Slashdot Mirror
Australia Plans to Censor the Internet
MAXOMENOS writes "The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net." Yeah this is gonna work really really. It's working
out great in China after all.
Are they going to ban Slashdot too? It gets pretty rowdy sometimes.
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
Europe, Australia, and now China. Where's the freedom of speach?
This is a bad thing how? Are you all so blind that you think violence is "freedom of speech"?!
When we chose to have freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech in our rights and freedoms, we chose to enshrine it, for better or for worse; to take the good with the bad. That's right, we chose to occasionally hear or read utterances of foul words such as nigger, or other words of hatred or obscenity because within the realms of free speech also lie enlightened and uplifting works, such as those of Plato, Charles Dickens, or Danielle Steel.
If the politicians see fit to take away rights from us, or from any other country for that matter, we still lose. Why's that? Because of the nature of the internet, we are all censored. The problem with censoring hate speech is the potential for continual erosion of speech rights. Next after hate speech, is critical speech. Take Russia for example, where a show named Kukli depicting political satire has been banned from television because of its critical nature. I repeat, this sort of thing is bad for all of us.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
I'm not sure I get it? It IS working pretty effectively in China, right? I sent some links recently about the Uighur Turks in Xinjiang (Sinkiang)province to some Chinese friends (living in America) who kept up with Chinese news sources via the web and they had never heard of anything in these articles (the existence of a Uighur Independence movement, bombings in Xinjiang, protests in the capital city of Xinjiang, etc).
It seems to me that China's censorship works pretty damn well!
Ok. How about a "violent aussie group" creates a website under another countries domain. How can the aussie govt ban it if it is under another countries jurisdiction?
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
So in response, will the US violently ban Crocodile Hunter from TV? God I hope so...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Did anybody ever really think applications like Peek-A-Booty would have to be used in "Free" nations? Perhaps we're not paranoid enough.
Can somebody with a clue about Australian law an politics explain what recource the Australian citizens have against this measure?
How, are they going to block proxys too, what will stop a group from setting up a site in a diffent country and using a proxy in that (or another country) to view it.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
I feel new sympathy for furriners who don't understand why there are two senators from Montana but only one representative.
E-Crime Law Reform Working Party,
What, like a political party?
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg
So.... he's, like, the justice minister in the opposition's shadow cabinet?
A police ministers meeting in Darwin
WTF is a police minister? You have more than one? Is that like a District Attorney, like a chief of police, or something? It's a cabinet post?
Senator Ellison's decision to give the new Australian Crime Commission the power to investigate cyber crime.
I thought you had a parliament? Why is a Senator handing out new police powers, anyway?
I assume that the ACC is your shiny new sinister agency in charge of government repression.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
[this post banned by the Australian Government]
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
...the gov't is empowered to block communications aimed at organizing violent or illegal acts, such as a riot. Now, the rule is a strict rule, and so the threat of violence must be specific and imminent (the classic Supreme Court case held that a Klansmans calling for generic "revengement" at a rally was not censorable, despite his poor grammar). And criminal speech is not protected ("Let's rob that bank.").
The problem with the Australian move is not so much that it's anathema to free speech as it is stupid, much like the White House "encouraging" the craven networks not to broadcast Osama bin Laden's tape because it might have secret signals in it (more likely that was a cover story for plain old political reasons). There are far too many routes of alternative communication to make such measures any more than symbolic.
As the great Justive Homer would have said, "D'oh."
I /. was going to organize a protest it would be posted on the front page 3-5 times, giving the gov plenty of time to stop it...
As somebody who organizes said "violent protests," I'd like to suggest that the Australian government ban access to websites like WashingtonPost.com and other media websites that routinely contain editorial content that advocates international violence (war) and terrorism (government violence that is illegal and violates human rights).
How about Australia? Are you hypocrites or just interested in censoring controversial opinions?
Check out Harvard project for the latest on the battle. Looks like the Chinese are pulling ahead.
Leaving aside the debate on wheter or not censoring can be a Good Thing, I just want to say that the Australian government at least does it the right way. They block sites they don't want their citizens to see, rather than suing them for something that might be perfectly legal in the country the site is located. The latter method, in my eyes, would amount to extending their jurisdiction beyond the borders of their own territory. At least they're not doing that, so they're not affecting the rest of the world. The Australians can decide for themselves what to do with the censorship.
---
The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This
means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Forget the question I thought your friends were in China not US, Sorry
Help fight continental drift.
That mean I cant get me fellas together when the wakkaburras raise the price of me beer?!?
Internet cannot be censured. When will these pinheads learn this simple fact?
I'm not.
I've been to the land down under, and it's one of the more fascist countries I've visited. They are even worse than the US.
They are the country the most wiretaps per citizen. They still treat the aborigines as second rate citizens, and they inprison imigrants in consentration camps.
China is Australias morst important trading partner. Now wonder some strange ideas come back from China.
- Ost
---- Sig. gone.
Glad i live in the US where speech is still sort of free and we can almost speak our mind.
As long as i dont discuss decryption, copy protection, anarchy, discuss political issues before elections, how to get around taxes....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
my professor of the humanities, Dr. Eric Cartman, "Who cares? It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie crap anyways..."
My favorite picture of all the WTO protests so far has been the one of the three girls in their underware, stating that they would rather go naked than wear clothes from The Gap. Didn't they already buy clothing from The Gap? And what will they be wearing tomorrow?
Most protestors these days are unorganized on their values and what they want to change. They are neophytes who cling to the thoughts that they are accomplishing something, but they aren't doing anything except causing problems and wasting money. When they realize this, they get more frustrated. It's then that they turn their horde towards violence.
I just wish that people worldwide would think about what they want to accomplish before and after they organize these things.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
is it just me, or has that particular continent been doing this all along?
the only people who truly have freedoms, are the rulers.
i guess it is time for me to run for city council or something...
...if the US wants to embargo or edit the videos for specific security reasons, that's OK (I hadn't heard the sheet thing! was the analyst smarter than our intelligence?). They could have broadcast the audio with a still, or whatever. It makes me nervous to suggest we need to censor the bad guys, and I don't like that the networks did it voluntarily on vague reasons from the feds. I still believe that the administration's reasons were primarily poitics (no!), and if I'm wrong there goes my argument. :)
With the snipers, it's not widely known that the final descriptions of them and their car, including license plate, that were broadcast and which led to their identification by a trucker, we "leaked" to the media. Some of the press noticed, however, that the leaks were coming from a lot of different directions, suggesting that's what law enforcement wanted. Publicity was generally managed carefully but erred on the side of openness because with the snipers the gov't really needed citizen help (I live in Arlington, VA).
So both sides use each other -- symbiosis.
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
Yeah this is gonna work really really. It's working out great in China after all.
6. Transfer (Guilt or Glory by Association)
Glory by association: The propagandist tries to transfer the positive feelings of something we love and respect to the group or idea he wants us to accept.
For example: "This bill for a new dam is in the best tradition of this country, the land of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington." Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington were great leaders that most of us revere and respect, but they have no logical connection to the proposal under consideration - the bill to build a new dam.
Guilt by association: Works the same way, but in reverse.
For example: "John Doe says we need to make some changes in the way our government operates; well, that's exactly what the Ku Klux Klan has said, so there's a meeting of great minds!" There is no logical connection between John Doe and the Ku Klux Klan except that which the propagandist is trying to create in our minds.
Lick my dick, Captain America.
> Europe, Australia, and now China. Where's the freedom of speach?
Pardon my ignorance, but when did China have freedom of speech to begin with?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
It takes a coordinated effort by every provider out there, but it IS possible.
Though all that has to be done is filter your content at your ISP level.. what you cant see is *effectively* censored.
Lets hope we never see it come to that. Though i belive thats just a misplaced dream now. The future is at hand.. being built brick by brick.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
>> ...so mentally weak as to be affected by it.
...just like the whole 'ban guns' thing, people are the problem, not the guns.
What's that supposed to mean? You believe you can segregate people based on your opinion about their intellectual capacity?
>>
No, they're not. Guns are the problem. If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot me with it. This lame argument has been used for years by the jackals in the NRA, and it is just as false now as when those murderers invented it.
>> Governments shouldn't be allowed to censor free speech.
The Internet is a public place; if you plot criminal acts in public, the government has a responsbility to stop you.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg said that despite the federal proposals, he would introduce a Private Member's Bill on defamation in Parliament today. It would call for defamation to be an indictable offence with up to five years' jail on conviction.
The case of defamation in the article might have certainly not been satire, but there is a wide blur line here.
How can somebody make an honest joke (about somebody) and not get penalized.
Case in point: Royal Canadian Air Farce (note: you can download episodes off of their website)
Their entire show is pretty much satire on people. Politicians mainly. Their imitation of Chretien has to be the best. This show might be cut and dry humour. But many satires are not quite as far on the humour spectrum.
Please tell me how you can distinguish them.
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
the most corrupt government in the world..LOL beleive what ya want, or what your government will let you believe. I'll happily stay here and deal with the 'most corrupt morally bankrupt' government in the world...HAHAHAHAHA, living in side the bottle has really begun to affect you. The US government has many problems, of that there is NO DOUBT, but it is still by FAR one of the best places to live. Hell if it was that morally corrupt do you think it would allow the airing of our internal issues before the world ?
:)
As for taking on F-16's the Army is us, our people and our citizens, The US government has never had much luck making them do to much against its own citizens.
Defeating 'terrorism' IS IGNORANT, exactly how you attack and defeat an idea I am not sure. Boy George is an embarassment, but he will pass, and things will get better, it may take time and we will make mistakes but we will also get there
because they are more intelligent than others, and as such will dominate in the future.
Just like the last couple of times the government raised a stink, and threatened to block stuff, it will just be smoke in the wind. Look at their plans to stop Australians gaming online, and also the laws on hosting material 'not acceptable for children to view' in South Australia. They both had some sort of motions passed, and then got washed away into irrelevancy due to the complete inability of the govt to enforce the laws they formed on the matter. Either that, or the laws they formed were so watered down as to be pointless.
The Australian government can't and won't bring itself to the stage of actively proxying all international and national traffic and parsing it for hints of illegal plans for violent protests. Instead, they will pass some sort of motion that forbids Australians from hosting such a site on an Australian server, whilst completely ignoring the possibility of internation hosting etc. They will be seen to be doing something by the people who don't know better, and the people who do know better will just get on with life as if none of this ever happened.
Sure, this is a bad thing in so far as the precedence it sets, or rather in the precedence it re-enforces, but it will make no difference to anyone in the end.
Ray
It's a well known fact that many of the protesters at anti-globalization (and other) marches are merely kids recruited from the local highschools (by way of leaflets, word of mouth, etc). They are there simply because the majority of them see it as an excuse to skip school and create chaos "for the cause".
Yet, when interviewed, many of them gave scripted responses and when asked what it meant, their blank faces said they hadn't a clue what they were protesting about.
If blocking sites that organize such protests (more like organized riots) prevents such destruction, that would be good, no?
I'm thinking about smugly stating that "it will never work"
What difference does that really make? Some people will find out what they want, but the problem with taking away rights DOES have an impact wether or not it truly works. If some people can get around the blockage, there are still lots of people who do not have the knowledge to do so.
The same goes for taking away fair-use rights with copy-protected CDs and the like. The fact that they with lots of effort can be circumvented is besides the point.
The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests against their policy.
Which is quite different, isn't it?
"I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
Yeah, ok. Some trashy text-porn harlequin romance novelist hack is enlightening and uplifting?
.
Yeah I guess "uplifting" in the same sense that the publications of Larry Flynt are . .
The question that should be asked is really simple. Is the Australian government using prior restraint to prevent ANY protest from taking place? It doesn't seem likely since the Australian left is merrily still blaming Australians and Americans for the acts of Al Qaeda against Australians; and those remarks are still being publish there and in the USA, all signs of a healthy and free press.
The article doesn't make the distinction whether healtlhy and vigorus public debate is left alone in Australia or if they are preventing people from conspiring to commit crimes.
Dawn of the Dead
I'm not sure I understand the responses of a lot of people to this issue. Don't get me wrong, I think this example of blocking is misguided and doomed to failure. But there seems to be a broader issue here that the sites being blocked are free-speech, must be embraced as such even if the content is "unsettling" and failure to do so condemns us to "Stalinism". Well... why? Why does everything seem to fall into a black-and-white all or nothing situation? Is the slope "really" that slippery that we'll just slide over the collective common-sense? I guess I'm one of the few who believe that hate-speech and encouragement of violent activity should not be enshrined as free-speech. And maybe I'm being naively optimistic by not assuming, as many of you seem to do, that removing the free-speech protections of this type of speech automatically empowers the state to remove all of those protections. I don't like violence and vulgarity pumped into my life by those people who feel it's their god-given "right". Problem is I can't just "shut it off" or turn a deaf-ear like some will undoubtably suggest. It has become endemic to western society and unless I want to go live in an isolated cabin on Baffin Island there is no escape. Ok ok.. with the internet, I probably could avoid things I find distateful, but as regards to the bigger picture I DO believe that some "limitations" need to be enshrined in law. It doesn't have to be ALL or NOTHING. If people have become complacent in the west, fail to vote, and allow bad laws to get passed, perhaps part of the problem is that too much crud has become part of our lives due to "free speech" that many people , perhaps unconsciously, don't feel its worth protecting or taking part in any more. Just my 2 cents. Go ahead and mod me down as a naive ultra-right Ashcroft loving idiot if that makes you happy. But that's where I stand. Or maybe I'm just playing the devils-advocate? I despise Ashcroft afterall. ;)
Sure it can. All you need is a Palladium-aware web browser that won't display sites that lack an appropriate certificate, and a Palladium-aware OS that won't let you run any other browser.
Is perpetuating all the cliches about Australians being extremely bad at coping with outside criticism. But remember: now that South Africa has majority rule, Australia is the last former British colony to treat its aboriginal population as an inferior species. Its treatment of refugees is also interesting for a First World country. The Internet is making it all too easy for oppressed minorities to (a) link up with other people who have been oppressed and have done something about it (not necessarily by signing petitions) and (b) get themselves heard. Of course the present collection of right-wingers want to censor the Internet.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
"The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net."
If they're inciting a riot, then charge them as such and let them defend themselves in a court of law. It looks like this law is designed to let the government decide by itself whether a website is planning a crime and lets them block it all by themselves without first charging the owners with a crime.
How can one summarize what's going on with the world these days? I dunno. Written and erased pages of stuff in this little box. So I;m just going to spin up some Pink Floyd, and leave you with these words:
Hostile to sentient beings.
Who Decides between criminal activity and Civil Disobedience?
Wanted : A Signature.
I think the apostrophe os correct to use in plurality.
See, thats the problem with being an asshole about spelling and grammar: When ever you slip up (just as everyone does) people are going to take turns holding you to a pole and kicking you in the nutts.
Australia's government does not seem to like to the way the Internet is lacking restrictions to free speech, and neither do many other governments. And one has to wonder if this strategy will work. Violent protests can still be organized without the Internet. Have violent protests not been organized long before the Internet was used by protesters as a medium for communication? And how can they know which protests being organized will be violent or not? Many people may show up at a protest with no intention to be violent, but keep in mind that it only takes a few people to start a riot.
political dissent is crime.
how do they know the protest will be violent in
advance.?
Read this, the best and most accurate report about the first "violent" protest in Australia, the unfortunately named "s11" protests on the 11th of September 2000.
.NET speech at the nearby conference centre. On the order of a hundred thousand protestors, all behaving themselves, standing in front of the gates to the site.
The police were indeed mad, there were thousands of protestors, all as calm and determined as could be, and successful. The first day they were forced to ferry in the conference candidates individually by helicopter. Bill Gates called off his
Violence - one or two people wanted to attack the police lines, they were well and truly calmed down by a dozen to half a dozen people each.
Anyway, read the article. It's all true afaik.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Of all the countries that has a hard on over Internet censorship and spying, why Australia?
I don't see a lot of crime their, where is the justification?
Please dont equate far right wing religious conservatives with republicans in general.
With the exception of those on the fringe, the republican philosophy includes holding sacred the rights put forth in the consitution, and especially the freedom of speech. Unfortunately it is people like you that flame half the popultion for your assumption of their values that cause some would be moderate republicans to become less moderate and to ignore the valid opinions of moderate democrats.
I want to offer moderate democrats (this obviously does not include yourself) hope on behalf of my political party that a large number of us are extremely displeased with John Ashcroft, and would not be dissappointed if he was struck by a large bulder. (I am a moderate Republican)
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And regardless of the views that Plato advocates (censorship among other things), I believe that his works are truly enlightened and illuminating. If the Republic was censored, where would we be now? Many say that Philosophy is just footnotes to Plato, and I agree. Plato has shaped modern theories law, education, morality and ethics. How can you compete with that? I personally think everyone should read the Republic, it would do them good.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
Australia does not have a bill of rights.
More is the shame.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
If you had a functioning brain, you'd know that banning sites simply makes it more difficult for people to find out what's really going on. You think evil will simply go away because you want to stay in bed and pull the covers over your head when you hear about it and you want the taxpayers to help you do this? While you obviously prefer to live in your own delusional world, the rest of us are adults who need to know what reality is like so we can do something about it.
For instance, if one knows a violent protest will be happening soon, a smart person will be somewhere else if several thousand people are planning to throwing rocks and bottles at the police. Of course, if the police respond with gunfire, if you get caught by a stray bullet because you didn't know, it's just chlorinating the human genetic pool.
Personally, I like to know what the "bad guys" are up to and why and the best way to do this is to find out in person what they've got to say, not what the mass media where you get your ideas says they have to say. If you think that violent protests or terrorism can be stopped by blocking IPs, you're as ignorant as the rest of your post says you are.
If you need a government to protect YOU from being exposed to BAD IDEAS because you might follow through on them, you don't need a law and a bunch of armed thugs to enforce it, what you need is to unplug your connection to the Internet. Smashing your monitor over your head afterwards isn't required, though it would probably be a good thing.
You are one of those morons who wants to trade freedom not for security, but the illusion of security. You're obviously comfortable with the idea of living in a society where only those willing to break the law and the government have monopolies on both guns and uncensored information. Why don't you move to China or Australia where the government agrees with you? Of course, if the government grabs you by mistake and ignores your bleating "I'm innocent", you may suddenly realize you've been wrong all these years. But the government doesn't ever make mistakes, right? If they tell you you're a terrorist, you'll probably believe them and decide that your belief of never having associated with terrorist organizations must be a delusion.
If I happen to find myself in the middle of a violent protest the government-approved mass media didn't tell me about in advance, the only way I'm going to find out why this happened should I have the misfortune to live in AU is to break the law using an anon proxy or other tools which you probably aren't capable of understanding and don't need to know about.
jackals in the NRA, and it is just as false now as when those murderers invented it.
So the NRA is composed of a group of tens of millions of murderers?
Why, the government must do something about them before some AWFUL NRA person kills me in my bed with a BIG, NASTY GUN!
Presumably, you intended "jackal" as a compliment, believing (correctly) that an average jackal has 20-30 IQ points on you.
Tech Public Policy stuff
...covering the whole planet with leather to protect people's feet. It is much easier to just wear shoes.
(For those that don't quite get what I'm saying: Instead of blocking out sites on the whole, it is much more effective to teach people not to hate.)
Ban Hotmail! I'm sure a lot of protests are organized via e-mail and mailinglists. Seriously, how can anyone think that this is going to suceed? Even China has resorted to physically, rather than technically, restricting internet access.
where's all that Karma?
The Uighur and Western China unrest is reported on routinely in the US.
Off of the top of my head, I know that I've read several articles in the New Tork Times alone on related topics.
(But, it is clearly hard to get good information out from there.)
I'm not willing to trade my freedom for security, but your tossing around that slogan marks you as just one more unthinking parrot.
Listen, my freedom is reduced if my security is reduced. Ownership and use of guns by the public reduces both my security and my freedom.
As for the NRA, it is hard for me to imagine any legal organization that bears greater responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. If you're an NRA member, then you share that guilt and that responsibility.
The government has an obligation to prevent crime and to prosecute criminals. It is as illegal to use the Internet to plan a crime as it is to use any other medium to plot the same crime.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I don't know anything about the Australian governmental system, but wouldn't something like this presumably get shot down by the courts?
It's a clear violation of freedom of speech. Any Australians care to comment?
And you can be just like the rest of the /sheep.
I don't, nor did I suggest it anywhere. I believe that only 5% of republicans fit into the Pat Buchanon model.
With the exception of those on the fringe, the republican philosophy includes holding sacred the rights put forth in the consitution, and especially the freedom of speech.
I'm not buying. The recent election demonstrates that moderate republicans do not hold those "sacred rights" very highly. The republican voters have told them "Carry on as you are doing -just protect me, for I am scared". The message should have been "Yes we are scared but we are also brave. You must protect us - it is your obligation and we will accept no less. But don't you dare trample on our constitutional rights and don't you dare put your business agenda ahead of our security, our freedoms, or our rights."
Unfortunately it is people like you that flame half the popultion for your assumption of their values that cause some would be moderate republicans to become less moderate and to ignore the valid opinions of moderate democrats.
In fact, it is you, not I who flames - the very substance of your last statement is inflammatory. I do find it interesting that you first plead with me for understanding and then insult me. You have far too little information about my views upon which to make your (incorrect) assertions, but I'm not going be drawn into an argument. And I know too little about you (except that your spelling needs work), to make the kind of direct insult that you made. If you did know me, you would know that moderate is my middle name. But being moderate does not mean living in denial about the reality of the current situation.
E-Crime Law Reform Working Party
Ad-hoc committee (talkfest)
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg
Yes, minister in oppositions shadow cabinet.
A police ministers meeting in Darwin
Police minister is minister in charge of police. Police are controlled by the states so each state has police minister who all get together at police ministers' meetings.
Senator Ellison's decision to give the new Australian Crime Commission the power to investigate cyber crime.
Senator ellison is the federal justice minister. Executive posistions such as Minister of Defence, etc are held by members of parliament or senators. He is the federal equivalent of a police minister.
"I'm much more likely to be shot by a relative or friend who doesn't become a criminal until they pick up their legally-purchased gun and use it. "
You made this up.
Worse, you believe what you make up.
You have no source, nothing. You march lockstep with others. People give you opinions to have. Worse, you think you're a thinking person.
Get back to studying freshman calculus.
A life isnt' worth any freedom.
I'm lobbying so all our rights are taken away, people can't own guns, but we're safe.
You know, like The Taliban did in Afghanistan.
Shoddily and over-specifically summarizing centuries of legal tradition, America has the extremely circumspect definition that only speech which "directly incites" other parties to "violence" is not "protected speech" under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So in theory, in America, a website might be considered illegal if it were instructing protesters to take violent actions. But even in this, U.S. courts have at various times (though certainly not always) proved extremely conservative about what an "instruction" is - as a general rule, "let's teach the bastards a lesson" doens't qualify; not even "bring your baseball bats" would. The former could be considered rhetorical or non-specific, and the latter doesn't tell anyone what to do with the bats (could be self-defense, for instance). Only speech which names names, places, or specific acts in a totally clear and unambiguous way, such as "John, attack any police who come into your sector with rocks" has tended to qualify the speaker as a party to a conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
Despite this unprecedently liberal view of free speech, America has not degenerated into anarchy, much to the chagrin of a number of European political philosophers.
In the case of the websites being shut down, there are no examples of what qualifies, only a vague reference to anti-WTO organizations. Though anti-WTO protests have a repuation for violence, the organizations behind them are uniformly peaceful in nature and advocate nothing other than non-violent demonstration and, only at the most absolute extreme, vandalism or traffic violations. The most polite thing we can say is that it's often "unclear" whether or not the police or the protesters are the source of the violence in a given incident. Being more impolite, it seems that law enforcement is sent out in anti-protest activities with instructions that virtually guarantee violence ("There's a gang of young drugged-out commie agitators out there frightening citizens and stopping traffic. Here's all the clubs, pepper spray, and tear gass you need. We stand behind whatever actions you need to take 100%.") Telling it like it is, quite often the peaceful protestors get the shit gassed and jackbooted out of them without provocation, and when they post bail and go home, they see on the news that they were "violent" and thus, deserved it. Congratulations freshman, you've just passed Authoritarian Propaganda 101.
But I digress. It appears that by U.S. standards the interdictions being considered in Australia would be in gross violation of the 1st Amendment. Obviously territorial sovereignty means this should give an Australian politician little pause. But there is also relevant international law and widely-recognized (or so we all claim at Christmas) international declarations of human rights, which muddy the waters somewhat. Unfortunately, this doesn't give politicians much pause either - in the 1st world or the 3rd.
Ultimately, the American interpretation of the right of free speech is so strict because of constant and blatant experience with the abuse of police power to intimidate and silence political dissent - a totally undemocratic and illegal practice in almost every 1st world country... but politicians and police tend not to have themselves arrested and tried for it.
The bottom line is that (at least up until now - I don't want to speculate about the future) we've pretty much backed off silencing political speech in the U.S., no matter how inflamatory. The infamous example is the Nuremberg Files website, a hideous screed containing a list of abortion practitioners, where names are crossed off when one is murdered. Again - no specific instructions to murder any of them, so, despite a rough ride through the courts (this one is about as close as you can shave it), it is still running.
Americans do it this way because history has unambiguously taught them that what little reduction in "dangerous" activity you might get from trying to silence "dangerous" speech (and believe me, you don't get much) is far outweighed by the immense damage these things do to a functioning democracy.
Incidentally - when democracy breaks down, that's when you really get violence.
I think you're a poster child for propaganda. The moral of this story, as old as government itself, is that those in power will call any protest action "violent" or "illegal" in order to simultaneously suppress it and discredit it. Often, police agent provocateurs are even sent into a demonstration with instructions to commit violence themselves and urge others to as well, as "insurance" against particularly well organized protest groups. And that's happened in America. A loss of rights? Shutting the anti-WTO websites down because they "incite violence" is a classic case.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
" I draw the line at anything made for the express purpose of being used as a weapon."
I'm pushing for the banning of teaching martial arts training. AFter all, if no one knows how to fight, there will be no more fights.
And boxing gloves too. YOu can only use them to hit people.
That's wrong.
P.S. A good sheep adds "BAAAH" When he's bleating for the kindly master to save his life. Lets hear you say "BAAH" while you're waiting for the government to help us.
"It is as illegal to use the Internet to plan a crime as it is to use any other medium to plot the same crime."
We should ban anything that could be used to help people plan crimes. Like pencil and paper.
Wouldn't it make sense to begin tapping everyone's phones? Then if people were planning illegal stuff, we could stop them and beat them up under the rule of law.
The government should every means possible and search everything to secure our freedom. Anybody who doesn't agree with you obviously isn't as smart as us. After all, we've thought through our positions and really understand what they mean.
After all the internet is a special place so the government needs to watch it and shut down anything that would prevent freedom of speech.
That makes absolute sense, right?
RIGHT!
ITS THE REPUBLICANS THAT CAUSE ALL THE PROBLEMS! It's their fault. Mommy! Billy is on my side of the couch! MOMMY!!!!!!
"Most Aussies see through loud mouth Yankee bullshit."
Right, but you love taking in the ass from the US because we're the sweetest nicest country in the world.
So you, as a country, say to the United States "Please Uncle Sam, I've saved my virgin asshole for you. Please fill it with your american spunk".
And then you thank us afterwards.
Why do you think that is?
I know why, but I want you to figure it out yourself.
As long as the basic transfer protocols will be known (ie, HTML or XML over HTTP over TCP/IP), a browser device can be improvised rather easily.
However, if the servers would start requiring certificates from the clients, or - worse - the ISPs would mandate using transparent proxies requiring the software to authenticate itself, then we have a problem.
That should be crackable too, though. Even if it will be all in hardware, mod chips will appear on the black market. It would take MUCH more effort to effectively censor everything; as long as compilers and EPROM burners will be available (regardless if legally or from the black market), there will be people determined to spit into the Big Brother's eyes.
Even if the Net would be tightened down to the point of being unusable, we still have the slow, old, and hard-to-defeat Sneakernets; people trading CDs (or media in general) with banned materials. Look at how successful War on Drugs is - extrapolate how successful the War on Free Speech will be.
If a bunch of idiots conspire to trash a city
amidst a demonstration, the US is empowered to
arrest them, using their Web banter as as
evidence of conspiracy. But to block the sites
at the ISP is not within the US's powers.
That reminds me of an American documentary on the rattlesnake. This scientist goes walking around the desert for ages, and can't find one. Then he finds the hole one lives in and sits outside it for three days waiting for it to come out. Then the doco ends. Steve Irwin would have just found a big stick and poked into the hole till the snake came out.....
Isn't it a right of the people to overthrow the government if they so desire? Didn't that happen at the war of independance in the USA?
Wow, Australia almost passes Canada in anti-free-speech activity!
Ernst Zundel, an active user of hate-speech has for years shown up Canada for what a lack of free-speech we have by hosting it all outside this country.
I'd link to his site so you can all have a good laugh at what kind of a nutter he is, but I don't want special interest groups to suggest I'm promoting hate speech and have me carted off to jail.
IMHO, how can you possibly decide for yourself what is right and wrong thinking if you're never given the opportunity to see what's wrong?
The only difference is that in Canada all speech is limited like this, not just 'net speech.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Consolation for loss of freedom: this link to audio clip of "My One-Eyed Trouser Snake" sung by raunchy Aussie Barry Humphries (I don't know what Dame Edna does with that trouser snake now).
The link is to a page of sound clips from Private Eye. You have to scroll down to find the trouser snake.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
For those of you interested in world affairs, we are preparing to throw a cocktail party at the WTO meeting this week. BYOB. (organize molotov cocktail protest) Party in front of the UN Summit this monday. All who attend sure to have a blast. Pure star power. (homebrew hydrogen bomb attack on UN building) You see, you cannot successfully censor the internet. People will simply use the resources available to plan whatever crackpot or otherwise. I know these examples are extreme, but still, neither would be prosecutable unless some other direct link to such action was discovered. Certainly that wouldn't likely happen before the fact.
The (corporate owned) goverment is afraid of revolution. They already tried to ban this and this and this at the state level, which failed, now they are trying at federal level.
All the to-and-fro about the implications of this proposal, and whether it is or is not technically feasible are essentially irrelevant. There are two apalling implications for Australians such as myself, neither of which are particularly new:
a) we have elected representatives who are so technologically illiterate that they do not, cannot or will not understand this is technically unfeasible;
b) we have eleced representatives with such a vague grasp of history and ethics that they do not see any problems with proposing this.
One of the defining characteristics of the Australian political system is an increasing tendency to pass stupidly tendentious and unenforcable laws in order to be seen to be doing something - anything - in the eyes of the electorate.
Frankly, I'm muchmore concerned about the defamation laws, which are already some of the most restrictive in the Western world. Defamation laws should be *loosened* in this country, not further tightened.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Firstly, the NSW police minister asked the federal government to censor the site (and two others; noWTO and s11 , neither of which host any violent content) under the existing Australian internet censorship legislation. However, the Australian Broadcast Authority did not find anything illegal with the sites, and did not censor them. So the government has decided this is not good enough and wants tougher legislation to block dissent.
As for melbourne indymedia, the main post in question was one which does suggest to people different ways of dealing with police at protests. Being open publishing, the comment is the persons own view. Whether or not one agrees with the comment, it is important to have a discussion about it, and that is exactly what happened; a heated discussion follows the original post.
People always flail their arms about `protest being OK as long as it is within the law.' But what if the law is unjust? Are people not entitled to defend themselves against a fascist police force?
What I find particularly ironic is that the Australian Labor Party, founded on the ideals of civil disobedience (unions et al) are now the ones who are trying to quell any dissent whatsoever.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Criminal acts will always be committed, in meatspace and cyberspace, by all manner of people--clever and otherwise. At least this legislation would address the most egregious instances of inciting criminal activity on the web.
I don't think anyone on Slashdot will suggest that the sort of legislation proposed will be a panacea, but it can't hurt to provide a regulated framework within which already existing laws can be enforced. If they're going to shut down a server, at least there will be law on the books that specifically describes circumstances under which such action is permitted--and law that is subject to constitutional scrutiny.
An interesting side issue: I would think that this sort of activity is already prohibited under existing law. Props to the Australian government if they're merely codifying de facto policies so that everyone knows what the rules are. Jeers if they're trying to overreach the equivalent meatspace jurisdiction because FUD says violent protestors are inherently more dangerous on the internet than in real life (how's that again?) I suppose I'm saying /. ought not jump to conclusions about the proposal--wait until the bill is before Parliament, then read it. (Yes, I know...getting /.ers to read raw legislation is even harder than getting them to read the articles they reply to. Alas.)
~Idarubicin
If you (or anyone else) is so worried about their personal security, I would suggest that instead of a gun, you consider a German Shephard or a Rottweiler or some other large intelligent canine.
A dog will protect your property when you are not at home. A gun will sit there and do nothing.
A dog know friend from foe, and will not attack a friend. A gun will kill whoever it is shot at.
Criminals will commit crimes just to steal a gun. Very few criminals will break into a home to steal a dog.
A dog provides friendship, exercise, and hours of amusement. A gun is used to kill. Period.
You are afraid of criminals, then go to the nearest pound and adopt a suitable breed of dog.
If instead you insist on owning a gun out of fear, you are a menace to your neighbors and everyone else within firing range.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Michael Costa (a state police minister) has been mouthing off about websites lately, but the Australian Broadcasting Authority hasn't felt his claims warrant action. The article refers to the opinions of Police Ministers and an Attorney General (or two). It doesn't reflect the political will of any major party to draft legislation, nor does it an already embattled Communication Minister to risk a "Free Speech" confrontation. So at the end of the day this is a political talkfest, where a few twits can let off steam about an area that is largely outside of their control.
Remind me again, where in the Australian constitution does it entitle us to free speech?
I was told ages ago (and thus could be very wrong) that free speech is a privelidge but not an right.
....... /
A quick note to all the Americans crapping on about free speech and censorship and how f*ckin' great the 1st Amendment is.
Australia does not have a general right to free speech. But, there is a right to freedom of political communication. And more important in some cases than the substantive rights that are written on paper (important though they may be) is the way they are applied and protected. In the 50's, when the US Supreme Court buckled under political pressure and allowed blatantly illegal acts by the US Government against the Communist Party of the USA (which by the way is exactly the same way segregation was apartheid took hold in South Africa), the Australian High Court refused to allow the Menzies Government to ban the Communist Party in Australia. Our High Court has, by and large, assured that when the Government steps on our rights (even though they aren't specifically defined, which they should be) they're put back in their place
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.
Sometimes speech is criminal, e.g., you can't shout "Fire!" ina crowded theater; and web sites are a form of speech.
The "Nuremberg Files" anti-abortion site case in the example I think of. This is not to say legal action was successful -- here's the latest version of the site -- but note they are heeded the 9th Circuit's "hysterical" decision.
Even if this case was wrongly decided, it's not hard to imagine more dire circumstances such as someone publishing American troop movements during wartime. If, for example, Al Queda were posting its marching orders on a web site, that act would be a crime and the web site could be suppressed. There's plenty of case law on this at the Supreme Court level, and note these are examples of applying the 1st. A. rather than ignoring it.
Much more intelligent discussions of this can be found from sources such as EFF and of course the ACLU. These organizations argue for the more expansive interpretations of the 1st A. and their views do not necessarily represent the current state of the law.
Interesting -- i lived in Chicago for a couple of years, including the 1996 Democratic Convention. The dems had not come to Chgo since the disaster of 1968, and there was a lot of apprehension about it. Of course the police followed the modern doctrine of overwhelming force, and anyway the protests were nothing. A week later the National Hardware Convention arrived with about 5 times the number of people, and you can imagine what a rowdy crowd they are.
1968 was a different time, and free speech has not been tested as much since.
A couple of things:
- Why Violent? Surely the last 100 years have shown that non-violent protests are far more effective, provided only that the protestors are more than a small, shrill minority? Or are you convinced that your little group is intellectually superior to the masses?
- As for the "hypocrites or just interested in censoring controversial opinions?", that's self-evidently a strawman. If I gave you the choice Are you an imbecile, or just an idiot? that would be just as intellectually bankrupt. You're neither (your post was cogent, relatively polite)- so please don't behave that way with such discredited dielectic and insult everyone's intelligence.
- Re: advocates international violence(war) what would you have us do? Would you advocate Saddam Hussein as a person you't trust to have nukes? That's really the point here. OK, so you'd prefer Bush not to have them either, but if you don't see a difference in kind rather than degree between Bush and Saddam, I'd be very interested in your evidence. You either live on a different planet, or you know something I don't.
- Finally, the fact that you post as an "Anonymous Coward" says a lot. The few times I've been moved to protest, I've not been afraid to give my name, to stand up for what I believe in. You'd gain a lot more credibility if you'd do the same. Sure, it would be at some personal risk - but if it's that important, that should make no difference. Maybe you think that you're just being prudent. But for once, "Anonymous Coward" seems to be an exactly accurate description, as it lessens your credibility, and you know it. You just don't think that your principles are worth even a minimal degree of personal risk - so why should anyone else?
You're willing to commit violence on others, to incite people to risk their own skins, but not to put your name on public display, to stand up and be counted. Or have I got it wrong?Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
- the ban on Internet gambling in Australia, a spectacular show of fear-of-the-new, given that existing land-based gambling in Australia is a huge social problem (the worst in the world, in dollars per head), and properly regulated internet gambling could have provided a much better approach to most of the gambling addiction problems (proof of identity, bet and loss limits, etc).
- the attempted ban on Internet pornography, when similar porn is permitted in print and video. an utter failure, and again primarily fuelled by fear of the Internet more than anything else.
some might be tempted to say it's a generational thing, but it's not. it's a result of this Prime Minister making cynical and callous appointments to important ministries. Richard Alston, Luddite extraordinary, has been the minister responsible for the above decisions. and appointing Wilson "Ironbar" Tuckey as Minister of the Environment was basically spitting in the face of anyone who cares about the environment. it's a bit like making the Chinese president responsible for the protection and promotion of Tibetan culture.mi save tingting long peles bilong mi long Niu Ailan.
Exactly how does the Australian government intend to accomplish this feat of engineering ?
Or is it going to be a purely legal thing?
You say "the web site in particular was very clear about advocating violence"; I didn't see that website cited anywhere. Do you have a URL?
Our concern is angry but peaceful political speech being intentionally mislabeled as an "incitement to violence" in order to silence it. I suspect this is the case literally, but regardless, the reasoning stands:
We are talking about people in the act of doing violence against an army of police. We don't need to split hairs over "dangerous" speech. You're already holding a big umbrella to protect yourself from the storm; don't try to arrest the wind for blowing it in your direction. Why? a) Stifling political speech is about as hard as arresting the wind - you still get the protest, b) The censorship powers are uniformly abused, c) the end result is the same, except with censorship your "democracy" loses its legitimacy.
Just as we say it is better to let a hundred criminals go free than one innocent be punished, we say it is a better society that looks bravely into the face of dangerous speech than one that cowers, like the Chinese, behind a firewall, against the perils of democratic ideals. This is not some idealistic caprice - these are hard-won and time-tested ideas.
If this is actually a case where there is a group openly and specifically organizing violent criminal acts against the police on the web, it's the exception that proves the rule. If that were the case, however, I'd expect (and hope, actually) to see real arrests and real trials, not administrative decisions and arbitrary censorship.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
I guess this goes some way to explain why the current Australian government doesnt seem to have any moral problem trading with china. G
He was all lovey-dovey with the Chinese Communists and set such a fine example of trading with them, like nuclear and missile secrets for campaign contributions.
Funny how a post expressing a firm conviction about a controversial subject brings out the true colors of the pro-gun cowboys. You all remind me of 5-year old brats who throw tantrums when someone takes away your toys.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
1) Somebody organizes a peaceful protest
2) Riot cops beat the shit out of everybody
3) Government closes down the whole internet. Oh, at least those evil anarchist sites, and other political sites that do not support the current government, or whatever.
That's the way it goes. If you have some alternative views on your website, you might just as well delete your files NOW.
Yes, this has worked in China and other nice places. Why should we have more democracy and freedom of speech than chinese people? Makes me wonder...
Checklist:
a) copy of freenet - yes
b) instant messenger aplication yes
c) new zealand phone book - yes (online somewhere)
d) credit card - yes
Plan: in case of emergency - dial NZ isp and surf from there.
So I have all the tools to get around this piece of idiocy - but WTF should I have to.
When I downloaded Freenet I did not think I was being overly paranoid but wanted to help people in less "liberal" countries. So now I am in one.
When the law & regulations are drafted, you will probably find the federal Attorney-General (a politician) has the power to add sites to the banned list. As is enabled for the anti-terrorist group legislation. But my bet is the law and reg's will not say "sites that promote violence". More like "... when the Attorney-General can identifies a material inimicable to good order...are directed to disable access to said material" - the AFP or ABA will probably be empowered to do the dirty work.
Now there is a delicate balance of power in the (federal) Senate one of whom is a anti- almost everything. How long before the things he is most anti- get added to the list in exchange for votes?
Try this scenario - The Greens (a party with a valuable Senate vote), get linked to one of these sites. The site is shut down. The Greens member(s?) complain (or even if they don't) - they get charged with conspiracy to incite violence. If convicted the elected member(s?) get the boot from parliament and replaced in the Senate - looking at a tight vote would unscrupuluos politicans sink that low? Plus the bad publiicty shafts their public support anyway.
Don't think the High Court will necessarily save us - there has been some case law about implied right to free speech - but when other avenues are available - eg writing letters to the editor, you may not find much sympathy from the judges.
Is gAIM be PGP enabled? If not - is there a plan to? If not let me know how to help.
Any other ways to shaft the proposed rules - my ears are open.
I for one support a range of causes that many people (including our current government) don't like. The Palestinian people have had it rough, some of their own doing, a fair bit by their leaders and the rest by a range of others. Will Intifada news sites be banned? Tibet? GunsNRoses - all those youngun's rioting must have a cause - ban 'em.
Why don't they take a shower and have a sleep before opening their stupid mouths?
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
America is on the road to fascism. Ever wonder how Hitler got elected? You are living it now! Too bad Bush DIDN'T get elected. That would make your nation a "democracy."
not doubt only violence will become of this. governments should use reverse-psychology and ban non-violent non-protests. then everyone will engage in non-violent non-protests because it is against the law...problem solved.
I would find it interesting to know how many people actually plan such organized events on a public website?
While the site might be good as a front for gaining support for a protest, most sites wouldn't advocate a "let's go out with a bunch of wooden clubs and beat somebody" type protest.
Furthermore, if such a protest were being organized, it would probably be better done with a non-violent splash page which got support, and an internal method of communication (encrypted transmission, email?) etc.
I've seen an increasing amount of protests online, but not any that actually listed a voilent solition.
All they need now is fewer voting ballot choices, stricter voting 'regulations', the aforementioned website policy, and who knows? An predominantly authoritarian government could be right around the corner.
then you might wanna look at/ 98rn 02.htm
/ v5n1/walker5 1.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98
and, re: defamation
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues
and, yes, there's no bill of rights... *sigh*
but maybe... one day...
- I am made of meat.
From what I've read a lot of people seem to think that Australia is about to slide into fascism because we don't have a bill of rights, the government is controlling our internet access, and so on.
What good are constitutional rights if they are not enforced?
For all the talk about America being a free country, there are still several people being held indefinitely without charge in Guantanamo Bay, Australians and other foreigners among them.
Australia has NOT banned guns, only automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the government does not decide what we can see on the internet, and if you RTFA you will see that no definite decision has been made. I'd be very surprised if the government did turn around and block anything, because for all their talk of it so far nothing has happened.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
An ARMED person is a Citizen, a DISARMED person is a Subject. Australians are not citizens, they are serfs, subjects with no rights other than what their unchecked government will give them.
-When one sacrifices freedom for security - they get neither.
The Roman author Juvenal is highly unlikely to have been the first person to think about the concept Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? He probably wasn't even the first one to say it in Latin.
There are some exceptions, and I gather they actually apply in Australia - some loudmouth politician wants a censorship law, so they pass one to shut him up, assign implementation to some bureaucrat sitting in a corner who doesn't get any funding, and tell him to go out for a beer and not bother anybody, and in those cases they also censor the actual activities of the censor, so nobody gets on their case for putting up a sham, but that's not the usual case.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Sure, the US honors the 1st Amendment far too often by violating it rather than supporting it, but if you think that the law they're proposing won't be used to ban other things, you're a very trusting soul. It's unlikely you'll have an adequate possibility of public review of material that's been banned - the interesting question is whether the authors of banned material will be informed about it. (Admittedly, the cure for that is to always do periodic independent checks to see if your material is accessible.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
to digest the part about a Website that falsely slandered two high school teachers, and 100ed of emails that pointed parents to it?
What would you think of websites used to plan Terriorist Attacks, or airliner hijackingings?
I was amused by the Story-Post author trying to compare Australia to China. In China the military might drive a tank over a citizen. In Australia, a citizen can drive a tank.
"Macho Madness!
Are you looking for a corporate event with a difference that would appeal to your clients or top achievers? Then let us organise a day of serious fun combining rally driving on a forest stage, riding and driving a 56 Tonne Centurian Tank..."
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
In the '70s, the Qld state parliament was basically under the dictatorial control of one man; the state Premier Jo Bejelkie-Petersen.
..... a full squad of Qld police.
Well, he had got upset by what happened in protest marches, so he had legislation passed requiring the organizer's of a planned march to apply for a police permit.
Are you seeing where THIS led? What usually happened was that NO police permits were issued.
The ULTIMATE protest to this state of affairs was that a lone farmer announced to the press that he would be marching, accompanied by his dog, at midnight, down an isolated dirt road.
So, he marched with his dog - watched by a couple of TV News Cameras and
Need I add that he was NOT arrested?
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
In China the military might drive a tank over a citizen. In Australia, a citizen can drive a tank for fun.
"Macho Madness!
Are you looking for a corporate event with a difference that would appeal to your clients or top achievers? Then let us organise a day of serious fun combining rally driving on a forest stage, riding and driving a 56 Tonne Centurian Tank..."
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
You are a liar who deliberately misrepresents the case.. Typical of most of the ill-educated unthinking non-entities who post to /. these days.
I have indicated no course of action. I've asserted that I don't support private ownership of guns and that the AU gov't has a right to block access to sites they believe are engaged in or inciting crimiinal activity.
That's it. You don't like what I'm saying, so, lacking any apparent intellect or sense of integrity that might, just might, allow you to offer a coherent rebuttal, you resort to the usual techinque of losers: slander and insult.
Thanks for proving my point. Go stamp your dirty feet somewhere else.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yet again, they (we) are attempting to "fix" the problem by taking away one of the means for completion of a task "they" do not want to see happen. Instead, they take away freedom's of the many to quash the means of the few. Sounds like a two year old is running things "down under"...
This in contrast to what they SHOULD do, which is fix the problem that LEADS these people to WANT to commit these crimes.
*sigh*
"We certainly want to reduce the level of terror...There is one easy way to do that...stop participating in it."--Noam Chomsky, from the CD "What is terrorism?"
The ABC reports that anti-World Trade Organisation activists say they have been vindicated by an official investigation into two protest web sites.
The Australian Broadcasting Authority has given the Melbourne Indymedia and S11 sites the all-clear after complaints they were inciting violence against police.
and the werewolves came...
and they ate him...
and they drank his beer...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I real all about the high school teachers. Personally, I'm not too happy with that kind of law, but it doesn't enter into this discussion, as it's a civil matter. The government doesn't care who you slander. BTW, slander cases in the U.S. are also very rare - they're hard to win. Not to mention that, in print, it's called "libel."
BTW again, what do you think of a journalist who covers these issues but doesn't cite any of the materials? Pretty yellow, eh?
Did you read far enough in my post to get the answer to your own question? A website used to plan a terrorist attack *non-specifically* would be immediately noticed, and would present "probable cause" for a criminal investigation that would probably include surveillance of the perpetrators. I really hope terrorsists are that stupid. But I doubt it. A website that *specifically* incited terrorists acts would in itself potentially be a crime, but that would most likely lead to the same result - a real investigation, hopefully finding evidence for a fair trial.
I wonder if our notoriously yellow media has led you to believe that you need to arbitrarily censor everyone to prevent terrorism?
What's ironic about all this is that when you do that, it becomes both harder to catch terrorists, and harder for terrorists themselves to find any justification. Just shout out your cause in the market square. Everyone might boo you, and you'd go home feeling like an idiot, instead of possibly mistaking enforced silence as evidence, for instance, that the world really wants to be a fascist Muslim theocracy.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Where you read "it becomes both harder to catch terrorists," strike "both" and add "and when you don't, it becomes" afterwards.
(sigh no edit function)
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
The answer to "not very smart, are you" (if that's a question) is
Smart enough to be aware that I was neither writing in favour of Web-censorship, nor of being against Web-censorship.
If you re-read my post, you should see that NOT ONCE did I:
Attack your level of intelligence (and consequentially I wonder why you attack mine).
Declare a preference 'for/or against' Web-censorship.
I ONLY wondered why no one mentioned the topic included in the Original Story of False Slander on a Website that caused great harm to two fine teachers, and their careers.
In conclusion, (since I don't usually 'read' other than what is written into meanings) I'd have to answer:
"Smart enough"!
- Please do not assume as to 'where I stand'!
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Because it was a red herring. Didn't seem very "smart" to bring it up. Discussing libel (or "slander") in this thread is sort of like asking whether it would be ethical for vendors to sell hotdogs at a state execution. But actually, asking what I would think about "terrorist websites" was what put you over the top.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
As far as I could find out, the websites Australia's Justice Minister Chris Ellison wants to block are IndyMedia and unnamed anti-WTO websites. These websites are maintained and used by the "people of seattle", as they are called since the 1999 WTO summit in Seattle, where they demonstrated to draw public attention to the undemocatic ways of the Word Trade Organization and other problems with neo-liberalism.
The so-called anti-globalization movement got a bad reputation with some good citizens when riots broke out in Genoa. Today it is acknowledged fact that Italia's state police infiltrated hooligans or nazi skins into Genoa and equipped them with weapons such as baseball bats.
Meanwhile this movement has met in Florence, Italy, for no other reason that to hold a conference, the first European Social Forum, that was attended by 60,000 people. At the end of it, they were joined by trade unionists and ordinary Italian people for a demonstration of 500,000 people (according to police figures). During the conference and the mass demonstration no one was hurt, and not a single windows was smashed. (More in The Guardian.)
Berlusconi, Italia's leader, had previously predicted that there would surely be violence in Florence. He even tried to move the Social Forum to the coutryside. He has made a fool of himself.
Now Australia's Justice Minister is determined to do the same thing. Not only because blocking websites does not work. He's trying to use a false myth (anti-globalists are rioters) in order to censor political opposition. Also note how the dumb notion of cybercrime is extended into a nonsense notion by trying to create a cybercrime law that bans defamation, calls to protest, and independent analysis all at once from the web.
Granted that you answered a valid question (ie. on "what you would think about "terrorist websites"); didn't you pause to consider that the WHOLE original article was, to use your words, "a red herring"?
/. header where the Author compared Australia to China! ..................As I stated in a different post (pointing out a big difference between China and Australia) in China the military drove a tank over a citizen, while in Australia a citizen can pay to drive a tank!
Australian politicians tend to bluster on some issues without understanding the whole story, particulary involving technology. I've read other 'anti-Aussie' lead stories on SlashDot, and (say, mainly) US comments taking it VERY SERIOUSLY.
For instance, in the
Any US citizens who think that Australia is even remotely similar to China???
They should ask one of their relatives who were stationed here in the War.
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"