Slashdot Mirror
New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs
An anonymous reader writes "Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism. This is not the first time material has been censored in Australia, which has previously censored films and banned publications, including one titled Defence of the Muslim Lands (censored in mid 2006 by Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock). The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad containing some of his past controversial sermons calling for jihad and comparing Jews with pigs. The Office of Film and Literature Classification previously classified this DVD as 'PG', suitable for viewing by anyone under 15 years of age with parental guidance."
According to TFA, all they're talking about is changing the designation of films from PG to higher ratings by the *film censors* and not about banning the film from sale or distribution or anything of the sort. The proposed bill would simply require certain topics to have higher censor ratings.
Any free-thinking adult can still buy them.
Two things
1. You apparently have no idea what a constitution actually is.
2. Australia has a constitution.
A constitution is a document the describes rules under which a governing entity operates. It is not a synonym for a document granting free speech rights. The constitution of the USA happens to have such a clause, but it is certainly not a defining feature of constitutions in general.
The article contains nothing but the attorney general ranting a bit on a talk radio show, and the fact that a crackpot MP has introduced a bill into NSW _state_ parliament. No one would back one of Fred Niles's bills on basic principal.
Advanced users are users too!
You're not debating with the fanatics who're producing the material. You're presenting your counter-claims and viewpoints to the OTHER people who might be listening to them.
Who, if they're going to be taking that stuff seriously, are probably also irrational and impossible to engage in a debate.
While censorship can easily be a slippery-slope, you have to remember that in Australia there are still checks and balances in place. While free speech is enshrined in America, it sometimes seems like that's the only thing defending it there.
In Australia, there's no enshrined free speech, government-owned television and radio and no separation of church and state - and yet, because of the Australian character, any perceived government interference people don't agree with gets pushed back HARD (there's been openly racist political parties, the government-owned media is constantly pulled up for anti-government bias, and church-state mixing is usually given the locking it richly deserves), and in an election year where the Government looks like it's in serious trouble, they're not going to antagonise the electorate by suppressing things that people feel they have a right to know.
(You might ask how people are going to know that things are suppressed. Most of the major papers have a Freedom of Information liaison writing a weekly column on what the bureaucrats are trying to suppress, and the television program Media Watch is famously loud-mouthed - even better, trying to get rid of anything that regularly reports on information suppression automatically paints you as a suppressor in the eyes of Australians, Australians being extra-skeptical about people in charge.)
WTF?
He is the attorney general, not governor general, elected like any other member of parliament.
He is an arsehole, not for the incorrect reasons you have given, but because he is a borderline fascist.
"And why people voted to keep us under a monach I will never know."
Perhaps because they were confused like you? More probably they realised that having as many checks and balances as possible is a good thing for normal people.
We are still living under a monarch because at the referendum we had 2 options to vote on.
1) keep the monarchy and current system
2) politician voted president
There was no three, although there should have been, a people voted president. That wasn't put on the ballot so all Australians were fucked over in that referendum. That is why we still live under a FUCKING MONARCHY!
so go easy on me.
I've been a loyal Slashdot reader for years, but have just signed up for an account. It has been apparent that over time the readership has gone from IT professionals with cute little quips to overangsted teenagers who know how to turn on a computer and sign up for an account.
While there have been many articles that have been brought to my attention that would have otherwise been overlooked in my busy schedule, there has recently been a rash of, well put nicely, stupidity being spouted at every chance these keyboard warriors are able.
These comments being brandied about are excellent examples of this downward spiral. Please bear with me whilst I point out the fallacies being brandied about.
1) The government is being racist by banning material?
Since when is Islam a race? Did I miss a memo? Granted the founders of it were Arabic, but since they only constitute ~20% of the total numbers, is it really their religion anymore? If it is, than anybody that hates Christians are racists toward Israelis since they started that religion.
2) Stopping the spread of violent material aimed toward youth means you can not counter it.
This is patently absurd. Remember when you were a kid? And how bitching Britney Spears, MC Hammer, or Christie Lauper was (depending on your age group could be some other 'pop idol')? Could you not agree that the decision making process of a child's brain is not formed well enough to make rational choices? It continues to blow my mind that Christians are crucified on Slashdot, but Muslims are not even though the propaganda they're postulating is so very much more damaging than what comes from the Chistian camp.
3) The government will not know when to stop censoring.
Ahh, the good old "They'll never stop, so we shouldn't have even a little bit". That logic works both ways, remember the Prohibition? For all the hand wringing that goes on in Slashdot, I'd dare anyone to prove that the government has abused their powers to the extent that we have an Orwellian society.
4) Islam is bad. But Christianity is worse.
I want to keep this a short post, but will just throw out some examples of that absurdity. Bombing Internet cafes Mosques telling people they'll die from a "deadly phone virus" Spreading racist rumours that melons will give you AIDS Murdering elderly Buddhists The courts giving free reign to serial killers Attacking university students, vandalising property, and stealing buses
Let me reiterate that the proposed Australian bill is not seeking to ban this material, rather change the system to avoid allowing media that is racist and advocating violence towards others from influencing childern. You must remember that their film board, by the very act of allowing the film to recieve a "PG" rating has essentially given the parents that do a poor job of raising their childern a go-ahead to plop them down in front of a tv and watch this filth.
I propose we get rid of the whole "War on Terrorism". You could never win it. Shoot, the Americans entrance into WWII was pretty much spurred by an act of terrorism. And you know what happened? The US didn't say they were going to fight terrorism. They said they were going to go and get rid of Shintoism and baggage that it carried with it. Only after they had broken that were the Japanese ready to rise to the current power that they now enjoy. The same thing needs to happen in Islam. The followers need to realise that the sway that the evil has over them needs to end. Only than will it be a legitimate religion.