Australian Net Censorship Laws Draw Fire

downundarob writes: "According to this story, it appears that at least one part of the Australian Government may finally be starting to understand what the Internet is all about. The NSW Government's Standing Committee on Social Issues have recommended that the internet censorship laws passed by the NSW government should be repealed." This sounds great; getting laws repealed is a difficult process in any country, though.

Comments

finally

[tps12]

Finally we see a government do things the right way. Australia was also the country that outed Echelon, IIRC. Nice going, Aussies! Now let's hope the U.S. feels the pressure to follow suit.

Re:finally

[GigsVT]

But in the end, the Aussie government can do whatever they want to. It's not like they have to listen to the people, since they banned all private ownership of guns.

Re:finally

[GigsVT]

My friend here informs me that I am incorrect, there is limited ownership of guns, but many types are highly restricted. Mostly they are only allowed to own shotguns and level action rifles.

Re:finally

[MagicKoala]

Come on people. You don't need guns to run a democracy.

Re:finally

[gibodean]

But in the end, the Aussie government can do whatever they want to. It's not like they have to listen to the people, since they banned all private ownership of guns.

They didn't ban all guns. But, they made it more difficult to get them, and even more difficult again to get the nastier ones.

And, they did listen to a lot of people, and ignored some others. I happen to agree guns should be hard to get. The "right to bear arms" in the USA is ridiculous.

Re:finally

[GigsVT]

The "right to bear arms" in the USA is ridiculous.

Is it? Do you think the First Amendment is also rediculous? Without the right to bear arms, how are you supposed to protect your other rights, just whine louder and louder?

Re:finally

[littlerubberfeet]

Disregarding the interpretation of commas in Article 2, lets look at the second amendment. It specifically mentions militias. Now, the VAST majority of gun owners are not in militias.......

Re:finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregarding the interpretation of commas in Article 2, lets look at the second amendment. It specifically mentions militias. Now, the VAST majority of gun owners are not in militias.......

What exactly is a militia ? Wouldn't it be declared a terrorist organisation under today's laws ?

Re:finally

[MagicKoala]

> Is it? Do you think the First Amendment is also
> rediculous? Without the right to bear arms, how
> are you supposed to protect your other rights,
> just whine louder and louder?

Just think about this for a minute. In all seriousness, what good are guns for protecting your rights? What are you going to do - wave your AK47 around madly and open up on that group of federal agents approaching your front door? Do you really think they'll sit down and think "Hmmm, maybe we'd better listen to this guy". Of course not - they'll just send the special forces (or whoever's responsibility it is) around to blow your head off.

Re:finally

[GigsVT]

It's not about one person. If a million, or 10 or 100 million armed people are ready to fight for their rights, then the government will stand up and listen, they will have to.

I hope it never comes to that, but the story has played out in history thousands of times. Do you really think it's different this time around?

Re:finally

[MagicKoala]

If you'll entertain my ranting for a moment:

If 10 or 100 million people are going to overthrow a government by force, then they'll need to be coordinated. They'll need someone to develop a strategy (even 10-100 million armed people aren't going to achieve anything if they don't agree what to do - and you'll never get consenses with numbers like that). They'll need a leader.

Such a person would wield enormous power. And power corrupts. A person in such a position would be accountable to virtually nobody. They would have an army of 10-100 million, who are willing to wage an armed struggle against the current regime, or more importantly, against anyone who is *perceived* to be part of that regime. The leader could easily stir up hatred among their followers with patriotic-sounding speeches punctuated with emotive calls-to-arms, and hatred can easily blind people to logic and reasoning.

Want to second-guess the leader? You'll be the first against the wall. Only in rare circumstances do armed struggles restore democracy. Most often the sheer level of propeganda destroys it, along with the economy, national infrastructure and the lives of millions. This is *why* we have elections in the developed world - because they're a lot safer in all respects than what went before. I'm sure the revolutions in Russia and China that installed their respective communist regimes started out with good intentions, but look where it got them.

The key to a stable, democractic government is transparency and accoutability, not the threat of rebellion.

All we need now is ...

[tdelaney]

for the Federal govt also to understand what the internet is about ... and as a result take back control of the infrastructure and make the privately-owned portion of Telstra services only.

Then maybe we will start to see some real advances ... and competition.

Re:All we need now is ...

[ElBooto]

Fantastic idea. Only problem is you have to convince Telstra's private parts to give up one of their only valuable assets. Which little Johny ain't about to do.

Re:All we need now is ...

[tdelaney]

Actually, there is no need to convince Telstra of anything. The government still owns a controlling interest, and could force a split.

But convincing Johnny or Alstrom is an exercise in futility ...

NSW != Australia

[EvilBastard]

NSW - Labour Government
Australia - Liberal Government
(Remember, in Australia these are the opposite of what they mean in the US)

This is not to say that the NSW government was stupid introducing the legislation in the first place, but at least they'll listen to the committee's response, unlike Mr Head-in-the-sand-Howard

The NSW Government has this nice habit at the moment of rejecting Federal programs - Feds' say no Injecting rooms, NSW opens one. Fed's outlaw stem cell research, and Bob Carr says he will pass laws voiding the federal law

At the moment in Australia, all the states are Labour, and only the Federal government is Liberal. This is something like every state government in the US being Republican, and only the Federal government being Democrat

It seems to be the ideal situation for Australian voters is to make sure that you keep the federal and state governments fighting each other so they are too busy to pass legislation, and that way they interfere with you as little as possible

Re:NSW != Australia

[littlerubberfeet]

This is why I love the aussies.

Re:NSW != Australia

[sholden]

At the moment in Australia, all the states are Labour, and only the Federal government is Liberal. This is something like every state government in the US being Republican, and only the Federal government being Democrat

To pick a nit.

It's more like every state being Democrat and the Federal government being Republican. Since in the wonderful land of Oz (as you hinted in your first paragraph) the conservatives party is called the Liberal party.

And yes it is confusing. Is there anywhere else in the world where politicians have to say "I'm a small l liberal" since saying "I'm a Liberal" means you are a conservative?

The "law" is not yet law...

[ghostrider_one]

The "law" in question was passed by parliament, and received the royal assent, but has not yet been proclaimed, and is therefore not yet law, and not enforceable.

Electronic Frontiers Australia's information page about this legislation can be found here and the report reccomending the repeal of the legislation can be found here (PDF file).