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."
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"
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).
We just had a national vote, and unfortunately, the wrong people won (IMHO). Yes thats right the infamous sen. Alston is still in parliment. This really worries me, polititions are going on at the moment about the issue with refugees affecting our national image. What about something like this? It just proves there are too many people making decisions about things they dont understand.
---
Just because life sucks, it doesnt mean you have to care.
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});
The Labor party was in favour of the Online Services Act too. Yes, Senator Alston is still a luddite and still in power, but in reality it didn't matter who won as far as this issue is concerned.
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
I wonder if all the crypto-advocacy sites over there would also be considered not-suitable-for-children?
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.
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?
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:[.]
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
Like when the US tries to enforce the DMCA on a certain Russian hacker?
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.
And the U.S. is a republic, and it doesn't stop our elected idiots from pandering to the corporations/special interests/whoever will get them re-elected and then passing stupid laws (DMCA).
The only practical way to insure that the majority of the "people" want a law is to ditch the representative government model and go to one person - one vote and make voting mandatory. And guess what... that isn't practical.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
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.
Not Canada, unless the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission) reverses their previous decision not to regulate the Internet. Existing laws and regulations were considered good enough (regarding kiddie porn and the like) without having to create new laws.
What scares me is that this "hands off" decision was made by beaurocrats, not politicians. :)
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?
"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.
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?
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Danny.
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.
Similar situation. There was a law the text of which was copyrighted and thus could not be printed or publicly displayed without the owner's approval.
... here it is. I can't find any recent news on it so I assume that the rulings in favor of the copyright holder are still in effect.
And
Dyolf Knip
The only practical way to insure that the majority of the "people" want a law is to ditch the representative government model and go to one person - one vote and make voting mandatory. And guess what... that isn't practical.
Kierthos
Australia has 1 vote per person, a directly elected representative house and a proportionally elected house and voting is mandatory.
krenskeoz
With due respect, I have to concur with krenskeoz on this one.
Australia certainly manages to have both compulsorary voting and (close to) one vote - one person. This may come as a surprise to other democracies - I understand it to be one of the few in the world that requires voting. But certainly it is practical, we manage just fine.
It is more likely that it does not suit the current parties in the US to expand the voting base by making it requisite, nor to equalise the votes of a californian to say, that of west virginia. Indeed, it makes it much cheaper to run your campaign if you don't have to concentrate much on many states.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.