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.
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!
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
Shut up or I'll beat the crap outta ya!
If you don't see the humor, then by all means, moderate!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
You miss the point: If people are influenced by websites like this then the problem lies with the person being so mentally weak as to be affected by it.
While blocking these sites may seem to be an effective solution, it's just like the whole 'ban guns' thing, people are the problem, not the guns.
Anyway, yeah. The risk of blocking sites is it's government censorship. It's blocking free speech, and it's another step on the road towards the government being able to censor anything it likes.
Governments shouldn't be allowed to censor free speech.
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?
Um...in case you haven't notice, freedom os speech is in the United States Constitution, not the world constitution.
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.
...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?
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.
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 ----
...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.
Internet cannot be censured. When will these pinheads learn this simple fact?
a. It's censored, not censured.
b. You certainly can censor the internet.
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!
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
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.
Yeah, I think it clearly is in the US Consitution. I never said that it was practiced, I just said it was in there. Please read the post (it wasn't that long) before you go on anonymously mocking it. Oh, and by the way, I'm a democrat.
You certainly can censor the internet.
:)
You can't censor the internet... you can make it harder to get the information. To fully censor the net, you'll have to block all traffic... but that sort of beats the whole idea of having a net.
"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.
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.
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<*))))><
I don't live in Australia, but I suspect that the law there, as everywhere, recognizes no "genuine reason" to riot. Incitement to riot, and rioting itself, is against the law in the U.S. and just about every place else.
If you think that your political opinions justify rioting, then at least have the guts to admit that you are engaging in anti-state political violence and accept the consequences pf your actions.
Freedom of speech on the Internet is no different than freedom of speech via any other medium. You don't have any more freedom just because it's the Internet; and you don't have immunity from any goverrnment's sanctions because the Internet is supra-national. If you use your web site to incite to riot, engage in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts, etc., you are just as much subject to government action as if you used the airwaves or handed out pamphlets.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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
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?
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"
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!
<sarcasm> Don't worry, now with the republican majority, democartic minority, i'm sure a two thirds vote will be achieved to rewrite the bill of rights to remove that offensive rule.</sarcasm>
Your response is the typical blithering brain-dead nonsense that passes for thought these days.
Guns are weapons, designed to kill. You have no right to own one.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.....
You, my friend, are deliverately reducing the argument to absurdity because you can't think of anything else. Typical.
You and all your buddies here think the Internet is some kind of special place that exists apart from the law and apart from the purview of governments. It isn't. The Internet is just another medium, like TV, radio, and newspapers. If you park a radio transmitter off shore and start broadcasting guidance on fomenting riot and revolution, do you seriously expect the government to leave you alone? Why should web sites be treated differently?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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
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.
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
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.
Enjoy your freedom to do advocate. . . unusual lifestyles while you can.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Well, I bow to your expertise in the area of absurdity.
You obviously didn't notice the biggest logical hole in the political position you advocate.
How is an AU citizen to know if a site banned by government advocates riot and revolution, or just a political position that the government doesn't want its citizens discussing?
Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean a reasonable person can't. Perhaps the next area where you should develop expertise, now that you've got absurdity covered, is learning how to become a reasonable person.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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
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!
You could also say the problem is that people that should not be allowed to have guns can get access to them much to easily.
See thats the problem with this whole gun restriction stuff. All it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns; criminals have (and will continue) to get thier guns very easily through illegal means.
So what exactly do the gun laws prevent?
Please offer me another speech about how it is "not I who flames"
You actually were not my intended audience, so dont flatter yourself that I would plead with you.
If you'll notice in the recent elections, many democrats were campaigning the very same issues. Furthermore despite the fact that the largest political party in the US is Democratic Party, the elections ended up as they did; this shows that many people are scared, not just republicans. There are alot of people makeing bad decisions dont try to blame a single party for the problems in our country. In a democracy we all take responsability.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Anonymous Coward descibes you accurately.
Tech Public Policy stuff
>> How is an AU citizen to know if a site banned by government advocates riot and revolution, or just a political position that the government doesn't want its citizens discussing?
They don't get to know. If they don't like it, they can change the government.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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"
Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I have a gun, you asshole. I used to use it for this funny thing we do called "hunting pheasants". Even though I'm not really into that any more, I still have it. Are you going to come over here and take it from me? Didn't think so, you fascist pussy.
Who's talking about blocking internal sites? If the AU gov't wants to block eternal websites, radio stations, or whatever, that plan/engage in criminal acts or communicate with/encourage others in Australia to do the same, that's OK with me. Seems to be a legitimate function of a government.
Again, criminal speech is not protected.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You have the most corrupt and morally bankrupt government in the World and you all seem to rather defend it as if you desperately want to beleive in it. Watching Americans on TV, it's like half have given in (taken the blue pill?) and the other half are too stupid to notice the reality.
You're from Australia. Your country banned the sale of a video game TO ADULTS anywhere within your borders. You have a HISTORY of internet censorship - I do not recall this being the first such instance I have read about. And you're going to come on here and preach to my country about government oppression? Open your eyes, dipshit. Your government fucking sucks.
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.
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.
The government.
If the AU citizens are stupid enough to trust their government enough to let a group of their bureaucrats make this decision for them, that is their right. If they're embarrassed in a few years when they describe themselves as living in a "free country", that's their problem.
If you're stupid enough to hope that the US government will someday make that decision for you, that's your right as well. Though if you really want this, there are various censorware products which will prevent you from seeing most of what offends you on the Internet. Go to Peacefire and select whichever one they like least. An adult doesn't need that kind of protection, of course.
However, if you advocate that the US government makes us taxpayers pay to have a kindly Federal government put the blankets over our heads to keep the evil spirits out, I'm going to call you a fool publically again. However, I'm sure that being called a fool, a retard, and far less complimentary things is hardly new to you.
I never said that the AU government didn't have the right to block IPs in a similar manner and for reasons similar to that which China and various Islamic countries do. If the AU government wants to order their citizens to rub themselves with blue mud, that is perfectly all right with me.
However, it's still a stupid thing to do.
But much more rational than the actions you support. And probably much more rational the actions you recommend in any statement about public policy you will ever make.
The only limits that one can really put on a government one doesn't live under is... no initiating attacks against other countries with weapons of mass destruction.
While their government appears to be run by idiots, this is the kind of idiocy one can hope that even they are incapable of. Of course, if they actually are planning anything like that, their citizens won't find out until the retribution hits their cities.
I've put as much time as conveniently can be spared today in whacking tards. However, this has been worthwhile, I like to take time once in a while to explore the depths of human arrogance, stupidity, and superstition. I suppose finding you was inevitable sooner or later.
I'll probably whack some Libertarian religious cultists tomorrow. Any chance you'll convert to Libertarianism before then?
Tech Public Policy stuff
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
And it is not exaclty like the 'ban guns' thing either, when did you last hear of someone getting shot to death by a guy armed with a website? :-)
I think the point was more that attempting to restrict information in a medium like the web is nearly pointless. For example, the laws in Europe forcing removal, as covered on Slashdot before, about how to derail trains were met with a great deal of derision because the material can easily be found elsewhere with a look around on a few search engines.
Besides, what's to stop protesters from advocating 'peaceful' marches (or just not specifying the level of violence expected), and then fomenting unrest at the site?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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"
That wasnt even about derailing trains. The article in question (in an old issue of German extreme left magazine "radikal") detailed how to disable certain parts of the train control/security systems, which then would be detected and force the trains to go half-speed.
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!
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!