Slashdot Mirror
Speaking Out Against Australian Internet Censorship
edo-01 writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting
opinion column up that details some of the opposition to the federal
government's net censorship laws, most notably from the government of
Australia's most populous state, New South Wales. An interesting quote
from the article: 'Essentially, [the federal government] does not see that
the Internet in Australia has much of a future as a forum for adults.'"
In theory, the virtues that governments wish to convey look quite nice and noble. However, in practice, they do too much to restrict freedom. What's to stop any 'censorship' department from censoring what they don't like? If any Australian governmental officals hear this, freedom is more virtuous than trying to put a mask on everything. The truth is out there, however people might encounter it, the truth doesn't care.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
He was commenting about the legislation, not about the realities of how the legislation will be enforced/not enforced.
/is/ important, even if most people ignore it - at some point or other it /will/ be enforced, even if only as a tool for putting some serious criminal in gaol. Just saying that a law will be ignored doesn't stop it from being potentially damaging.
And the legislation
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
The problem with that is that no one really gets porn from the web anymore, unless they REALLY don't know what they're doing.
Between Usenet, FTPs, and file-sharing programs like KaZaA and Direct Connect, there's more porn than anyone could ever look at in 10 lifetimes.
I can see blocking the adult usenet groups, but how do you block the other stuff? Ban file-sharing programs and FTP access? Not likely...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
One question - who decides what "adult" means? Stuff which is legal in Holland is illegal in the US, stuff which is illegal in the UK is legal in the US. And that's only comparing 3 "western" countries, when you start hitting islamic countries (and even, it would seem, Australia) the definition of "adult" changes dramatically. Until every government can agree on what should/should not be censored your plan is a dead duck.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
don't think shooting /anyone/ is good.
Maybe it is never "good," but if I had to shoot someone to defend self/family I would certainly see the outcome as "less bad."
> WE have as much information as anyone.
Except for what the government forbids.
> WE do not worship bits of paper or words that belong to another era.
Yes. I agree that having natural, inalienable rights is an anachronism, and that the modern concept of rights as "privledges" the government "grants" you, susceptible to the whim of the almighty democratic vote is definitely the way to go for modern, enlightened people.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
I can honestly say that the government probably doesn't see the Internet for what it really is.. An Information ground.
Perhaps they do see it for what it is, and are threatened by the idea of easy, cheap mass communication.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...is censor happy "adults" who think that hiding the unpleasant or politically incorrect aspects of existance from them is somehow a good thing. This stems from our culture's insane belief that human beings below the magical age of 18 are "impressionable" to the point of being human tape recorders. This would be funny if the consequences weren't so severe for the young.
By the way, I turn 30 in less than a year so save your "wet behind the ears" responses for someone else.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
we don't have things like the US's 2nd amendmant, which was a nice idea when it was made, but is kind of pointless in an age when there's a centrally controlled military force.
Um - there was a centrally controlled military force at the time, and it had just been kicked out. The second ammendment was designed to oppose centrally controlled military forces - sort of a less organized Switzerland. In addition, it was designed to oppose a corrupt US government, should the need arise. There may be arguments against the second ammendment, but the existence of a national armed forces is not one.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?