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."
This just allows them to switch from spending their time burning DVDs to spending their time cutting the heads off of US Servicemen in Iraq.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
And how long will it be until some religious zealots includes such films as "The Wizard of Oz" because you know the wicked Witch of the West was doing all sorts of things that might be considered "terrorism." Oh, and that Harry potter series THAT has got to go and...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I guess V for Vendetta would just be a blank screen and bleeped from the opening title?
OK, here goes any karma I may have. First off, I am an Australian. Secondly, I hate our current government, John Howard is George Bushs' lapdog. Thirdly, I totally agree with these measures, if indeed they become law. Why, I hear you ask? Simple, really. People, there are serious NUTJOBS running around, not only in Oz, but all over the world. Why should we as a community fan the flames of their insanity by providing them with inflammatory video material? I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in any pro-terrorist video or book. If somebody, anybody, wants to study this garbage for some obscure reason, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult to import a copy or whatever. Free speech is all fine and dandy in the abstract, but when that extends to exhorting terrorism or violence or jihad, well, fuck off, I prefer that it is not allowed. I am serious.
I'm in to sadism, bestiality and necrophilia. Am I flogging a dead horse?
But the British Empire never gave its subjects one...
Then, again, even the Free Speech-protecting Constitution is no guarantee of Free Speech, as the presence of rather draconian laws against possessing child pornography in America demonstrates...
We may all be revolted by the child pornography, but we have to remember, that the defense of pornography in general (Larry Flint et al.) was based on the Free Speech argument — not on the usefulness of the art or anything like it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Imagine I make two DVDs. In the first DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for NATO to bomb the Serbian TV station during the Kosovo crisis. I argue that although some 15 civilians were killed, it was a legitimate target since it was a Serbian propaganda tool (which is what NATO argued). On the second DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for the IRAQ to bomb the BBC because the BBC is a tool of British propaganda.
Both should be condemned as terrorist acts and their justifications dismissed. Governments are just as capable of committing terrorist acts as small non-government groups are. The problem is we allow governments to get away with it time and time again, whereas we actually make some effort to pursue the "small guys".
Religion has a utility.
e ts-court.html
If you're dealing with a bunch of peasants who are too primitive and uneducated to be able to behave in a fashion that is in their own long term self interest, religion will allow a wise man to say to his fellows "Forget why we should live this way, GOD said to live this way, so do it." and they do.
This will allow them to behave in a co-ordinated fashion, and that is going to provide them benefits.
But it makes them sheep.
If you follow a religion, you're following a cult of a dead wise primitive. If it's good advice, good. But when not if it becomes bad advice, you all die and scatter to the four winds. You die because you're a bunch of stupid sheep and you didn't know why you were doing what you were doing in the first place, let alone how to recognize when it's stopped being wise.
It's served humanity well. Take the whole sexual taboo thing. Look at Africa, the AIDS problem thing, imagine there's no condoms and no medicine. In an environment like that, the group of primitives that has a religion with sexual taboos will survive while the others go the way of Soddom.
But it's not ideal.
It's not even good, not by the standards of any educated person.
It's a bunch of lies and charlatanism and propaganda techniques, generally only effective on the young and the desperate.
People should be able to make educated and informed decisions about how to live without having their minds polluted with the belief that justifying actions and decisions with faith and desire instead of reason is an ok thing for them to do.
It's not an ok thing for them to do, it's an insane thing for them to do.
It makes them a danger to themselves and others, and it makes them a weapon with shining eyes and no brain, ready to be wielded by power-hungry charlatans.
Oh, if you want a more direct example, you can look at yesterdays headline on CBC.ca.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/04/16/sextupl
Jehovah's Witness parents of sextuplets. Don't believe in blood transfusions, so they let 2 of their babies die before someone with more sense than political savvy stepped in and seized the kids. Now they're suing the government for violating their human rights. They'll likely win. Shame about the dead babies...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Lies and propaganda. I know Muslims who live with dogs, quit over-generalizing and otherwise making sweeping claims. Heck, I'm Muslim and I had a Buddhist roommate by choice for about a year, not to mention my sister's dog.
Theo van Gough was a far-left figure who ignored protests from moderates and ordinary Muslims and did something pretty insulting. That does not excuse his murder, but don't act like he's the only guy who ever tried a reasoned debate, which happens every day with much better consequences. Beat it, Troll.
Yes, under Australia's revised sedition law.