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.'"
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.
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
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.