Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Looks at Internet Censorship
David writes "The New Zealand Government 'Select Committee', upon reviewing censorship law, has issued a report which among other things, recommends that ISPs face compulsory licensing "in order to control their behaviour", the forcing of a code of conduct upon ISPs, and recommends the implementation of an internet filtration programme not dissimilar from that of Australia's (although it is hazy on the details of what this would mean). They're starting to become really worried about the dangers of the internet."
It would help if people actually read the report. First, its not a 'Government' Select Committee, its simply a Parliamentary Committee. Its a report to the Parliament, which includes some recommendations to the Government (which they are not bound to implement). Second, it recommends a voluntary code of practice for ISPs, as a first step. This isn't cause of 'hue & cry' about internet censorship - which if some of the earlier commenters are correct is irrelevant anyway...
Come on NZ. Didn't you pay any attention to what happened with the "censorship" in Australia? It was a complete failure.
Any attempt to censor the internet, short of taking over every router on the border, is destined to fail.
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
"Our concern is not really to stop people looking at pictures; it's to stop the abuse of children involved in the making of this [hardcore] material," and where there is a clear case of child sexual abuse, no jurisdiction will defend it, he says.
Whoa, did I read that right? A government official saying something reasoned and intelligent when it comes to child porn? A clear understanding of the underlying problem? No blanket statements? No fear of the new medium? No desire to put everyone in jail and pull out the innocents later? No "gateway to other crimes" theories? No fallacious logic ("95% of child abusers have some form of pornography on their computers. Therefore, there's a 95% chance that anyone with any porn on their computer is a child abuser.")?? This guy has an actual concern for children, and doesn't just use "save the children" to advance an agenda??
Damn! All we have here is John "Under God" Ashcroft. If everybody is as clued in as this NZ guy, I'll take the censorship, thanks!
A government that tries to "protect" through censorship scares me.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Personally I believe that ISP's should be given the same common carrier status as phone companies: they are not liable for any content traveling through their system.
This would not prevent them from being able to act against persons violating the law. Ie: kiddy porn is illegal in most countries. If you try to host kiddy porn, you are breaking existing laws and can be nailed with traditional laws and warrants.
Not hosting the content on the ISP? Then why should the ISP be responsible for someone elses actions? Help them find the source, sure, but again under already established laws.
If you arrange to have someone killed via the phone that does not make Ma Bell an accessory to murder.
If when planning terrorist activities any carrier could be held liable then I'd save to say it's time to lock up every phone & cellular company - they're aiding and abetting terrorism!
So why should it be different for the net and ISP's?
Protect the children?? When are we going to protect ourselves from this ridiculousness?!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game similar to Tetris.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
I have no problem with that filthy shit being removed from they internet, but will it stop there? Can it stop there?
Will they block pages that link to it? There goes this slashdot article. Would the article be blocked to protect people from hearing about those sites or to prevent them from heard that their government sucks shit!
First they try to control what we hear, then they try to control what say. First they try to control what we read, then they try to control what we write. They don't want censorship just to stop porn, and they don't want to leave it at just censoring where you go on the web.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
If you are in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts or that promote killing people, you are the one with the problem, not me.
No, it's people like you who are the problem!
The danger with cencorship is who decides what is right and what is wrong? Your idea of acceptable may be very different from mine. Who's right?
American's love their guns on TV. Europeans tend to prefer skin. Personally I think the Europeans have that one right.
Your argument about Kiddie Porn and Child Endangerment, software piracy, and violence, are already covered by existing laws . They don't need extra regulations to make them illegal... they already are!
I am in favor of being able to conduct myself as I see fit, as long as I do not break any existing laws, whether you like what I have to say or not. It's called free speech and it's a fundamental freedom. Nobody says you have to listen to me. But don't you dare to shut me up because it upsets you!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game similar to Tetris.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
"We're pretty hopeful that the outcome from all this might be more people making a real commitment to self regulation rather than seeing some draconian regulation introduced."
How is forced self-regulation any different than a law that does the same thing? It's like saying "give me your lunch money or I'll kick your ass and take it!" Admittedly, less ass-kicking is involved, but otherwise you feel just as bad.
I disagree; goatse sent shivers up my spine when I saw it a year or so ago, but ALT-F4 remedied the damage (mostly). I don't think it should be illegal or censored; I didn't follow the other link because I assume it's similar. Who should decide which sites are like the ones above? I'd prefer to decide for myself.
If you are in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts
Define child. It's a bit different (legally) depending where you reside. Are non erotic sex acts ok? Is softporn ok? Who pidgeonholes sites? Maybe Ashcroft?
child endangerment
What about McDonalds.com? They propose feeding kids fatty foods; that's child endangerment.
Software piracy
I 'pirate' software even though I've already bought it; I hate cataloging windows id#'s and putting in a game cd when I want to play so I 'pirate' them though I've paid. Try and use an appropriate term; either copyright infringement, license infringement or DMCA infringement.
If you are in favor of promoting sites that expose children in erotic sex acts or that promote killing people, you are the one with the problem, not me.
What about cnn.com? They extensivily covered the Clinton scandal; you might consider Melinsky a child. They promote war in Iraq (killing people).
Could you clarify your points?
[sarcasm]Of course this is all about stopping pr0n, and NOTHING to do with stopping people from being able to download movies and music.[/sarcasm]
Funny how groups in both Australia and New Zealand starting kicking up a stink about "Filtering", so soon after visits by american "entertainment" industry lobbyists.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
The protection of minors is the job of those minor's parents. If those parents cannot or will not take the time to protect their children, the government should NOT step in.
It takes a village to raise a child but only one idiot to run it.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Here in the US we have lots of 9-5 parents who do not have the time or desire to intervene in their kid's lives as needed. A free Internet allows for graphic porn and worse, especially thru bulkmail at any major public e-mail domain. My own accounts are flooded with junkmail ranging from things illegal in some US states to things better left at the server they came from. Freedom has its prices, and many parents need to intervene more in what their kids are doing. Grnted, that is tough when both parents are working, but latchkey kids can just as easily unlock internet sites unintentionally. Governments are opportunistic creations that tend to centralize power at every opportunity, and here in the US you will find no better example. Post 9-11 there are groups here that have been advocating for deprivation of freedom of communication in order to prevent terrorism, prompting many of our mirror governments (similar to us but not necessarily our puppets; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) to advocate the same. I concur with you that to such freedom for security is too high a price to pay, but unfortunately the freedom to speak of such things is protected by the very freedoms they seek to revoke. Hopefully we can balance freedom with responsibility, but who knows.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Censoring is only needed when the one doing the censoring has something to hide.
Case in point China. Free information is the enemy of those who seek to oppress. It doesn't matter if the oppression is economic or social, it's still oppression.
First you come up with something no one can argue about. "Child Pornography is evil","Communism is the greatest threat to liberty in the 20th century","Al quaidah has forever changed the way we view the world", "Germany was stabbed in the back", They are all the same. Things everyone knows to be true and no one will ever take a stand against.
:
Second, you come up with a solution, and assert if your solution isnt followed, the terrible menace will destroy everything held dear in the world. EX. "if we don't monitor terrorists use of the internet they will attack again","Its perfectly allright to entrap child pornographers because they are scum beyond belief and if we didnt we couldnt catch them","we must purge anyone having communist ties from positions of influence in hollywood","The enemies of the fatherland must be eliminated".
Third, well by the time it gets to three its to late. Something precious and irretrievable has been lost by this point. Its not retrievable but has to be fought for all over again and takes more than a bit of luck to build anew.
To borrow from Ben Franklin
Those that would trade their liberty for temporary safety diserve neither.
Censorship in any form is unacceptable.
Very dangerous statement my friend, taken literally it can lead to very dangerous precedents. I have no problem with consenting adults watching, reading or hearing porn, it is only when the material goes beyond sex and into the how should we put this, realm of the sick fuck that I start thinking about censoring stuff.
Now before you go off accusing me of being a close minded wowser, I have no problem with people either watching or participating in their own fetishes, god knows I have enough of my own, however when it involves children that is where I draw the line. Somethings are just not worth defending and Child Pornography is one of those things.
"Somethings are just not worth defending and Child Pornography is one of those things."
I did not say I defended Child Porn. There are some soceties (I'm assuming the use of society as in "country") though where I am sure it is acceptable. I don't agree it should EVER be acceptable, but who am I to dictate to any populace what is objectionable and what isn't? Whose standards do I use? My own? Yours? the NZ Gov't's? Where does it end, too? It starts with pr0n censorship, soon you can't speak out against the gov't. New Zealanders should just elect a communist gov't and be done with it. At least then the censorship would make sense (wouldn't make it right, mind you).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Censorship's very NATURE IS an all or nothing proposition. Once it's started, it's like that 8 ton locomotive in the fact that not much can stand in the way to stop it. And yes, I think it IS perfectly all right. That's why children have parents. If the parents don't like what's on tv, they can CHANGE THE CHANNEL. It is that easy. Basic cable by me is nearly 500 channels. Around 100 or so are PPV, another 100 or so are music related (not music video's). I have two History Channels, several Discovery channels, National Geographic, TLC, Animal Planet, Sci-Fi channel, Cartoon Network and Boomerang (classic cartoon's like Tom and Jerry). There is NOT a shortage of stuff to watch. If you don't have cable or satellite, buy a vcr or DVD player and watch what ever the hell you want.
Again it is our standards versus theirs. We both agree child pr0n is sick. There are those who don't.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Emphasis is mine. There are better way's to crack down on child pr0n then censorship (such as execute on site those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
What I just can't comprehend is why anyone would WANT to censor the internet. It is a sad and silly lie that anything anyone might see, hear, or read is somehow going to alter their personality or corrupt their character. Yet on a daily basis I see people acting on this idiocy as if it were fact. I've seen mothers fearful that their daughters are going to listen to Britney Spears for fear of them somehow turning into harlots. I've seen this kind of behavior and this kind of attitude all my life and I STILL can't figure it out, at least not by using logic or common sense. The only conclusion that fits the facts is ignorance, foolishness, and maybe even a little mental illness. The thing that suprises me most is how people forget what it is like to be young. Their memory is selective at best. They may remember some things, but they completely forget that young people know how to think. They lack experience of course, but that doesn't make them into human tape recorders. It doesn't make them any more "impressionable" than anyone else.
Censorship is a tribute to the destructive power of stupid people in large groups.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Just remember, any time you want to censor someone on the internet, you have the catch-all "Child Porn" to enable you to do so!
Never mind that it might also "accidentally" stop music/movie trading, and the government "might" expand it later to include prohibiting other sites that, say, are critical of your government, policies, companies, etc...
Thin edge of the wedge...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
This really shouldn't have been modded off-topic, it IS on topic. Internet filtering is EXACTLY what China uses on their own citizens to stop them from viewing objectionable material online.
Currently NZ says they're only going after porn. Maybe someday they'll decide that they should block any websites which are critical of THEIR government.
Censors don't fix problems, they hide them and pretend they don't exist...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
When "sick fuck" has an objective and universal definition, you might have a point.
[...]however when it involves children that is where I draw the line. Somethings are just not worth defending and Child Pornography is one of those things.
Define "children". Should it be age of consent ? Age of majority ? Age when it is legal to consume alcohol (for those countries that distinguish) ? How do you reconcile what is "child pornP in the US may be perfectly legal sex in countries where the age of consent is lower ? How about places that have *no* age of consent ?
It's the licensing requirement that is most worrysome. Concerns over obscene material do not justify the licensing requirement, nor the imposition of a mandatory code of practice (no doubt to get around the protections typically afforded to citizens by the courts).