Slashdot Mirror
Australian Censorship Legislation
danny writes: "Legislation is before the New South Wales (Australia) state parliament that would make it
a criminal offense to publish material unsuitable
for children online. Other states will be passing similar laws,
as this is part of a uniform national approach. So please
help us stop this! Note: earlier Federal legislation in Australia covered Internet Service Providers, not end-users. But this law follows that in attempting to directly transfer the film censorship system to the Net - one has to wonder how many of the politicians involved actually use the Net."
When did Australia start letting children use the internet?
I really hate Dan Patrick.
Last thing I heard the country was a Democracy. Are the people in favour? If not, then start a protest, try to dealy it until the next election, and vote for the party that doesn't.
If they are in favour, then let them do what they want.
This legislation constitutes material unsuitable for children, what happens if the text of this is put online?
Can a law find itself illegal?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I hate to say this, but it almost sounds like someone's been in the outback a bit too long. I am waiting to see someone try to do the same as the French have done in the Yahoo case.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Just a little difficult, isn't it?
How do you define unsuitable for children?
Will we be sending the storm troops around to the US to bring the rogue publishers back to justice?
If not, what about Australians who host content overseas?
How exactly are they going to enforce this?
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Or is it more of an attempt to latch on to something that they can demonize to make voters feel more at ease? I mean seriously, it seems it would be absurd for them to tell us we couldn't say on the street anything that was deemed unsuitable for children. What about swearing in a room with kids? Bad manners perhaps but not a legislative matter at all, most would agree.
The internet is treated differently because it is a new thing that most politicians don't understand. People have been talking with their mouths for years. But look... "Big internet new and scary. Ugh. The internet is power-mad. She want take moral perogative away from parents." It is a lot easier for people to blame what's new and mysterious (to some anyway). I can't stand it when people go off about kids being exposed to internet porn. Kids have been swiping their parents' stag flicks and magazines for such a long time it may as well have become herreditary tradition. And the pipe bombs? Please. Apparently legislators never went to school (at least not a public one).
its wrong because:
1. your restricting fredom of speech
2. "unsuitable for children" could have a broad meaning & used to restrict things of a political nature... or have it's meaning streched, much like the US's terrorism laws & hacking.
3. how the hell are they going to police this?
Also one interesting fact is that they say politicians don't respond or take much notice of email , so its suggested to write handwritten letters... now why would this be? maybe its because politicians have no clue when it comes to computers! so incompetent they can't even check their e-mail on a regular basis. It's a bloody outrage & i hope this bill isn't passed
You tried your best, & you failed miserably,
The lesson is:
Never Try
"[A]dult themes" include: "verbal references to and depictions associated with issues such as suicide, crime, corruption, marital problems, emotional trauma, drug and alcohol dependency, death and serious illness, racism, religious issues".
And don't just think this is to "get" people who put stuff up any old how, oh no - "[I]f you place material unsuitable for minors on a web page, even on a password protected section of your site and give the password only to your adult friends, you could be prosecuted under criminal law."
Is this for real? I thought adult content was the only content on the net that made real money?
I'm guessing we're not going to be seeing "Genuine Aussie Amatuers" on the net for much longer then. Any Australians out there who can say how likely this bill is to pass? If it happens in one place it could happen in others...
I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams.
Danny, what should people outside NSW do? Presumably writing to someone else's local member probably wouldn't make a difference.
Should I see my (Victorian) MP now or wait for legislation to be introduced here?
I guess I could write to the NSW Attorney General and thank them for killing the local internet industry in favour of other states...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Can we stop terrorism by censoring the net? Will the youth stop becoming criminal if we censor the net? I'm sure all of you knows exactly what I mean.
The problem isn't the net, it's parents, lack of father figure, drugs, gangs, etc, etc. And it can't be solved by censorship. I have ideas of how to solve these things, but that is way beyond this topic at hand.
So, could anyone connected to slashdot make some sort of "poll" where all the _registered_ users of slashdot can vote on what they think of this, and then send that to all newspapers in Australia? It might not be the Rambo solution, but at least it could be something. What do you think?
/J
Maybe america will get a taste of its own medicine. We arrested a Russian programmer for violating the DMCA here, maybe we just need an American web site owner to get arrested in Australia.
or not, I believe it's kind of hard to get people patriotic about the arrest of a nerd or porn-site owner. oh well.
"It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
This is seriously whacked:
..."adult themes" include: "verbal references to and depictions associated with issues such as suicide, crime, corruption, marital problems, emotional trauma, drug and alcohol dependency, death and serious illness, racism, religious issues"
So someone could be gien troubole for making Dr King's speeches availible online? Medical sites? Support group sites/discussion boards? News sites? Slashdot troll posts?! What's left to put online?!
I hope they can't use extradition, or have laws like America is passing - set foot on our soil for violaiting our laws and you're under arrest! Oh, and you're not a citizen, so you have no rights! Eek! There go any travel plans I had to go see the Great Barrier Reef.
This is just going to piss people off. Kids will find "unsuitable content" on sites hosted in other parts of the world. Ever hear of the USA? Norway? Holland? Japan?
Unless Australia tries to play USA and impose these regulations on the rest of the world it is just a waste of time.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
Is the internet full of only tele-tubbies.... slowly sucking the brains out of every living soul.
Oh Man, I am now in hell!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
However, they have signed on board the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that everyone has the right of freedom of expression (artile 19). The proposed law seems to seriously hinder that right as a non-unanimous decision of a bunch of minority-view cencors can deem you guilty and slap a nice $5,500 fine on you.
Again, I wonder the relavance to the location of the server. This is not clear under the proposed law. Could anyone be guilty anywere? Will I receive a $5,500 "bill" from the NSW government concerning my website? Or will I just be arrested whenever I visit Australia?
I knew those Aussies would come up with a way to get rid of that Goatsex guy.
;)
-- Dan
This might be troll/offtopic, whatever, but while reading this, a very weird and interesting thought struck me...
Why is it neccessary to suit the internet for children needs? Was the internet designed to be used only for children so we have to ban anything that is not children appropriate?
Banning content that is not appropriate for children would be very difficult to police (I'd say impossible, but who am I to know?). Would it be just simpler to ban children using the internet without the aid of the guardian or parent. Sort of shift the whole issue to the other side. I know some countries have a law that states that children can't be on the street at night alone without parent or guardian. And that makes mush more effective and easier than just plainly making streets at night kid-safe.
Just a thought.
Now I can't go to Australia, or I'll be arrested... for using the subject line "Holy fuck".
Before you accuse me of crying wolf, I'd better point out that "Holy fuck" is dangerous not because of the "fuck", but because of the "Holy". "Religious issues" are one of the criteria that the NSW Office of Film and Literature Classification uses to decide what is "adult content".
This is a Bill aimed not just at porn, but at any discussion of adult matters in any forum, even one which tries to exclude children. Here's a non-exhaustive list. I've highlighted one word which I find particularly interesting:
There's a pretty piece of legislation. Post an article suggesting that the legislators are corrupt, and get locked up purely on that basis. Unthinkable? Time will tell.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Maybe when the Australian government realizes how stupid this makes them look, they'll reconsider. Meanwhile, this will just increase traffic along the sub-ocean cables between Australia and free nations.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
> something other than platitudes, here. As a
> member of society with children, I have every
> expectation that society make a point to
> confirm their humanity and spritituality at
> least as strongly as it confirms your so called > right to
Why would your expectation exceed his right?
And for that matter, let us dig deeper.
Not citing religious belief, please give
substantiation to the claim that pr0n
would somehow "diminish" your daughter,
other than because you will impose your
system of beliefs on her without her
or yourself ever questioning any of it.
Considered harmful.
So if suicide is an adult theme, then it would have to be illegal to talk about suicide prevention.
So the following site would be illegal in NSW
http://www.reachout.asn.au/home.jsp
Australia has lately been the leader in such crap. Then it trickles down thru England and finally to Canada and the U.S., whereafter the EU jumps on the bandwagon too. Or at least that's how it's been working out for the past year or two, now that I think about it.
The day will come when the only words safe to utter are A, AN, and THE.
No, I take that back. Some moron will object because he doesn't like being called "a/an" (generic), he wants to be "the" (one and only). Another moron will object to being singled out by "the". Best just keep our mouths shut.
Enough duct tape silences anyone.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Like when the US tries to enforce the DMCA on a certain Russian hacker?
"[A]dult themes" include: "verbal references to and depictions associated with issues such as suicide, crime, corruption..."
.
Well, the crime and corruption bit rules out any reference to most governments in this world
And "racism, religious issues" rules out any reference to the Australian Immigration Policy, doesn't it?
-Shaunak.
Australian politicians are always coming up with these draconian net policies, but crying it up like this is going to spread all over the place is jumping the gun a bit.
In the US, there is this whacky swingers club called the Supreme Court that has this crazy job of deciding whether federal laws should limit or even define obscenity and over and over and over they've said that no they don't go that way. It's left to the States. So, then you have a patchwork of State laws. That's the way the Supreme Court intends it to stay and if you doubt it, you just don't know shit.
I did my Master's Thesis on the Supreme Court's treatment of obscenity and I'll be happy to send it to you if you're really scared and in the US. It was all played out by the sixties really as far as the US is concerned. Perhaps some of you are old enough to recall public XXX theaters in the States. They used to be everywhere. Things have actually tamed way down from what they were like before herpes and AIDS. It's not the laws that hold people's libido's down in the States. If you think so, you're just too young to know better.
As for you Austrailians --well, who knows what's going on down there. For starters, your wine sucks. As a native Californian, I really wish you guys would drop that whole gig. You've apparently got lots of mad hax0rs and case modifying freaks, the original Mad Max, more triple trailer rigs than Nevada and a surplus of freckle faced big tittied women, which I grudgingly confess are all plusses, but you've also got some lame ass politicians and this kind of stuff seems like par for the course coming from them.
I seem to recall about four years ago there was a ban on porn hosting in Austrailia and it was hilarious to see all these hosts in LA and NY specifically reaching out to help the poor homeless Aussie porn sites by snaking that monthly hosting fee from the local guys. What a dumb ass move that turned out to be.
Why should children be completely coddled? So they'll crash and burn hard once they hit the real world?
You should be worldproofing your child, not childproofing the world.
Not all Australians are like this, in fact a lot of us are quite ashamed of our current governments.
The Federal government, which passed the previous lwas that tried to restrict ISPs, did so, a) because they (erk, they call themselves the Liberals) are quite a conservative party to begin with, b) because they were trying to win the vote of an even more conservative member of parliament, and c) because it was easy and popular to do.
The reason for this new law is less clearcut; the party in power in NSW (Labor) is the supposedly more Left-leaning of the two biggest parties. I suspect that it purely a populist move. Politicians in Australia seem to be determined to prove that they can be even more conservative and out of touch than Americans, obvously.
Hahhahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha, If you're serious, you're an eloquent fool, and if you're not, bravo.
How the hell can pictures on the damn net marginalize your daughter? You just say "talk to women for a change and you'll find out". I know lots of women who don't feel marginalized by porn. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one who felt "diminished". I think you need to give women more credit, and your daughter as well--anyone who feels somehow diminished by the fact that guys jerk off to dirty pictures on the damn internet has got problems censorship won't fix.
And as for that stuff about the assumptions of rational society conveying truth about the human condition, it damn well better, or else we'd all be illiterate living in mud huts licking slime off rocks. Its insipid post-modernist anti-reason comments like that which make me cringe. Of course we should put stock in rationality--you can think can't you? And as far as being unread and uneducated if you think assumptions about rational society are all trash, wtf have you been reading? I've got to know, 'cause i'd love to write a thesis about how human society is damaged by the idea that we're all just animals, which is essentially what we end up with once rationalism is thrown away. Religion is always at a disadvantage, because it makes no sense. Well, that's a harsh blanket statement, but I don't see much about religion that _does_ make sense. My apologies.
To get back on point, if you could please lay out how you think your daughter will be seriously diminished by geeks masturbating to naked pictures, then do it. I bet you can't.
--RMT
"I hope they can't use extradition"
:)
Heh, just imagine the Australian government trying to get more people than its population extradited
In other countries how can a law like this affect us? Could we become criminals?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Those in power always want that the general population be as clueless as possible, so that they don't pose as a threat.
The internet is the worst thing that can happen to many governments - free exchange of information, people educating themselves, etc.
Read a little further in Article 19....
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided
by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
public), or of public health or morals.
3.b appears to be a loophole which can be used to permit arbitrary censorship in the name of morals.
The company that marketed the product in the United States was the one who broke the law. The "Russian hacker" was ensuring that the Adobe e-books brought into Russia could be copied safely and completely as is allowed by Russian law.
And it's argueable how much damage he caused as it's real difficult to declare how much Adobe may or may not have lost as a result of the program in question.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
parenting???? Ok... before I start my rant, I :p. #1: There is an easy way to help
:) I mean, I would
:p.
must say, yes I do have, kids 2 of them. So, I
feel as though I have a right to bitch about these
people
protect our children online.... it's called
watching your kids. To put this very simply, when
I was younger, if my mother thought I was getting
into a situation that might have been unsuitable,
she either, took me out of the situation, or just
supervised very closely. Now I know it might
sound like a lot of work to the F*cking people
that start this stuff, but hey kids aren't easy.
#2: This is just my thought on the whole thing.
I don't think the lawmakers are taking into
consideration the problems involved with all of
this stuff. I mean, once upon a time I knew this
girl, her parents sheltered her life from the time
she was born, meaning no TV that was above a PG13
rating, no dating until she was like 104 or
something like that, no going out with the people
her parents deemed trouble makers, etc... The
funny thing about this story, is this, all of my
other friends that were allowed to do all of this
stuff, got older, got a job, and moved on. This
girl had no idea of how the "real world" was. She
stayed living with her parents, but since she was
legaly allowed to do what she wanted she started
going out and partying every night, where she
would do just about and drug that was around, and
any person that was around for that matter. This
is not the way to "protect" your children.
#3 My opinion as a parent:
Everyone is preaching about protect our children,
keep the internet "safe" for children, blah blah
blah. Now in my opinion, I hate seeing the this
happening, I hate the way they are gutting the
internet and any other form of entertainment.
Personally I hate the fact that my children aren't
going to have the option. I mean, seriously now,
if they are going to cut down on pr0n and all of
that online, I think there should be laws for
parents to better hide their own personal pr0n
collection. (Oh, and to all of you kids reading
this.... check your dads closet.... usually the
highest shelf you can get
rather for my son get online and do his thing to
pr0n then go out when he comes of age and get some
poor girl pregnant.
All I am saying is that the best fight for the
whole protecting our children thing is this:
EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN!!! tell them what's what.
it'll work a lot better than stealing their
rights.
Sorry for the long post, but this kinda shit gets
by boxers in a bundle
L8r
The Australian government won't police this at all. They'll just use it to selectively threaten people the politicians and beaurocrats in charge don't like.
Nice troll, BTW.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Kox Box - Crunchy Moles .... The beginning is damn funny.
Dmitry is actually not the best analogy here. Jon Johansen is a much better example, as he was arrested without ever setting foot in the US.
(Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
I wouldn't mind seeing the white supremacy racist crap removed from the net.
I find idiots like you offensive, and wouldn't mind seeing you removed from the internet.
People who think they have a right not to be offended are trouble. My point is that if you say it's ok to ban something you find offensive, then it's ok for EVERYBODY ELSE to ask for bans on anything they happen to find offensive.
EVERYTHING offends someone. Every political position(both sides of the abortion issue). Every religion. Science. History(no matter what it says, it's all "revisionist/sexist/racist/etc."). Children's TV (Telletubbies attacked for "promoting homosexuality"), Children's books/movies (have you seen the protesters destroying Harry Potter books because the movie "promotes witchcaft"?)
I think white supremacists are idiots, but protecting everyone's rights means protecting the rights of idiots.
You can't censor bad ideas out of existance. You can only out compete them with good ideas. The best way to fight them is to let people spout their nonsense in public. This will provoke the generation of exactly the ideas/speach you need to defeat it. Banning something only drives it underground and PROTECTS it from competing ideas.
You don't want to protect "white supremacy racist crap" from being exposed and effectively attacked, do you?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Any adult discourse on the internet in Australia.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...Came for the gun owner's guns did you stand up for their rights, and write your government and post messages on Slashdot?
This legislation is absolutely stupid, but it is to be expected when no one will stand up for anyone elses rights.
I am a proud member of what most of you would probably call the religious right. But guess what: I vote libertarian because I know that standing up for the rights of pornographers and strippers and recreational drug users is equally as important as standing up for the rights of Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson and the NRA.
This is so reminicent of the quote from somebody shortly after the Second World War: "First they came for the _____ and I did nothing because I wasn't a ____. Then they came for the ____ and I did nothing because I wasn't a _____...Eventually they came for me and there was no one left..." Fill in the blanks people. You reap what you sow, and this is what happens.
Stand Fast,
tjg.
The C word...Congress.
The D word...Democracy.
The F word...Freedom.
The H word...Help.
The S word...Sense, as in Common.
The A word...Aussie.
Please refrain from using these around children as it might adversly affect the way they percieve our world.
Thank you.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
It's not America's job to safeguard the Australian pornography industry.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to we
"I know some countries have a law that states that children can't be on the street at night alone without parent or guardian. And that makes mush more effective and easier than just plainly making streets at night kid-safe. "
First I have to say that most of your posting is rather reasonable, and I may even misunderstand you... but the situation you discribe in my quote is HORRIBLE.
So there are actually laws that really limit the freedom of parents and children, just for the sake of protecting the children.
Making sure the child is home early, is the parents job, not the government. I realize that some people spend way too little time with their children, but passing the child care over to the public in this way is horrible. It sounds almost like a real police state or dictatorship. What countires are using this kind of laws.. because using the worlds dictatorships as an example of how things could be done, is not exactly what I would do.
Children have to actively search for naughty content to find it (in most cases). Banning the opposite example (that is, banning active advertising for naughty content without some sort of age-verification) is fine by me, but banning the actual content, or banning children from using the Internet is just plain wrong. There are plenty of good uses of it. That said, I think parents should monitor their childrens usage of the Internet, and schools or libraries should try to monitor the situation, but there is a huge difference from actual laws and healthy self-regulation.
I suppose they might as well censor newspapers that have stories about murder, rape, and unethical business practices because it might be read by a child. That's no different than censoring the internet. Perhaps once they see how retarded they look in the eyes of the world they will reconsider.
We (uk) don't want you anymore. You can change the little British flag in the corner to stars-and-stripes and go be part of America with their DMCAs and SSSCAs and banning barry potter and flag burning. Good bye. :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
According to NSW bill, the potential offender has to second guess how some panel would rate the content in question.
The FCC's decision to fine a radio staion for obscenity is based on the community's reaction after the broadcast. There is no way to find out ahead of time whether you will be fined for broadcasting a particular item.
I think the issue is that fanatical parents, "religious leaders", and legislators are terrified of any potential for evil thought-provoking entities to gain access to the minds of the children. Free speech in any medium is just about as scary to these people as LSD (same basic result - there is the potential that people will stop believing the BS being shoved down their throats).
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Remember how much trouble AOL had with their auto-cencorship sw that left breast cancer support groups finding all sorts of creative ways to talk seriously about breast cancer without ever using the word 'breast'?
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
I'm afraid that if it is acceptable to term unpopular (and possibly bogus) beliefs about the history of the human race as 'revisionist' then when important but unpopular genuine historical discoveries are made, the same term may be applied.
Although I certainly don't believe those who say the nazi's never had gas chambers, remember that much of Gallileo's work was published posthumously for fear that he would be considered a revisionist and killed by the Catholic church (and in relativistic terms, his assertions were just as innacurate as those of the church - it doesn't have to be correct to be usefull).
The point is that when you allow one group to determine what historical 'truths' are acceptible to believe, you ultimately create a system in which only the official beliefs are legal, and you have yourself a police state.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
I also hope this bill is thrown out - but if it does pass, there are still constitutional grounds for throwing it out.
Like the US, the people have little say except to determine which corrupt slob is going to pass which garbage legislation.
The idea behind the US republic is that it 'balances' the rights of the people with the 'rights of property', but when the rights of the powerful are protected over the rights of the common person, the powerful get more and more powerful, and the balance is blown.
In a society where these rights are 'balanced', the idea is that the smart, well-to-do folks basically run things, and the opinion of the common man keeps things from getting totally out of hand. This obviously is not happening here, nor do I believe that the "smart, well-to-do folks" are really capable of keeping in touch with the rest of the world to the point where they could make good decisions for the society as a whole.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Whenever I read that government X wants to ban Y from the internet or fine provider Z for a users web page/chat room comments I nearly fall off my sofa laughing. Maybe they don't see how ludicrous their statements would seem if the subtituted 'malicious or offensive voice content' carried over the 'public telephony system' for any of the statements they make about the internet.
Or perhaps they do/ think it would be sensible to prosecute Cable and Wireless or British Telecom for every crank call made from a payphone or mobile but just haven't got round to drafting the legislation yet.
Or, more credibly, they have no real understanding of the communications industry whatsoever.
Hey - maybe someone in the US should prosecute the mail service for delivering Anthrax. It would make just as much sense.
--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
Let's help however we can.
The ultimate strategy is global totalitarianism folks. That's the New World Order. What you don't know is going to fuck up your life.
Get a copy of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and this stuff will start making sense. Then we can mount strategic and extremely more effective methods of neutralizing these types of fascist control mechanisms.
For a very enlightened view of the strategy used to manipulate all of us check out this site:
The Truth About TerrorismDanny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
I say this: CENSORSHIP SUCKS . It is the responsibility of the PARENTS , not of the government, to decide what is and what is not suitable for their children, and to enforce that in their home. Parents need to talk to their children about "adult" matters, like drugs, alcohol, sex and crime. If the parents don't do this, then the parents are idiots. But it is the PARENTS' , and ONLY the PARENTS' responsibility to handle this.
(I don't care if they pass a law that says that all "adult" materials need to have some sort of tag on them so that parental control software can be written to effectively block all "adult" websites, but a law prohibiting any "adult" materials in the first place is, quite frankly, a very stupid law.)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH WELL.
If they ban all adult themes on the Internet, shouldn't they also ban adult themes from TV? I think there'd be quite an outrage if they tried that! Hypocricy.
Perhaps people should read it.
"If you believe the Australian Election Results last week, a majority of Australians are scum-sucking xenophobic racists. Let them rot."
"majority" being the operative word here buddy. Think of the 40 odd percent of people who voted against the racist. Do they deserve to rot for belonging to the same country?
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work" - Kent Brockman from The Simpsons.
Come on! Censorship is NOT about pornography! Censorship is about freedom of speech, not freedom to show kids stuff they shouldn't even be concerned about. I'm deadly serious. I am in favor of a cleaner web, a web where kids can surf without filling their mind with rubbish. I'm also in favor of having my say and speaking my mind. I believe we can have both! Why have only one? How about submitting links which enable me to SUPPORT this measure? Why only cover the one side of this?
Thank you! As a childfree adult, I do not want the burden of changing my life to take up the slack for parents who refuse to be parents. Passage of this law would set a dangerous precedent not only for Australia, but for other countries as well. Information would be judged on the political agenda of the day and not on some narrow-minded parent's wishes, even though that's the package politicians have placed it in to get votes. Wake up and smell the gestapo, people!
The democrats have completely lost their way.
The greens actually have a clue about the world.
The democrats have become nothing more than a tool for Natasha Stott Despoja's ego.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.