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.
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?
I live in australia, and i can tell you, this country has absolutly NO IDEA when it comes to the internet, the broadband we have costs 89 australian dollars a month for a pitiful 3 gig limit, our minister for IT banned forwarding email without permission, he also said "broadband is for kids playing games", the ignorance of the australian goverment about anything to do with computers is beyond pathetic (P.s. there is another company called Optus@home who offer a decent amount but they are not available to the majority of australians)
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
'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.
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.
It looks like the Australians have been reading JonKatz. The ones who are speaking out read some, took a positive message out of his extremely wordy articles, and took it to the government and said "This is what we want!"
The sad part is that someone in the Aussie government probably read a JonKatz article also, but they couldn't shake the often silly messages he tries to portray as being serious, so they thought "Hey, maybe if we censor the whole net, we'll get this guy too."
Another attempt at humor by myself. Probably a troll though. Who knows.
-- Dan
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Every time censorship of the Internet is brought up, the geek community shoots it down in flames as being impossible or impractical. But what if technology was to meet legislation half-way?
Here's the proposal (although to some extent it only works with global-treaty buy-in):
Every ISP is legally obliged to distinguish between Adult and Non-adult accounts. They are also obliged to run a transparent proxy service through which all connections must pass.
An extension is made to HTTP (and other relevant protocols) which includes an Adult/Non-adult content flag. This allows the proxy to block connections to inappropriate sites.
The further legal obligation is on all site owners and maintainers (and hopefully not the hosts!) to ensure that their sites comply with the rating they claim.
There is also a legal obligation on all adults NOT to make their account (password) accessible to minors; and only to allow minors access through their account if they are a legal guardian (or acting on behalf of one) and the minor is under constant supervision.
This is very much like existing censorship systems, but with three major differences: it is more transparent, there is legal recourse if the site fails to live up to its claimed rating, and there is an onus on adults to protect children (while not denying parents the right to allow their children access to material as they see fit).
Yes, there are ways around this. There are always going to be some sites that evade the law, just like there are porn shop owners that ignore the age of their patrons. There will be kids who "steal" adult accounts, just like they sneak into R movies.
But it is a great improvement on any system that is currently in place, and could be a suitable middle ground for all parties.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
I thought the article failed to outline the key differences between R and X rated material that is confusing the "save the children" moralists. So here goes:
R: generally anything that has very high levels of violence, language, drug use (which does come under the broad "strong adult themes", unfortunately), and simulated sexual activity (soft porn only --no erections allowed). Films can have all of the above in one scene, provided there is context for each "adult theme" within the scene. The print publication equivalent of this type of material is "R rating category 1".
X: this is only for sexually explicit films/video (uncensored/"hardcore" pornography). It allows for real sex scenes. It cannot contain any sexual violence, cohersion, or "fetishes which are deemed offensive" (I won't go into details of what is deemed offensive as some people in here might be offended. *g*). The print publication equivalent of this classification is "R rated category 2".
RC: refused classification. Basically, includes anything that is so abhorent that it cannot be included in either the R and X classication (for example, snuff films, poo eating, animal loving works, etc.). The print publication equivalent is the same.
As the article pointed out, most conservatives and/or moralists have lumped all three classifications into the "R" category without realising the strict restrictions between each rating and the allowed context that these ratings must adhere to. Ignorance is bliss when you've been blinded, I guess.
What I thought was interesting about NSW's hesitance towards approving their censorship legislation was their interest in protecting adults rights to access adult natured material on the internet. However, this is from a state where it is illegal to sell X-rated videos (not that has stopped retailers of adult erotica from doing so), although for print publications, R-rating category 2 material is perfectly legal. And people wonder why our politicians are so ignorant about what is allowed within each classification -- it's inconsistent across mediums!. So for the internet where people mostly "read" or "view" material (rather than watch video), the medium is being classified using the classification system for videos, which will confuse people even more. But either way, I hope at least one state as *some* commonsense left in what is becoming Playground Australia.
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.
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.
On the contrary, the right to self-defense is all the more important in this day and age, when it's been clearly demonstrated that trying to disarm everyone is a tragic blunder.
When you disarm the public, you eliminate the advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
Now, imagine your grandma with a baseball bat. Will she even have the reaction time necessary to connect even once with the bat? If she gets that lucky, will she have the strength to stop the criminal's attack? Could she use the bat from 30 feet away when he doesn't honor her commands to back off? Not to mention the logistics of carrying a baseball bat in her purse all the time due to not having the luxury of knowing when said attack would take place.
Now, imagine your grandma with a .38 shooting the criminal at close range in the chest. The criminal can likely imagine that, too. So, odds are if she has the chance to make the gun visible rather than shooting it through her purse, he'll run off.
See the point here? The same can apply to your 115lb wife or girlfriend against a rapist.
Here are a couple quotes from studies:
From http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt050301a.html
From http://www.dartreview.com/issues/2.26.01/editorial .html
Not that having data to back up the overall effect of gun ownership should have any bearing on the fundamental human right to self-defense.
People scream either way, really. Not all people, of course, but some people. Remember when all the websites got black backgrounds and blue ribbon banners back in 1996 in response to the CDA? I don't think the problem is which abstract issue gets more attention, but that people in general aren't very interested in politics.
Of course, that changes some during wartime and when energy prices fluctuate. Usually not to any consequence. Interestingly, the possibility of using domestically-grown fuels such as hemp oil, rather than petroleum never seems to enter the debate. Meanwhile, that alone could stop enriching our often unfriendly trade partners for petroleum and drastically reduce pollution and deforestation. For a proof of concept on applying this to automobiles, see http://www.hempcar.org/
Anyway, Australia appears to have a very statist position on both speech and self-defense. i.e., that the nice men from the government should create a padded-cell world for you. Meanwhile, grannies have been cast to the mercy of criminals and the prior-restraint flavored net censorship (according to the article) would prevent mainstream political news, historic discussion from happening in an open manner:
According to the [OFLC] classification guidelines 'Adult themes may 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'."
Of course, everyone knows it would only be used to root out vile filth! </sarcasm> Enter yet another law that lets the powers that be selectively shut down anyone they don't like.
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."
Scene from australian legislator's office:
Legislator(browsing the internet): Crikey! What's with all these long words? I can't read em. This interweb thing is just too hard to unnerstand!
Aide: Oh, thats one of them intellectual pages. They're using words beyond your mental capacity.
Legislator: intel-what? These words is just too hard to read. Bloody hell!
Aide: I know, let's write laws making it illegal to put anything on the internet that's beyond your intellectual level. That would be... about 6 years old.
Legislator: Uh?
Aide: I said, let's make it illegal to make internet stuff you can't understand.
Legislator: Great!
Aide: Since such a bill would normally go over like a lead balloon, if we deceitfully attach "child protection" to the name of the bill, no one will dare oppose it.
Legislator: Huh?
Aide: Let's fuckin' lie through our teeth and say it's a bill to protect children.
Legislator: Wicked.
Yes, burning a book (like burning a flag, a pastime the US has toyed with legislating against) is an act of free speech, but I was making an (admittedly unclear) statement about the prevailing attitudes in some parts of the US body politic. I think you'll find that the people who are burning the book are also petitioning their local public library to take it off the shelf, and are often in danger of succeeding.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Basically, picture a US high school student going nuts with a small pistol and compare the damage to when he has a big high power, semi-automatic.
I hate it when people bring up crap like this. There are on order of 30 million kids in the US public school system. In the worst year recently, there where 3 school shootings.
Even if there where 300 such events, schools would still be one of the safest places to be. Don't fall under the spell of the alarmist crap the media throws at you because it's a slow year for the news.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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...
And even if there was only ever one such event, it would be no less of a tragedy. Don't fall under the spell of being desensitised to horrific events because it's such a big year for the news.
You make a good point. If we look at the *real* dangers facing kids in schools, alcohol-related traffic fatalities are far and away the biggest killer.
I'd be curious to know what the proportion is of kids murdered in schools is to kids who've committed or attempted suicide.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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."
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...)
That's not true. The Constitution is amendable at any time by a 2/3 majority of the states. If we, as Americans, really did decide that the 2nd amendment wasn't such a good idea anymore, we could strike it from the record. The writers of the Constitution included a provision for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of voting, but the country realized that was wrong, and it was amended. The point is, don't think that we still have the 2nd amendment because we have any mechanism for ending it; we still have it because the majority of us wants it there.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I say kill the fuckers. Just be sure to get it on tape.
Better yet, let's take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
> What most people seem to misunderstand about Australia is that while our politicians are
> very keen on making laws, enforcing those laws in another thing altogether.
Correct, but that only speaks of the current situation. The problem with bad laws on the books is twofold:
1. Laws are rarely enforced at the "never" end of the scale, unless they've become completely defunct (such as laws regarding placement of hitching posts for horses in modern cities). Instead, they're enforced selectively against people that are thorns in the side of the current power base. Selective justice is often injustice. Though people often flaunt 'stupid' laws, they do so at their own risk.
2. The level of enforcement is subject to change. If enforcement is suddenly deemed "the thing to do", all those bad or stupid laws on the books suddenly have a much greater effect on the people they apply to. This is why many countries, including the United States, attempted to set up a constitution that binds the hands of the government both at the time, and into the distant future. The people founding a given government may have the best of intentions, but they would be fools to assume that someone with dictatorial aspirations would not at some point attempt to sieze power within the constraints of the existing system, rather than overthrowing it completely.
On another related issue:
I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws. Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.
It is my own personal opinion that complex laws serve only the legal _system_ and the people that work within its structure, rather than the people that must _use_ the legal system (us, the mere mortals who on occasion have the unhappy desire or need to get ground up in the system's gears).
Aussie classifications for film and literature HAVE SUCCEEDED. We can watch and read pretty much what we want, with commonsense restrictions that limit the availability of this material based on age.
How old do you have to be to get "Grand Theft Auto 3"?
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
...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?
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon.
I've seen purses (and briefcases) that would hold anything but a rifle or shotgun, which ironically are the least regulated firearms. And all handguns have holsters available.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble.
I know you meant this in terms of a burglar or mugger, but this sentiment has been expressed in many situations in history, and it usually eventually led to a pretty disfunctional society, and was seldom true.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Almost anything can be used as an offensive weapon. Guns are "the great equalizer" that can allow anyone to defend themselves. The argument is that you can't stop attacks by banning offensive weapons, but criminals would be more hesitant to attempt an assault in an armed populace. That argument can be debated, but don't misrepresent it.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
we all know that Australia does not have much future as a forum for adults either so it all works out... :) j/k BTW
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
if criminals were not able to obtain guns they would not be able to use them in violent crime.
Criminals will always be able to get guns. When has a ban ever stopped the black market from providing anything?
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
And the publisher is perfectly happy. They get free publicity, and all of those burned books were purchased. And the parents that were involved will probably have to buy a new copy for their kids to stop the whining. :)
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
The US constitution is held with reverence usually reserved for sacred texts - by Americans anyway. The problem there is that if the founding fathers - being only mortal - made a mis-step and included some things that will be detrimental in the long run, it'll last a long time
The other problem with seeing the US constitution as a "sacred text" is people knowing the words better than the meaning.
No, you make the bad people stand out because they're carrying a gun.
Unless they hide the gun in some way. e.g. shortening the barrel on a shotgun...
A holster or purse will hide a small gun yes, but not a high powered semi-automatic weapon. So possibility for damage is significantly reduced. Basically, picture a US high school student going nuts with a small pistol and compare the damage to when he has a big high power, semi-automatic.
And they can't fit an assualt rifle and lots of amunition into a bag of the size other students use to carry books?
I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws.
How many politicans or political candidates have an alternate viewpoint
Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.
It is my own personal opinion that complex laws serve only the legal _system_ and the people that work within its structure, rather than the people that must _use_ the legal system
Could it be that many professional politicans are either lawyers or in some way connected to lawyers?
Wooo... lucky MS has decide that port 80 is the Internet after all.
p2p stuff may be more difficult to use now, and encrypted traffic may be for geeks only, but all this stuff will be available off the shelf the minute the current alternatives get blocked. No-one seriously used Napster alternatives until Napster was shut down.
What are they going to do? Sit in on all my video conferences in case I show any pink bits? As long as we have genitalia, we will have pR0n.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
* I say pointless, because gun crime has increased 40% since guns were banned.
Silly poster. Guns haven't been banned in the UK. Well, certain handguns have (which certainly is stupid). But in the UK, we can buy and own guns quite happily.
Yes, it's *TRUE*! People in the UK can own guns! It's just you need to go and get a licence to own one (which is considerably easier to get than a driver's licence, if you don't have a criminal record and aren't a loony). Oh, and you need to go to a proper gun shop, you can't just pick them up at your friendly local corner shop with your milk and rolls.
The Australian Constitution is quite hard to change. A constitutional referendum requires more than a simple majority across the country to succeed. In addition, it requires a simple majority in a simple majority of the states. Achieving both these criteria is quite hard (out of 44 proposed amendments, only 8 have been successful).
And the English constitution, although unwritten, is more than the common law (if one could rightly say that the common law forms part of the constitution). It incorporates the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1669, and various royal decrees about such things as the sovereignty of parliament, the independence of the judiciary, etc.
First, guns were not banned, just certain types of guns.
Second, the crime rate hasn't noticebly changed.
You may notice that none of those web sites have an "au" suffix - or are from any respected news source. Some people in the U.S. of A who have a vague idea that Australia is in the southern hemisphere and is run by baby eating communists have written many articles that make Australia look a lot worse than Beiriut a few years back. "Road Warrior" is a movie - get over it, it isn't real, it's even dubbed into American for those who cannot understand english, and with the print flipped for those who can't understand that people drive on the other side of the road in some countries.