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."
Will that include archival news and documentary footage about the US funding of the taliban and Iran contra?
Censor only those who would censor!
First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
Next, "terrorist" means minority party.
(IANAL)
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.
So instead of being able to counter racist propaganda with reasoned debate and counter evidence, it all goes underground and spreads unchallenged and unopposed.
Saying that people you disagree with are not allowed to talk makes it look as though you are unable to counter what they say.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Do religious videos that convince young people to terrorize people who are different them (say, gay people) considered terror videos? Or do they only mean terror videos that involve someone else's god and belief system?
Err.. you mean GTA3.. there were a bunch of GTA games before it ya know.
I really don't think this is the same kind of censorship. GTA3 was removed from store shelves because it failed to meet the required classification of "Mature" and there is no "Restricted" rating for video games.
This, on the other hand, is the deliberate surpression of political speech under the guise of "terrorism".
If you wanna compare the lack of R ratings for video games to something, compare it to our stupid "net bet" laws. Fuckin' nanny state.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Incredibly dumb move. It just draws attention to some material that probably sucks.
Back in 1989, during the 2 Live Crew censorship controversy, I remarked, after listening to their stuff, that without the censorship, they would have never made it off the South Florida club circuit. With the censorship controversy, they hit #29 on the Billboard 200. But by 1991, they'd peaked, and broke up around 1992. There was a "New 2 Live Crew", which went nowhere and broke up in 1995, a reunion in 1998, and another reunion in 2005. Nobody cared much. Wikipedia says "The two core members are still popular within the Miami Bass community and Dancehall goers".
Or, in other words, they're back on the South Florida club circuit where they belong. Censorship gave them their 15 minutes of fame.
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 mean it is a film of a man being tortured for two hours...
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
I guess V for Vendetta would just be a blank screen and bleeped from the opening title?
Reducing how much exposure such DVDs get may reduce how many are produced, which is hard to argue as a bad thing.
Most of the people producing these things aren't doing it for money. They're doing it because they're true believers. If we give the appearance that any idea, no matter how controversial or stupid, is being suppressed it will only generate more interest in it.
Look at holocaust denial. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that the holocaust happened, but giving the appearance of suppression to the way we handle deniers generates interest and grassroots approval for those who deny it.
So yes, it IS a bad thing to censor information, even if you think it's being done for a "good" reason.
If it was up to the current junta one should not read anything but the Bible and should not watch anything but romantic comedies and action films where the all-around good American hero beats/shoots/blows the shit out of all enemies of freedom and democracy or possibly where friendship and courage paves the way to a better future and/or eliminates all vampires, evil aliens and those who do not vote the right (pun intended) way.
Don't forget that this is a country which took Fatcat, a children's programme featuring a big cat off screen on the basis that the cat had no clothes and thus indecently exposed him/herself (hard to know with a cat costume, really) to innocent children. On the other hand, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Power Rangers were perfectly OK. This is a country where on a BBC science show about the human reproduction pixelised the placenta (held by the reporter, no woman or baby in sight) for its explicite sexual nature...
There is already a terror censorship on books, now there will be one on DVDs. Business as usual.
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?
Ripped Off! That war cost Aussies $3 Billion and now they won't let us watch the movie?
Here's an Idea: Why don't don't they get SONY to distribute the Terror videos?
Most 'customers' would find it doesn't work on their video player. When they try to watch it on their PC, they get a SONY RootKit.
Now imagine the look on Osamas face when he sees a 'Spyware Detected' Popup. I can't think of a faster way to flush a band of Mujahadeen out of their cave.
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.
Any banning of the Sheik Feiz DVDs will only boost their popularity amongst disgruntled western suburbs muslim youth. Illegality increases desirability. And the 'cheap dvd burner' genie has already escaped from the bottle.
What's needed to counter this is not repression - "repress a religion, and it will flourish" (Frank Herbert), but a social outreach campaign to seek to discover why these pissed-off young westies are so easy to reach, and how to entice them into other less destructive outlets for their energies.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
What you say is true about rational people. Ever tried to debate irrational people? Logic and common sense do not prevail.
Not that I support censorship in general, but I see this as far more appropriate to censor than almost anything else that's already being censored. All the other stuff is just fiction.
Rational people do not exist, except in your fevered imagination.
Humans are rationalizing beings, not rational beings.
Dear Government:
Sales are slumping... Please ban my works!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Censorship is a beauty only held in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the "Nappy headed Ho's" off the cuff remark by Imus. Press conferences were held, meetings with the governor and Imus were held, the "Ho's" in question went on Oprah, and also Jesse Jackson wants the word "Nigger" actually banned. BUT, some jagoff can produce a dvd/post on the internet calling for the DEATHS of the Jews, and actually incite violence against another race and religion, but nobody cares. There is no such thing as a totally "free" society. Saying you hate Jews and calling them pigs is one thing. Inciting others to kill, or attack a religion or race is not something that should be allowed but is, especially if the "free speech" advocates are Islamic Extremists.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
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.
Besides, where is the line drawn? When you allow the government to "censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism", does that mean the DVDs used as an example? Or does that also include any news story that mentions any weaknesses in any industry, port, airline, or in safety procedues? Any news story critical of the military or armed forces? Any book or website that in any way, discusses anything that conceivably (or inconceivably) could be used as a weapon?
Is disagreeing with your government's stance on terrorism "supportive of terrorism"?
Is all of our news subject to redaction by official goverment goons?
Sorry, but censorship is not "appropriate".
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
the summary says the australian government MAY propose new laws..
I'm not up to par on the finer points of aussie government, but it sounds like this nerd rage wankoff is based simply on speculation of something that might happen. Like the "Canadian DMCA" article.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
In any given human conflict, the attacked side will end up mirroring the enemy to win.
The Bolsheviks are the most obvious case of this- attacking the Czar for classism and his secret police, then setting up the NKVD/KGB and creating a two-class society of party members and dead people.
But also look at the American Revolution- setting up the Constitution in reaction to what they saw as broken about the Magna Carta.
The Islamic extremists are mimicing thier mythology about what the Zionists want to do to them.
Evil always begets evil, no matter what.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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!
If these things go underground quietly, then it will be as good as winning a debate. People won't see it or hear about it, won't think about it.
If it enters public discussion, it gives the impression that there are two sides to the debate. And if there are two sides to the debate, then it seems rational for a person to sit on either side, so long as they have some reasons to give (whether or not they are good).
Censoring this DVD will go a long way towards stopping the ideas from spreading...much more so than reasoned and open debate. Give people a forum to discuss their ideas, and suddenly they have more advertising than they could ever have hoped for to persuade those who are likely to be persuaded. Hide it from the public eye and they'll find it much more difficult to spread their ideas.
Note: I'm not saying whether this approach is right or wrong, but rather just how effective it is.
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".
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.
Absolutely. While we are at it, we should let the KKK and every other hate group speak at school assemblies. After all, refusing to allow them makes us look as though we are unable to counter what they say. I mean, it's not like crap like this can unreasonably affect young minds... right?
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!
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
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.