Slashdot Mirror
Australia Plans to Censor the Internet
SenatorLuddite writes "From January 20, 2008 new content laws introduced by the Federal Government will force sites to verify the age of users before accessing content intended for mature audiences (MA15+ and R18+). The laws bring internet classification into line with Film and Book classification laws and completely prohibits X18+ and RC content from the internet. ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority) claims that adults will not be affected by the new laws, yet user-generated and even chatrooms are required to be assessed for classification and powers are granted to ACMA to send 'take down' notices to offending sites."
Oh, I can see that this will work out well.
My guess is that a lot of small operators won't be able to comply, and that a lot of traffic will move offshore if this is really implemented. This law could take us back to the good old days, when almost Aussie web traffic went across the Pacific.
Ban children from the Internets. By all means build a kindernet and police an regulate it to fuck, but leave the adult net alone.
An internet service (web site, chat room, etc) cannot possibly be expected to accurately determine anything about an internet user. Even credit card verification doesn't work, since any kid can borrow their parents' credit card and any identity thief can supply someone else's stolen credit card information.
I hate seeing any kind of law that burdens internet services with having to "verify" anything. Instead, what I want to see are laws that throw irresponsible parents and conservative holier-than-thou types in prison for dragging the rest of society down.
Your 13-year-old daughter was raped when she met up in real life with a 40 year old man from MySpace? Then you should be thrown in prison for not making yourself aware of what your daughter was doing online and for failing to teach your daughter to be smarter than that.
Your 14 year old son was looking at porn? So what? Neither YOU nor anyone you knew ever looked at porn when YOU were 14? And every man who snuck looks at boobies and crotches when he was a teen has grown up to be some kind of dysfunctional degenerate psychopath? Hardly. Get off your conservative high horse.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Neither link provides any detail about how they're going to make such rules stick. What will be the fine for a blogger in Brisbane that talks about goat sodomy?
Also, how would such a crime be prosecuted? Most police work in Australia is state-based and not federal. I'm assuming there is an equivalent to the FBI which will handle detection, evidence collection and prosecution.
Are they going to use packet filtering to detect what people download or will they simply be picking on ISPs hosting content for not hassling their web serving customers?
Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just looking at this as a scare tactic without teeth, since the notice from Canberra makes no mention of tactics. Please provide links if you find them.
If you have age verification for children, you have to verify EVERYONE. If you have to classify "mature" content, you have to classify EVERYTHING.
It sounds just like the calls for special tamper-proof ID for resident aliens here in the USA which will require that EVERYONE will have to show their papers please.
Why not? Have a .kid domain, have the kid oriented content publishers (ex. Disney, FisherPrice ) finance it, and let parents restrict the internet to that domain.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Because, you know, in a world of war, terrorism, economic depression and a climate change that just might wipe us out as a species, protecting the children from something their hormones will drive them to in five or ten years (if that) with a force that nukes pale against is certainly the most important thing to do.
I say fuck the children - not literally, except if they want to fuck each other, they've got my blessings as long as they know some basic health principles (for both physical and mental health). So how about we stop worrying about the children and start worrying about the real issues?
Because, when you think about it, things are very simple. Either, growing up the way past generations did wasn't totally fucked up, and the kids will be just fine, or if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as "real," it's more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I've seen, I think I'm pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I'm probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let's just leave the Internet alone, no?
That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I'm fine with it.
OT:
I finally watched Wizard People, Dear Readers, and it is the best thing in the world. If you die before you watch it, you lose.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Yeah, but if I don't register or vote, others will choose for me. And if I register and vote, I would like to be able to select those who will represent me. In my country it's possible. In USA there are only two parties, so it's not possible.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
The system has broken down.
We really are down to Kang and Kodos with our current system.
Unless we all step up and have the balls to vote for someone different, this kind of thing will be coming your way soon.
The whole "save the babies" bit gets votes.
Me? I'm voting for Ron Paul.
A
However,
Do not confuse
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's okay. In Australia, we'll fine you if you don't vote. (Hint: in Australia, it's illegal to not vote, everyone has to, whether they want to or not. It changes the political system significantly, and judging by the way you people complain all the time, for the better.)
In most multi-party parliamentary systems, the prime minister has much less power than the president in a system like in the US. (no veto!) On top of that, the prime minister can only pick from elected officials to create his cabinet, not his Yale friends and business buddies, making them far more accountable.
Also, that one party with 33% doesn't hold all the power, the entire parliament holds the power. Yes, the party that creates the cabinet has more opportunity to introduce bills, but it takes a majority vote of parliament to pass them.
Lastly, Australia uses "Preference Voting". To translate that to real US terms: you can safely vote for Nader without by doing do increasing the Repugnicans' chances to win the election.
That's intentional. It's an attempt to balance the power of small and large states. A pure direct vote can suck if you live in a less populated region of a larger entity. You can end up with a situation where a few heavily populated regions have so many votes that they ignore the interests of everyone else. It's a real problem in many states.
Another issue is recounts. What happens if candidate A beats candidate B by a tiny margin of the direct vote? There will always be allegations of fraud in some places. What if candidate B asks for a nation-wide recount? The current system tends to limit the damage to a small number of states where there were allegations of fraud and the race was close enough for it to matter.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
On the contrary, the Prime Minister in a Westminster style system has much more power than the President of the USA, because the PM fully controls the legislative agenda.
In the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, laws that spend public money or raise taxes must be accompanied by a "Royal Recommendation". Since the Monarch of each country with respect to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has been an automaton since at least 1936 (and for hundreds of years with respect to the UK and its legal predecessors), acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister, this means that the PM has a veto on whether Parliament can even consider most important bills. Ireland and India have similar rules, but have (appointed) Presidents instead of a (heridtary) Queen and (appointed) Governor-General.
This is Section 56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (current version): "A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated." The Senate and House of Representatives both have rules and standing orders forbidding the debate of votes, resolutions or proposed laws that may not be passed, and the President or Speaker enforces these assiduously.
Moreover, in all of these countries except the UK, either the Royal Assent can be deferred, or the Proclamation can be deferred, in the event Parliament passes a Bill that the Prime Minister does not want. In the UK, the Royal Assent has been automatic and has not involved the Monarch or the Prime Minister since the early Victorian era; Proclamation is not a feature of the UK system -- an Act of Parliament that receives Royal Assent becomes law immediately (or at a future date fixed in the Act itself). It is pretty clear that if it became necessary, the Prime Minister could constitutionally insist that "the Queen withhold Royal Assent in order to consider the Bill" ("la Reyne s'avisera", is the Norman French formalization), which in practice would mean sending a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament.
This is described in Sections 58 (Royal Aseent) and 60 (Proclamation) of the Australian Constitution.
Finally Section 59 of the Australian Constitution uniquely retains the power of Disallowance (it was abolished with respect to Canada and New Zealand, and never existed in the United Kingdom). (It reads: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.")
In effect, these tools represent a Prime Ministerial veto over legislation, available even if the majority of Parliament supports a bill.
Section 59 might actually be used by the new government. It is normally considered a political mistake to do so, but since the campaign dealt with legislation forced through at the end of the Howard premiership, it is plausible that the new Prime Minister can claim an electoral mandate to exercise the power.
In short, the veto powers of a Westminster-style Prime Minister far exceed those of the President, who must veto or not within a short period of time, and whose veto can be overturned by Parliament.
In the Westminster system, the only remedy for Parliament is to refuse to pass the bills the PM actually wants, or to withhold confidence in the government (by declaration of no confidence, or the defeat of a supply bill), which likely would trigger an election. However in that case it is the PM who decides whether to name a replacement, try to secure confidence with a new set of ministers, or set an election date. The Monarch or Governor is expected to act like an automaton in this