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.'"
What a wonderful idea!
Let's just make it illegal for anyone anywhere to put pr0n on the net.
Surely then they'll all stop?
It's nice to see that at least they're starting to realise that writing laws, without understanding the tech is a waste of time. A bit too late for those who've already been squished by such heavyhanded legislation, but nice to see none the less.
To (mis)quote a Dilbert strip: You wish to pit your expertise against the collective sex drives of all the teenagers in the world? Good luck.
'Essentially, [the federal government] does not see that the Internet in Australia has much of a future as a forum for adults.'"
*cough*Bullshit*cough* But since when does the Australian government talk the truth.. I live in Australia and we have to battle with High Taxes (GST blah) and other crap all the time.
I can honestly say that the government probably doesn't see the Internet for what it really is.. An Information ground.
>_ @ the aussie government.
And what about the non-firearms murder rate? Without taking that into account, it could just as well be that murderers are only chosing different tools to achieve the same goal...
If you getted mugged in the streets of New York, the mugger probably has a gun. If you get mugged in Paris, the mugger probably has a knife. Against unarmed victims, one is as efficient as the other.
Say no to software patents.
As a number of other posters have said, Australians tend to ignore laws that they don't agree with. Unless there are people standing over us, we'll just live our lives however we feel happy and ignore the stupid laws. The good laws simply codify what the majority consider reasonable, so very few people have problems with them.
/works/ - our rights aren't written down on paper, they're negotiated on a continual basis. This makes things very flexible, and means that our rights are always immediately apropriate to the current situation - 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.
/is/ a very free and fair society - it's consistently rated one of the most pleasant places to live in the world. Hiccoughs like this happen, but by and large they don't seriously affect things.
Another thing to note is that our constitution doesn't codify anything other than how the state governments relate to the federal government - we don't have any bill of rights saying that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, or anything like that. Rights like that are established through a combination of legislation, the actions of the courts, and public opinion about things. And, contrary to what a lot of Americans seem to think, this process actually
A large part of the reason this kind of legislation has come through is because of the work of one man, who just happened to hold the balance of power in the senate - basically, in order to pass bills, the government of the day needed to have his vote. So, parties would pander to his (very unrepresentative) views on things like morality, and support legislation like this in order to buy his support.
Australia
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Australia specialises in making laws, then not enforcing them. We have a bunch of similar ones on our books. Our current internet "censorship" regulations have only resulted in about 10 complaints which led to take-down orders, and in all those cases, the material was material which would be refused classification were it to appear in a print magazine.
The point is, very few Australians actually bother hosting their sites here, so connecting the site to Australia would be difficult.
I don't know much about Australia's style of government and whether or not the people have very much power, but I would be leaving Australia if there was nothing I could do about it.
Basic summary: Westminster-style bicameral parliament with modifications (US-style Senate w/ 12 senators/state and 2 senators/territory instead of a House of Lords for the upper house) governing a Federal Commonwealth similar in structure to the US. Constitution may only be amended by referendum, unlike the US, where the people don't get a direct say in constitutional matters (how undemocratic is that). Parliamentary elections every three years (may be sooner under certain circumstances), with the full House of Representatives elected through preferential voting and half the Senate elected through proportional representation.
Until Australia starts respecting it's citizens rights, I don't have much faith in whether or not they would respect a tourist.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Australia respects the rights of its citizens in other ways, e.g. by refusing to endorse capital punishment as a civilized method of dealing with criminals. But, sticking to free speech, didn't I hear something about a Harry Potter book burning in the Mid West the other day? You simply don't have that kind of thing in Australia (not for decades, anyway). Australians seem to have a far better innate respect for free speech than USians, partly because pro-free-speech groups have had to convince the populace of the worth of free speech rather than simply rely on a constitutional provision.
As for whether you think Oz wouldn't respect the rights of a tourist, well, since George W signed the order condemning foreigners (not citizens) accused of terrorism to trial by a military tribunal, I know that the US wouldn't respect the rights of a tourist.
Lindsay Tanner, the Federal Opposition's Communications spokesman, has given a positive response to the idea and expects to have serious discussions about it in the coming term.
You can read more on it here.
Alex
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.
So what you are saying is that most people who want porn online "know what they are doing" with a computer?
I doubt it. Most people are chumps. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that 1/2 the people online in America were on AOL.
Your point is valid but I believe you are way overestimating the competence of the average computer user.
"No-one censors quite like us. "
.au laws caused these companies or the industry any real problems. None. I mean, who'd host porn in Australia ? Hosting on .au soil costs waaay more than the same service from the US would.
Bullshit. Cambodia has crackdowns on 'vice'. That's an incredibly long way from our censorship laws/tendencies. Although at least the Cambodian govt has a clearish direction...Which is more than can be said for the Liberal party's slack, sporadic, attempts at making Australian media PC, porn-free and 'safe for children'.
Quite a lot of day-to-day, mundane reality isn't suitable for children. That would be why (most) media is rated. All fine. Ratings are essentially a good thing IMO, some things AREN'T suitable for everyone to see, many more are worth rating so people can decide what they want to see. Government-enforced Censorship, on the other hand, is more often than not a vehicle for easy votes than anything productive.
Why then is so much time invested in making sure our media conserves this myth of a utopian planet?
I do not advocate legalising everything. Some things are morally reprehensible (eg. Encouraging discrimination, Snuff, promoting prescription drugs as a viable solution to society's problems....). Everything else (and even that in the right context) is worth preserving. Knowledge is half the battle.
(From a previous poster)
"Its the fear, the banning, and the censorship, from superstitious fundamentalists
such as christians, that gives this material its stigma, not the material itself."
I agree wholeheartedly.
(article)
"The morals campaigners responsible for this unique state of affairs - essentially Brian Harradine and a group of like-minded senators on both sides of politics..."
Take Porn for example. I've worked for 2 net porn companies and for myself. Never have the
How about doing something useful motherfuckers ? I hear the ABC could use a few more $$$...
Hell, improving the current ratings system could even be worthwhile.
"Contains sexually explicit material" , "Mainly concerned with sex"
Or
"Who'd think a porno would ?", "Why you'd consider watching it"
Should really be:
"Misrepresents and Degrades women"
(Article)
"Preachers, senators and ministers in John Howard's Government speak as if R allowed material from the outer reaches of human depravity to be aired. Many of these campaigners sincerely find no moral difference between R, porn and even snuff movies: all are abominable in their eyes."
Debauchery and depravity are dying a death of a thousand morons.
It's a shame, because they're all quite subjective and Censorship causes more harm than good.
The Conservative party in Australia is dominated by members of a "Family Oriented Christian" Organisation (hooo weee that's a scary combination of words) called the Lyons Forum. They shoot down anything slightly progressive and enjoy persecuting minorities and workers while encouraging racists, bigots and, of course, BIG BUSINESS.
The Australian govt also locks up refugee women and children in the middle of the bleeding desert because they dared to flee persecution by leaky boat and they are non-white muslims. It spreads lies about the Muslim refugees being terrorists or 'illegal queue jumpers', sends leaky boats back to sea or to bribes poor Pacific islands to "process" these wretched people, and was rewarded for these 'compassionate and non-discriminatory' *cough* policies by being re-elected by Australia's predominately white, narrow-minded and racist population.
Read more Here
just thought the world should know...
How long ago was the federal internet censorship legislation passed? All Australians are now required to be running some kind of approved adult filter (as the ISP's didn't want to have to filter themselves). The funny thing is I can't seem to find *anyone* who is actually complying with the law.
There arn't enough people in the country to even start to review & classify every web page produced from an Australian server. Yes the silly NSW government passed the legislation but they don't have to (and probably wont) ever provide the funds for it to be enfored.
Its good to see that once again the Ausatralian public is lead down the garden path by a small minority - is the government *really* wants to start passing internet legisation perhaps they could start by providing access free to all NSW schools & libraries (but then why would they do that it would cost actual money...)
How many small-time criminals are going to buy a gun if they're readily available? How many if they're not?
Problem is that making something illegal is not the same as making it hard to obtain.
Both in the UK and in the US (places with very different laws regulating fire arms) people have that it can be easier to obtain an illegal firearm than a legal one. (Similarly illegal drugs can end up very easily available.)
Oh wait, there's also the _other_ people who get their hands on a gun they don't know how to use, like children!
Does that fact that some people are irresponsible with firearms (and other dangerous tools and machines) justify assuming that everyone is to irresponsible. Let alone that livestock farmers, from long before the biblical David, have employed leathal weapons to ensure they are feeding people and not the local predator population. IIRC there are more sheep in Australia than people, dingos will do as much damage to sheep as any other type of dog and rabbits will feed on the grass.
Go and find out one day the percentage of shootings that involved a citizen _legally_ defending themselves against a criminal, in states with gun control. It's pathetically, depressingly low.
Probably because gen control systems only prevent non criminals getting hold of (and learning how to use) firearms.