SA!
Still, there remain stupid poiticians in the government there (as well as just about everywhere else in the world, which is not unexpected, since usually one has to be stupid to be a politician). You could try working on expunging the stupid ones, if it is the case that their numbers are low enough to make this practical.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Don't stress folks. I live in SA and I can tell you now that there are no storm troopers out the window.
SA was amongst the first places in the world to give women a vote, gave rights to aborigines before most other states etc. Marijuana is decriminalized and all that. Good food and wine, lots of motor sports, great climate - could be worse.
The government here is mostly powerless and these sorts of laws are unenforcable. Anarchy is just around the corner anyway.
So chill out. People should be more concerned about concentration of media ownership and draconian defamation laws in Australia. Internet censorship has technical solutions.
I don't know what you people are getting so mad about. I think having sensors on the internet would be a great idea! I mean if a router goes down or something is wrong the "sensors" would indicate it just like a car and then....
..........<BSSSSSSST>
Hey! Wait a minute... It's "censor", not "sensor"?
WELL THAT'S JUST FU*CKING
<<Connection blocked by South Australia Gov.>>
<<Resume your pleasurable internet experience!>>
You said that the right to bear arms doesn't *exist* in other countries. I'd say that the right exists everywhere, the question is which countries do or do not prohibit their government from infringing on that right. The constitution of the USA specifically enjoins our government from trying to take away our means to defend ourselves, but they keep on trying.
The constitution doesn't *grant* any rights at all. It is merely a statement of our *intention* to preserve our rights, which are intrinsic to free people.
The right to bear arms is one's right to self-defense, whether from criminals, governments (I know, same thing), or even wild animals.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't think there's any easy way to avoid this sort of happening ever, its where democracy fails at its grandest. Even in Australia politicians are... well, politicians. You vote for the one you think is going to do the least damage and all you can do after that is hope.
(ie. One of the annoying potential side effects of voting for people who you agree with on A, B, C, D and E doesn't mean they're going to agree with your opinion on point F, and in fact may do exactly the opposite. (Not that I know anything about SA's state politics)).
IMHO, There should be some sort of common sense check before these inane laws are passed. Like:
This proposed change (and many others) obviously fail to meet the above criteria (at least according to me), and this is before we even get to the censorship issue!
Considering (common sense != politics) so the only (not particularly good) option is to move to a different state more in alignment with your views, which in turn concentrates people of the same type (eg. Very pro gun vs pro religion states in the US, for all I know they might both be the case in some states).
Vaguely related fact: The capital of South Australia (Adelaide) is known as the 'city of churches' as it has more per capita than any of the other Australian states / territories. (Fortunately in my case I'm from Sydney).
More ironic fact: The most 'liberal' state / territory in Australia in terms of censorship etc. is actually the one the capital (Canberra, not Sydney) is in. - The ACT (or Australian Capital Territory). This is the state that you can order your pr0n from, and has the least restraining drug penalties, least censorship etc. etc. Of course, this is where the majority of the politicians work and hang out a lot of the time. Coincidence? I think not....
Anything that people could possibly have thought of is going to be expressed on a website somewhere. Therefore, a better way to picture the Internet is the sum of all human thought.
So basically this topic is:
"Australian IT are reporting that the South Australian Government are about to pass a bill which mandates censorship of thoughts."
And hasn't that been the secret goal of every governement since time began?
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
This is basically a reaction by a Goverment scared of big swings to the opposition in other state elections and the emerging strength of a nationalistic bunch of rednecks called One Nation. For the conservative branch of Australian politics, the ironically named Liberal party, this is an effort to appear pro-family. It's an easy target and with no freedoms built into our constitution (Australians are crown subjects, not citizens) there is little recourse such as an American citizen would have access to.
The only good thing I can think of is that it is highly unlikely that the authorities will prosecute except in politically expedient cases.
sigh
.sig
Sit down and have a hard think about it.
I migrated from Australia to Switzerland last year because of these laws. I had already moved my website to LA ( on dreamhost ) but the real reason wasn't my personal web site.
The harder the various Australian Governments push these absurd laws the futher behind the Australian IT industry is going to be. And when IT gets behind, the rest of the economy will follow.
Added bonus: salaries in Zurich are about 5x Sydney.
I've been posting on the net since 1994 and I still haven't come up with a good sig!
...and this is how it ends.
Sometime you have to wonder... do they actually know what the Internet is? Can someone tell me if South Australia is actually some kind of giant cave? There isn't enough censors on earth to go rate all the "interenet content" out there. Would it kill them to call it the Office of Internet, Film and Literature Classification since the Internet is such a menace.
Child porn? Okay, I don't remember this kind of stuff NOT being mentioned everytime someone want to censor something. How about a site that teaches people to double park? And some other dumb laws!
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
young, committed men and women with a dream of leading the future of internet technology!
Skills: Strong stomach, being able to "recognize pornography when one sees it," penchant for censorship.
Seriously, aussies, if your friend says he or she is taking the Censor job, cut them off and then h4x0r them.
and no, this cannot be done with nanny-ware, we have seen in many other stories how this software is so inaccurate that it would not withstand any substantial constitutional test in any country.
Goat sex free since 2001
"What bloody use the NRA nutters think their guns would be against tanks and fighter-bombers is beyond me"
Good point. However, I must point out that if there was ever a serious revolt against the increaingly Imperial Government, for violating the Constitution (such as outlawing free speech), it's highly unlikely that enough of the US military would obey orders to fire on civillians to be able to act as a cohesive unit. A lot of those tanks and planes would fight on the side of the rebels.
You have to know the difference between police and the military. The police are trained to, and in everyday life, attack and kill US civillians.
The military, on the other hand, are SWORN to uphold the Constitution, and to obey lawful orders. Any soldier, from the lowest private to the highest General are held accountable for obeying LAWFUL orders It is their responsibility to know what is lawful and what is not. Being ordered to attack civillians who are in the process of throwing out government officials who have used their office to supress the Constitution would be unlawful. Doubtless many would obey, but enough would refuse to obey to make using the military useless.
Rifles and pistols are perfectly adequate against "SWAT" team government police stormtroopers. Compared to real soldiers, even the elite police officers are stumbling buffons, as they are only taught how to fight when outgunning and outnumbering the enemy 100-1.
This is one reason why the pro-government types are always against private ownership of weapons. Because with a disarmed population, the government can rule by decree without any fear of reprisal. This is what is happening Down Under... They gave up their guns, and now the government is taking away their other liberties.
Just as all government power ultimately flows from a gun (violate any regulation, no matter how slight, and eventually government agents with guns will come to get you), the only threat to keep the government honest flows from a gun.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Australia always seemed to me like a sane country.
There is no sensible way to implement this, but since when did sensible enter into what a government does...
My condolences to all those effected by this stupidity:(
Synchronized cocks!
But, we get the society we deserve.
Just too bad that *everyone* gets something that *others* deserve, too.
Will work for bandwidth
I can buy magazines full of guns and knives and other 'offensive weapons'. I can buy newsletters produced by far-left political groups. I can buy pro-abortion and pro-euthenasia newsletters. All offensive to some people.
I can publish these items on paper if I wish. But heaven forbid if i publish or view them on the internet!
Sound crazy? It is, and this is just one of the many crazy legislations and laws my Government has made - enough to convince me to leave South Australia.