Australian Government To Mandate Internet Filters

ratzmilk writes "The Australian government is mandating the creation of 'clean' internet feeds. To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'. Said Senator Controy: 'Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road ... If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.'"

Comments

Better check the details

[MichaelSmith]

Stephen Conroy was on the TV talking about this tonight. It looks like they will make a list of sites which "promote violence and distribute child pornography and instruct ISP's to redirect http requests to them.

There is a lot of handwaving in this. Don't mention torrents or proxies. I would be very surprised if they try to block major porn sites which have a mix of content. Conroy has had his photo opportunity. Probably nothing more to see here.

slow boiled frog

[edittard]

'Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road ... If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.'

But it is going down that road. While (I hope) only the most of extreme libertarians would agree that you should be able to watch kiddie porn, it's still a step down that road, and one step leads to another.

It should be clearly stated what is and what isn't to be censored before any bill is even presented. Any politician who says it's not intended to mean X but opposes clarifying the wording should be treated with more than the usual suspicion.

Re:slow boiled frog

[rjames13]

The issue with 'child pornography' is whether you define the veiwing/possesion/dissemination of it to be a lesser/equal offense to creating it. Clearly, the act of creating it is counter to our current collective sociatial morality, but the problem with our current laws is that they equate possesion/dissemination with creation. The problem here, is that the laws are written so broadly, that they can be used against minors as in this case http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm where the minor charged with possesion and dissemination of 'child pornography' (along with child abuse) was the minor depicted in the aforementioned pornography.

The problem with most Americans posting to slashdot is they don't realise that what is legal in their country may not be in another. Please if you are going to discuss this don't link to USA today. This is about Australia we are a different country, I know that is a hard concept to grasp but please try.

Re:If its optional, who cares?

[aussie_a]

They're mandating that ISPs PROVIDE filters for those that want them. Those that don't, can have unfiltered access. Again, like with mandating cars need to have a certain level of safety. That's just as close as saying no car is ever safe enough.

Re:Contradicting Statements.

[cammoblammo]

That seems to be correct. The news reports I've heard (on the ABC, so probably correct) say that it's optional for subscribers but mandatory for ISPs to implement it. In other words, it's an opt out system.

sad state of affairs..

[pjr.cc]

And yet again, the Australian government proves how much they never understood the internet or technology in the first place.

Sadly, conroy is the next in a series of ministers in charge of "technology" who just dont get it - they are sadly idiots. Dont get me wrong, i dont have much respect for politicians in the first place. But theres a level of stupidity you always assume when it comes to sections of government and the people that oversee them. And when it comes to tech and comms, the ministers in charge have fallen so far below par (compared to the rest of the rabble) that its really quite sad.

Perhaps to be fair i should "lack of knowledge" rather than "level of stupidity", but conroy is just a moron im surprised he's not blue in most photo's because he's forgotten to breath again. The prior governments plan was more intelligent, and thats a sad state of affairs in itself.

Re:Republicans say

[djasbestos]

Because both of those things are about as easy as it is for a biologically white man to "be lead down the path" to becoming biologically black, just by looking at some pictures.

Arguably, there is nothing you couldn't brainwash someone to do, but simply viewing an image, accidentally, isn't going to change you, other than perhaps inducing MORE revulsion at child porn in normal people.

Besides, there are few places on the normal internet where you just "oops, porn!" Racy ads, perhaps, but I was under the impression that the only prude in Australia is John Howard, and he's on his way out.

homosexuality and then pedophilia?

These are completely uncorrelated psychological conditions...psychologists and sociologists have proven this.