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.
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
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.
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.
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
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."
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...)
> 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).
...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?
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.