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.
...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."
Um thats not how it works. They arent arresting people with violent sites. They are blocking them. If someone makes a violent site in some oter country they will block it, simple. Jurisdiction has very little to do with it.
Why not fork?
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.
If he is physically capable, making the rest of us physically incapable of defending ourselves is the ultimate insanity.
He will make himself physically capable BECAUSE "the rest of you" are.
In the US you have so many killings every year, higher numbers directly attributed to gun ownership. In Australia we have so few. So does that mean that (percentage wise) there are more nutcases in the US than Australia?
No, I don't think so. We have our fair share of nut cases, but they usually get taken down easily and quickly after the initial attack with a bludgeoning or stabbing type weapon.
We have had masacres in the past (many many years between them). Hoddle Street, Port Arthur, Strathfield. But these were done by people with MASSIVE physical abilities (read, high powered assault rifles). Since our buy back scheme, we have had much less incidents.
BTW, regarding Port Arthur, the perpetrator aquired the most effective means to his end, after breaking into someones house and guess what he found? Colt AR-15 (I think, it was M-16 like from memory) in some guys house, perhaps as protection, this man and his family were KILLED with his OWN WEAPON. Now, sure, you can say that he should have had it better locked up right? Well the problem is, that TRUSTING people to do what is correct and safe is a mistake, because people being people, do stupid things. It only takes one well meaning drongo to arm a malicious drongo.
If I go into a mall, with intent to kill as many people as I can, but all I have is a knife, how successful do you think I will be? Now if I have a Colt AR-15 or AK-47 with plenty of ammo, what do you think my success rate will be?
I wish you could see it from our point of view. All you guys can think is, "if I give up my guns, I will be helpless against EVERYONE ELSE who do have guns". For us, the people with guns are law enforcement agencies and a minority of criminals who usually use their weapons against each other in gang land disputes.
There are sometimes home invasions, murders and what not, but these are infrequent and firearms in Australia are often used in more of a threatening manner because the criminals know that the victim is not going to pull out a 357 Magnum and blow his nuts off.
If everyone in Australia had guns, there would be many more deaths. Guns make it too easy to kill. Domestic violence beatings would be upgraded to killings in heated moments, and people down in the lowest times of their lives could be killing others or themselves all too easily when they ordinarily might have just had a punch up and a night in the clink to cool off or a failed attempt at suicide (wimped out with the wrist cutting and hanging, eating a bullet on the other hand is so quick, simple and final).
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Now thats bullshit if ever I've heard it.
Most wiretaps per citizen, I don't know so I'm not going to argue that point.
Aborigines aren't second rate citizens. There are MANY high profile aboriginies in Government and other areas, such as sporting. Aboriginal people have access to effectively interest free government provided home loans, they are guaranteed places at university and they get more government support than any european descent person does. I'm not saying that conditions are perfect for every aborigine in Australia and I'm not saying that there hasn't been 2 centuries of persecution but the means is now there for them to take hold and turn it all around.. and plenty have. There are isolated communities which are impoverished, agreed. But I can point to various US Indian communities in the same state.
As for the crap you are spinning about imprisoning ILLEGAL immigrants. We do exactly the same as the US and the UK and 1/2 of bloody Europe. The only difference at the moment is we have so bloody many that the time it takes for a recent illegal immagrant to get completely through the system can be between 6 months and 2 years. As the levels drop back down again, time will decrease and it will be a non issue like it was 10 years ago. Unfortunately with our huge borders (we have way more coastline than the US) and our low population (less than 20 mill) we get known as an easy arrival. Of course they don't realise that only 5-10% of the land is actually livable, the rest being desert.
China is one of Australia's most important trading partners along with the US, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan. Shit, we send 1/2 the wheat we grow every year to IRAQ, so I suppose we must all have terrorist insticts?? That's the lamest argument I've ever come across.
I think the view you have of Australia is purely coloured by your own personality and being an easy target for derogatory media.
IANAL, but common law in most countries has built up a set of principles by which defamation lawsuits are judged. Generally, the limits of acceptable comment are much broader when discussing a bona fide public figure, like a politician. It is accepted (in both common sense and common law) that politicians will be subject to scrutiny (and ridicule) within reasonable bounds. Satire is almost always acceptable, in part because on television shows like Royal Canadian Air Farce it is obvious that humour is intended, and remarks should not be taken as gospel truth.
In the media, different countries have different standards for news reporting. In the United States a plaintiff must show malice on the part of his or her defamer--very difficult, which is why so much sensationalistic crap can be published as "news". In Canada, the bar is lower--the news source must demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to publish their (otherwise defamatory) assertions. In other countries, YMMV. In all cases, there is (or should be) a responsibility to separate fact from opinion from humour.
~Idarubicin
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.
Is a council of the relevant cabinet members in the six state governments (and the two territories), and the federal government, to coordinate their reponse to the "monstrous threat of E-crime".
Is the opposition Party's spokesperson on justice matters. Yes, he's in the shadow cabinet.
The minister responsible for the oversight of police. Each of the six state governments has one. Yes it's a little strange, but law and order is one of the state government's major responsibilities. They aren't a chief of police, they are politicians (but here the chief of police isn't an elected position so the political element of a US police chief's role is handled by the minister).
Either this is something that can be done by regulation (ministerial decree, essentially) or the legislation will get through Parliament without much debate (which seems likely if all the States have agreed to it as well, as every single state and territory government is run by the party in opposition federally at the moment).
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