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...
"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!
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 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?