Slashdot Mirror


Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net

Paul writes "An Australian Senator wants Australians' internet connections to be automatically filtered by ISPs. Anyone who wants to view pornography or 'other adult material' (details not specified) must apply to their ISP to be given access to it. Another step towards becoming a nanny state."

61 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. WTF! by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who's desparate to surf pr0n will find a way around it.

    --
    You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    1. Re:WTF! by moro_666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd love to see how they manage to filter all the content on year 2005/2006, they have to add a massive park of machines for it. And even then they will be unable to do anything about encrypted connections around the internet.

        I can't imagine any possible way to do it. Unless they link all the lambs in australia into one massive quantum supermachine ...

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    2. Re:WTF! by Jessta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main problem is that this is generally about preventing underage kids from accessing porn. The thing is that if kids are intent on acessing porn then this isn't going to stop them. If kids are just accidently coming in to contact with porn then a lot of the time it would be through spam email. Lets see them try to filter a ssl connection to hotmail.

      Some people don't understand the technology, but think they are qualified to make decisions about laws governing that technology. Some People are idiots.

      --
      ...and that is all I have to say about that.
      http://jessta.id.au
    3. Re:WTF! by nx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree that children stumbling upon pornography is a concern, this is NOT a good solution. For instance, why is it an opt-out solution, instead of an opt-in solution? Or why not let the market deal with it: sooner or later, there will be a demand for this service. At that point, any ISP can take it up, and those who want their Internet censored can simply use that ISP.

      Those with a conspiratorial mind may see other uses for this. It's a first step towards general content control. Even though this almost certainly is not the intent, there will always be people who feel that such a great tool can always be used for many more things. Next step might perhaps be blocking (without the opt-out, of course) child pornography. That's not likely to garner much opposition. After that they'll go for snuff, or prostitution. After awhile they'll start finding things that aren't really illegal, just morally reprehensible (to most people). Pretty soon, censoring yet another thing won't be such a big deal.

      There are times when censorship might seem like a good idea. However, anything that might lead to a less free society is not a good solution. It might sound callous, but I'd rather have a few children messed up by seeing pornography accidentally (if that really is such a trauma) than live with a perpetual censoring filter, just waiting to be abused. Parents, find another way to protect your kids, please.

      --
      L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
    4. Re:WTF! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the ISP's job to monitor your child's internet access. It's yours.

      Install Net Nanny or something like that, or as an even more outstanding idea just watch what your kids are doing.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    5. Re:WTF! by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      This politician is apparently terrified that the new generation won't grow up to be as horrified as he is when seing a naked body.

      Apparently he wants the australian population to die out because people will be to scandalised by the very idea of having sex.

      (damn I think I uncovered his master plan)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:WTF! by sqlrob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ditto for any other encryption client.
      Like web browsers that support https?

    7. Re:WTF! by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids were accessing porn way before the internet came along. Whether it was stealing magazines from their parents bedside drawer, or renting foreign films from the local corner shop, kids have had access to porn. There's also 12 year olds having sex, so naturally they are seeing naked people. Shutting it out from the internet isn't going to have any effect on whether or not kids actually get to see "porn".

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:WTF! by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kids were accessing porn way before the internet came along. Whether it was stealing magazines

      When I was 14 I was doing some religion study homework (catholic highschool, it didn't stick) with a team, one of guys asked if we wanted to watch a bootleg porn tape, someone from the AV club had made him a copy. We said yes, off course.

      I could have done without the hardcore scripted shit, I just wanted to see nekkid wimmin, the money shots were weird and pointless.

      The lesson is: If you want to protect the children, STOP LUMPING HARDCORE PORN AND BOOBIES TOGETHER. And stop trying to stop 14 year olds from seeing boobies, it's doing much more harm than good.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  2. wish in one hand... by shams42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I want monkeys to fly out of my ass. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen.

    1. Re:wish in one hand... by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I want monkeys to fly out of my ass

      I thought I had strange hobbies.

    2. Re:wish in one hand... by raoul666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oddly, a goatse link would be informative in response to this parent.

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    3. Re:wish in one hand... by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought I had strange hobbies.

      Don't worry, I think the "buttnakedbroadcasting.blogspot.com" in your sig indicates you're still safely ensconced in the strange-hobby camp. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    4. Re:wish in one hand... by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I want monkeys to fly out of my ass. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen

      You could try a change of diet, I guess

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  3. So? by tajgenie · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what? Isn't the government the same as my parents? The government gave birth to me, raised me, fed me, taught me right from wrong. Surely they should be allowed to censor me?

    1. Re:So? by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      You silly person. You are talking about TV. TV is not the same as the governement.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. Internet != Web by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article talks about the Internet but my bet is that they are talking about content filtering on http traffic.

    Peer to peer is much harder to filter and readily available to the porn industry.

  5. Nasties on the net by Paska · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Keeping kids from nasties on the net"

    Here, I have a much better suggestion - supervision your children while they use the internet!

    1. Re:Nasties on the net by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Completly unworkable.

      You're fucking kidding me, right? Parents supervising kids is unworkable? If parents aren't able to raise their kids, without big brother, perhaps they should put their kids up for adoption (which in Australia is even more of an option, as there is a shortage of unwanted children).

      Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of their bedrooms

      Well, actually, many families do have a dedicated computer room. But that really isn't important to this discussion.

      make sure there is a full time watcher?

      Actually, I do remember knowing someone who wasn't allowed on the computer without supervision (and this was pre-internet). But normally that isn't necessary. It's all a matter of trust. How much do you trust your kids? How much CAN you trust your kids? If you've raised them right, then yes, they won't do the wrong thing. But you have to encourage openness and be someone they can open up to.

      But even if you haven't instilled trust in your kid, you can monitor the computer (there's all sorts of programs that allow you to have varying degrees of monitoring), from a simple net-nanny type program to knowing everything they type on their keyboard. Buy a decent net-nanny program that keeps a log of when it's enabled and disabled. The only thing the kid can do, is delete the log, which will tell you, they've done something they shouldn't have.

      But the real question is, are you going to buy cable with adult channels and not place a lock on the adult channels? Of course you aren't. So why do people do it with the internet?

      Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?

      Are you being satirical? Or are you truly ignorant of the most basic password function on a computer?

    2. Re:Nasties on the net by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you've raised them right, then yes, they won't do the wrong thing.
      More importantly, if you've raised your kids right then they'll be able to see pornography and not be negatively affected by it.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Nasties on the net by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Funny

      supervision your children while they use the internet!

      Why would I want to watch them surf porn? What kind of sicko are you?

    4. Re:Nasties on the net by Koatdus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Completly unworkable. Assume a household with 3 children. Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of their bedrooms (where kids have had their PCs since ..forever...1981 in my case) and make sure there is a full time watcher?



      Um... Yes it is called parenting your children. You, as the adult, are supposed to be in charge of your children and what they are doing. You are supposed to be taking care of them and making sure that they are ok. Not ignoring them while they play on the internet in their rooms with the door closed.

      There is no way in hell children under 16 should have unsupervised internet access. As the parent it is your job to supervise them. Counting on the Government or some "net-nanny" software to do it for you is shirking your responsibilities.

      In my house there are 7 computers. Only 3 of them have access to the internet and they are all in a public room where anyone can walk by and see what is on the screen. My wife and I do walk by on a regular basis.

      The PC's that are in the kids rooms do not have internet access. They can play games, watch dvd's, listen to music, burn cd's, do homework, etc, in their rooms but if they want to use email, IM, or the Web they have to do it in public.

      Coupled with the fact that we actually talk to our kids about what is approprite and what is not, this seems to do the job.

      --
      Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
    5. Re:Nasties on the net by Squozen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh. You probably think your teens aren't having sex too. :)

    6. Re:Nasties on the net by mariox19 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with you on your response. I can't believe the criticisms people come up with, and the alternatives they propose.

      Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of [having computers in] their bedrooms?

      No. We're supposed to forbid free access to all of the adults in a country and force them to register their "perversions" with the government.

      [M]ake sure there is a full time watcher [of children in the househould]?

      No. Why should parents watch their children? Let government watch full-grown adults.

      Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?

      No. Lock up the Internet, and make the adults of a country live under one, giant child-proof cap.

      Please pardon the sarcasm, but it really is sad how some people think. I'm sorry, but children are overwhelmingly the primary responsibility of their parents -- even though that can prove to be "inconvenient" to parents at times.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  6. Um ok by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wildly unpopular, impossible to implement and very, very expensive to even attempt.

    Yup. Sounds like a winning proposal to me.

    1. Re: Um ok by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Wildly unpopular, impossible to implement and very, very expensive to even attempt.

      If it appeals to the voters in his district, the rest is irrelevant.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Nanny-ness of this isn't important compared to by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The privacy issues of such a rule are staggering. Suppose the police want to find out who all the pervs are on a city block. They just subpoena the local ISPs to find out who's applied for pr0n access. Not to mention what happens if the ISP gets hacked (electronically or socially) and someone manages to get a copy of the pr0n access list. I suspect a lot of legislators will eventually be exposed for their hairy palms if such a law ever got passed.

    1. Re:Nanny-ness of this isn't important compared to by scsirob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although you are absolutely right that they can find all the pervs in a city block, they will most likely find that *all* males with an internet connection in *all* city blocks would then qualify as a perv. The problem is that most communities are hypocrits about this and go "Ohh, Noooo, What a shame!" towards anyone who is publicly caught watching pr0n.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  8. Redneck Senator by syousef · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a Tasmanian senator. Tasmania is an Island long associated with jokes about incest and redneck stupidity. For you Americans think West Virginia style jokes (except that Tasmania is a very cold place and it's population quite tiny).

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  9. Does someone have a list of names? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just a senator?

    From TFA:
    LAST month, 62 members of the federal Coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a ban on access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet.

    The signatories believed the internet should be regulated in a similar way to other media. If adults wished to "opt in" to access the material then of course that would be their right, and they would have to apply for their right of access.


    Does someone have a list of names of these idiots, so our Australian friends know who to rail against and vote out of office ASAP?
  10. Pity my elected officials by fatboyslack · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a term of reference for you delightful residents of the US of A, Tasmania is like the US 'south' (rednecks, interbreeding et al) and the 'Liberal' party isn't actually a liberal party, but a conservative party (similar to your Republican party).

    However, this motion/proposal is unlikely to gain legs as Howard (current Australian Prime Minister) would almost certainly leave it as a 'conscience vote' and I sincerely doubt that it will have the popularity to get through the lower house, let alone the upper house.

    And, as I understand it, this sort of 'filtering' would be quite difficult to do and the current upper echelons of politicians *and* public servants switched on enough to listen to those who would advise them on the viability of 'filtering'... so false alarm and ignore the political posturing. The guy is (most likely) in a marginal seat and is trying to buy some credit with the local religious conservatives.

    "while two in five boys had deliberately used the net to see sexually explicit material" ... and the other three were lying about it.

    --
    Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
    1. Re:Pity my elected officials by The+OPTiCIAN · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tut tut - I'm frequently surprised by what qualifies as 'informative' on slashdot.

      > As a term of reference for you delightful residents of the US of A, Tasmania
      > is like the US 'south' (rednecks, interbreeding et al)

        ^- for instance - how does abuse like this qualify as being informative? How do people from the US South feel about this? Or Tasmanians. Why would anyone rate this up?

      Tasmania is nothing like the US South, in terms of people or electoral representation. More than half of the available federal seats in Tasmania are held by notional left-leaning representatives, including people who would identify themselves as very left such as Tas. Senator Bob Brown who is national leader of the Australian Greens. The incumband state government is Labor.

      > and the 'Liberal'
      > party isn't actually a liberal party, but a conservative party (similar to
      > your Republican party).

      The Liberal Party is from the tradition of Australian non-Labor parties, as is its support base. While it's similar to the republican party in terms of the fact that it's notionally the rightermost of the parties, its support base demonstrates a lack of consistency on traditional values. See http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=212. Contrast that to the Republicans which is widely held to have a very firm right-wing base in the area of 'traditional values' (I have no data available). The Liberal Party is more conservative than the ALP and minor parties. But if you asked all the federal Liberal MPs which US political party with which they most closely identified many would say the Democrats.

      The reason for the name is a source of some controversy, but one popular opinion is that the founder wanted the party to be an effective catch-all party and not be pigeon-holed in the way a 'Conservative' party would be. The most effective way to do that is to have a spread of opinions across the notional right. It's meaningless to try and pigeon hole mainstream parties as being 'this' or 'that' ideology though, because practical considerations will tend to override idealogical. They're a catch-all party.

      Of note, the major policies of the LPA are quite similar to many of those of the Blair Labor government (consider cost of education, war against Iraq, etc), and the policies of the Conservatives have in recent times mirrored those of the ALP. Comparisons with the US political scene are tenous. Their cleavages are too different.

      --


      Believe with me, my saplings.
  11. Interesting /. effect . . . by erikharrison · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Slashdot effect seems to have left the server standing, but expired the content in their ad server, leaving only the weird animated "Default Banner" gif, which actually doesn't fit in the provided space.

    http://ds.serving-sys.com/BurstingRes/Site-0/Type- 0/Dbanner.gif

  12. Where do you get this stuff? by poptones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It used to be ozzies had the reputation for being self made, independant, and relatively free thinking individualists. I can sort of understand this stuff here in the US since we screwed up three hundred years ago by not putting those puritans back on the boat from which they came - but lately you people "down under" often make our own fascist government look like sodom in comparison.

    Far be it from me to tell the people of another country how to run their own show... I'm just grateful for the contrast. Every time I see another "we must filter porn to protect the children from carnal knowledge" or "me must outlaw cameras at school sports events to protect kids from the evil paedophiles" stories it reminds me just how much more fucked up things really could be here in the US.

  13. Alternative by quokkapox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FTFA: I believe the system should default automatically in favour of protecting our children before we start considering the rights of adults.

    I believe the system should default automatically in favor of protecting our rights as adults before we start considering the children.

    Big difference...

    The adults who wish to protect the children in their custody can then opt-in (and pay for) whatever safe haven/playpen schemes they wish to create.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  14. Re:Australians... by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Funny
    Then again what can you really expect from a country with people dumb enough to elect Pauline Hanson to parliament.

    She was thrown out after two years when it was obvious what an idiot she was. You re-elected Bush. Who's dumb?

  15. Be a bit nicer! by jurt1235 · · Score: 3, Funny

    (except that Tasmania is a very cold place and it's population quite tiny)

    To start making remarks in which you combine cold with tiny is just not nice. It is always like that when it is cold!

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  16. Okay by me... by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can filter all the porn they want -- as soon as they can define it: http://www.spectacle.org/296/opt.html (Safe For Work)

    (Or, even better, tell me why it's immoral.)

    More seriously:

    There are some fine lines between art and porn...stuff like: http://konzababy.tripod.com/photography.htm
    (?Not?Safe?For?work?) Click the tiny image to enlarge. -- Is this art or porn? (I say art 100%)

    Even closer still are things like http://www.domai.com (Not Safe For Work)

    See this interview (Not Safe For Work) on domai.com for an interesting dialog about nudes/art/porn. -- Is Domai Porn? Difficult to say (I lean more toward yes, but I have reservations)

    Any thoughts? What makes porn ... porn?

    1. Re:Okay by me... by mrsev · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dear Narcc,

      Thank you for the links provided however I must ask that you send more before I can form a balanced opinion onthis very tricky subject.

      Yrs,

      MrSev

  17. Deja vu by Woldry · · Score: 5, Informative

    Libraries worldwide have been contending (with varying degrees of failure) with this sort of proposal for years now. In the U.S., many states now require library Internet computers to be filtered; the federal government has also made it a requirement for most of the federal funding available to libraries.

    Because of these restrictions, the library where I work is filtered. We staff have to immediately disable the filter for any adult patron who requests unfiltered access (and we're supposed to, but often, er, forget to) restore the filter as soon as that particular patron's session is over.

    You wouldn't believe the idiotic stuff that gets blocked -- innocuous, harmless, completely innocent stuff, right alongside the more questionable. One fellow from out of town couldn't log into his own business's web page with the filter on -- presumably because his first name, which appeared in the URL, began with a "D" and rhymed with "ick".

    Meanwhile, the patrons blithely find all the porn and violence and four-letter-word-headphone-breaking rap music they like. They learn very quickly which sites the filter isn't catching, and openly share them with one another.

    The staff terminals have the filtering turned off full-time (technically illegally, if I understand correctly). Although library policy says we are only to turn off the filter "as needed", it's dadblasted impossible to do our jobs with it on, so it stays off.

    So now these Australian senators want to impose this state of affairs on an entire country ... yeesh.

    --
    How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
  18. Rule #1 by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Be very, very, very watchful when you hear someone saying "we need to protect the children". Those people are using an argument that can be used to defend almost anything. And it makes it hard to say "No".

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  19. You don't think they actually comprehend that! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are attributing far too much intelligence to them. Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.

    1. Re:You don't think they actually comprehend that! by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.


      I guess you've never heard of the Great Firewall of China. I'm sure people have found ways around the firewall, but my guess is it's largely effective at limiting the content that the Chinese people can receive.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:You don't think they actually comprehend that! by dwandy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What the Chinese are doing, and what Australia is discussing are two different things.
      China blocks for all citizens, and they lock up people who work around it.
      (So Far) the Aussie is only talking about adopting an opt-in policy. Meaning that people who want to see an unfiltered view of the net can request it. No one's going to get locked up for working around it, since anyone who wants pr0n can just ask...

      I am glad that I'm not in Australia though, because all this means is an increased cost of internet to everyone for a system that can't possibly work, but will leave parents with a false sense of security and a higher taxation rate to pay for "enforcement"...oh, and a list of deviants for the governement to use if there's some kind of problem.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
  20. Exactly -- don't call it a "nanny state." by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call it what it actually is: totalitarianism

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  21. Re:He forgets by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I'm anti-porn, I think it damages peoples minds. . ."

    Well yeah, having your mind damaged by morality'll do that to ya.

    KFG

  22. A lesson for Guy Barnett by itadaku · · Score: 3, Informative
    "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Marginal uber-conservative Guy Barnett should have taken a lesson from his prodige Senator Alston who too, tried to turn Australia's internet into the envy of China's. In 1999 an ultra conservative luddite independant Alston who had lucked his way into a crutial seat in the senate found both majority parties eagar to please the key swing vote. Riding the high wave of a power trip he tried to introduce similar internet censorship legislations which would see ISP's responsible for what is a parents job. Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections and this all failed dismally. Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone.

    Australian's need to write to Guy Barnett and tell him stop the moral grandstanding.

  23. Re:Sigh... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's not even good in theory! It's extremely bad in theory! It's opressive and totalitarian, and is a policy better suited for those "towel-head" theocracies that the US and Australian government are -- allegedly -- enemies of. In fact, it's the kind of idea that in a sane world would get this senator kicked out off office almost immediately, because it's dangerously close to treason for any allegedly "free" society.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  24. Law will have OPPOSITE effect by heretic108 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This law would have the exact opposite of the desired effect:
    1. Parents are presently concerned about kids accessing unwholesome stuff - in the absence of government/isp-level censoring, many parents are actually doing the unthinkable - Spending Time With Their Kids
    2. Kids love breaking rules, so the possibility of accessing illicit material will become more attractive
    3. Two new words will be added to kids' vocabularies: CGI and proxy
    4. For every cgi web proxy the ISPs detect and block, two more will spring up in its place.
    5. Meanwhile, parents and teachers will doze off in a false sense of security that Big Nanny State is keeping their kids safe, while the kids meanwhile are actually seeing stuff that's as bad as ever, maybe worse, with much less parental oversight and guidance than before.

    The only, repeat only way to police what kids see on the net is to have a human in the loop in real time, for every kid. And we could be waiting a while for that to happen.

    Well, I guess the developers of Freenet, I2P and other anonymising networks will be grateful, as support, userbase and donations surge.
    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  25. They have a way around it... by carguy84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just contact the ISP and sign up. Who cares if you look at porn, what's the big deal? It's naked women, how is it "wrong" for us to want to look at it?

    People care way to much about what others think of them. If you enjoy something, fuck what others think.

    1. Re:They have a way around it... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeha, it's not like they'll ever decide to require you to sign up and go through a special set of hoops to be legally allowed to view news or political or activist content over the web in the future or anything!

    2. Re:They have a way around it... by ThJ · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...parents must acknowledge their responsibility and duty of care to ensure their children do not become victims.

      Yesh! We all know that boobs are weapons of mass seduction!

  26. He wants more by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Australian Senator Wants to Censor the Net

    In a separate announcement, he also reported he wanted to get a flying car, a magic wand, a six-leave clover to complete his collection, and an invisible pink unicorn.

    1. Re:He wants more by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      In a separate announcement, he also reported he wanted ... a magic wand

      In the circumstances, wouldn't a robe and wizard hat be more appropriate?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  27. I worry about my child and the Internet by slashedmydot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"

    --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation

  28. Speaking of Censorship by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is "The Revolution Will not be Televised" being censored from the American public ?

    I've been googling for a place to buy a copy, and it's not coming up for me as a possible purchase item. I can find sound tracks, reviews, and books, but no movies.

    Was this never released for purchase ? I haven't seen it in a couple of years, when I caught it at a film festival in San Francisco. I was wanting to show it to some friends.

    I'm refering to a documentary movie on Hugo Chevez/Venezuela, a CIA staged coup, and the revolt of the people caught serendipidously by some Irish film makers. It's seemingly not available for purchase on the intraweb from the US.

    It is also is known as 'chavez inside the coup' according to google. Anyone ever seen this on DVD or VHS ?

  29. This is the least of our worries... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wholeheartedly agree that the only sensible course ofg action is to vote them out of office ASAP. If only!

    Just yesterday, the Australian govt. passed two contentious laws - one that basically undoes hundreds of years of hard-won freedoms at a stroke in the name of "anti-terrorism" - you're not even allowed to makes jokes at the govt's expense now - in fact this posting breaks this new law. Free speech has gone. The other contentious law effectively removes hundreds of workers' rights in the name of 'streamlining the economy' and 'remaining competitive'. Basically it gives employers carte blanche to demand what the fuck they like of an employee, and if they don't like it, they can always leave. This is modern 'liberalism' though quite frankly it's a total abuse of that term that the current regime use it to describe themselves.

    This situation has come about because the Australian people were duped into voting for a totally unevenly balanced parliament, railroaded into this vote by a series of lies and distortions and scare tactics at the last election. (Don't vote for the other lot, they'll take away your right to SHOP!) The resulting majority means that they can currently pass whatever they like and no-one can really fight it. This is NOT what the Australian people thought they were voting for, as neither of these new laws were part of the election manifesto. Just like the USA, who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to, we are sleepwalking into a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.

    If they so choose, this porn bill (if it becomes one) could well pass, then they'll worry about implementation later, no matter howe impractical it might actually be. However, in the scheme of things, this is nothing compared to what they've ALREADY done.

    1. Re:This is the least of our worries... by aug24 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yesterday, in London, England, a woman was convicted of a crime. She had read out the names of each British soldier who has dies in Iraq since the invasion, at the Cenotaph in London.

      This was deemed to be a 'protest' and protests now have to be licensed within half a mile of our lawmakers, who complained that they didn't like them.

      I think the various 'western' governments around the world are having a 'who can get their head furthest up their arse' competition. I'm really not sure who's winning.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    2. Re:This is the least of our worries... by aug24 · · Score: 3, Informative

      She did it on October 25th 2005, and was convicted yesterday. The law is the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005, which criminalises 'demonstrating without a licence' within a half mile or so of parliament. Surf google news for the story, it's been well covered.

      Are we still allowed to say 'police state'? :(

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:This is the least of our worries... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is not whether she broke the law or not; the question is, whether such law is even compatible with the very definition of a free state governed by and in the interests of its people.

  30. I (and Harris Poll) think that you are wrong by Secrity · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think there is a prevalent belief that it is impossible not to be negatively affected by looking at pornography...

    According to Harris Poll: "No Consensus Among American Public on the Effects of Pornography on Adults or Children or What Government Should Do About It" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=606

    There was a study done at the University of Hawai`i concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornograp hy/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

    There was another study done at the University of Pennsylvania concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects. html