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

Contradicting Statements.

[EdIII]

"To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'"

If they really stick to that deal, then maybe there won't be a problem.

However, if the "control" is optional, why is it called regulation? Last time I checked regulation was not optional. Furthermore, why even start in this first place. People can apply their own filters. It's called free will.

Re:Contradicting Statements.

[fastest fascist]

And whoever opts out obviously must WANT to see kiddie porn. Clever.

Re:Contradicting Statements.

[cammoblammo]

Where did we get the idea that this only covers kiddie porn? As far as I can tell from TFA it's going to cover anything 'inappropriate', although the good Senator does use kiddie porn to shut down the freedom of speech angle.

Re:Contradicting Statements.

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service

which will automatically put them on the "predators" blacklist. If it's really opt-out, that would contradict the summary, so which is it?

If its optional, who cares?

[aussie_a]

Schools already employ filters so either people should be outraged over that (I've yet to hear anyone outraged) or they shouldn't care. While ever its optional for home users, who cares? What next, angry at laws that require cars have a certain level of safety before they're allowed on the road in case the government goes one step further and says no car is safe on the road?

Re:If its optional, who cares?

[aussie_a]

Its frightening that people like you not only have mod points, but can also vote! Regardless, I'll try to respond to your incoherent ramblings.

What happens when they come for you? they aren't? how long before they do? They aren't going to arrest anyone. At all. They're not going for anyone. They're simply mandating that ISPs provide a service for the people the government represents.

Re:If its optional, who cares?

[Znork]

"This hurts other people."

IMO, the more convincing argument would be that the spread of such images itself perpetrates harm upon the victims. I cant even imagine how much more difficult it would make dealing with such psychological trauma.

Of course, the rational arguments are usually rapidly thrown out the window as they then continue to ban everything from artist depictions to CGI.

Re:Why

[Nossie]

I hope that's sarcasm....

It's called shock value -- the media have done it for years... .. The government have only JUST caught on... kinda.

logic takes a breather

[bcdm]

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

Right, because looking at ANY "inappropriate" material (and who decides what "inappropriate" is, anyway?) is the EXACT same as looking at child porn. No difference whatsoever.

Granted, you can opt out of this service, so I'm not 100% incensed that such a thing is being called for (but I'd be much happier if it were opt-in instead of opt-out). However, I am very pissed that people can make statements like the above and not get laughed out of office. When did false equivalency become acceptable? It makes my head asplode sometimes.

Re:Why

[Carewolf]

To silence critics. If you are against the proposal you like child pornography and aids terrorists.

Talking about a breather...

[poptones]

How is it false? If your neighbor jacking off in his basement to pictures of 8 year olds really harms you, then so does him jacking off to pictures of women sucking off donkeys, right? But how is that not like him taking pleasure in shooting cops, or watching videos of people shooting cops? What about talking to people about how he likes jacking off to pics of 8 year olds? Or talking to people about how he likes shooting cops on the tv? Doesnt that just reinforce the behavior?

How you folks continue to justify one step down the slippery slope is beyond me. How about the idea "stay the fuck out of my home and I'll stay the fuck out of yours?"

Re:Talking about a breather...

[jamesh]

How is it false? If your neighbor jacking off in his basement to pictures of 8 year olds really harms you, then so does him jacking off to pictures of women sucking off donkeys, right?

I don't think he said it harms 'him'. (forgive me GP if I have your gender wrong). Just because something doesn't harm you directly doesn't mean you should let it happen.

As for your question about where to draw the line on your 'slippery slope', it's fairly simple to figure out... was a person or animal harmed during the creation of the pictures in question? There is plenty of evidence that sexual abuse of children causes huge problems in them for the rest of their lives, so obviously that's a no-no. In many countries, an animal is by definition not capable of consenting to a sexual act, so obviously bestiality is out too.

I'm sure that if you think about the rest of your questions sensibly you'll come up with answers, and understand why some things should be illegal, even if you 'do them in your own basement'.

Re:Better check the details

[Kjella]

We have the same kind of kiddie porn filter here in Norway. If you believe the hit numbers they report, there's got to be a lot of it and a lot of sites that are able to operate long after being classified as kiddie porn. I've come to the conclusion that it must be one of three:

a. You call these 17yos legal, we'll call it kiddie porn
b. You call these not pornographic, we'll call it kiddie porn
c. There's a significant part of the web where you can post kiddie porn with impunity

At any rate, I think it's so trivial to get around that I doubt anyone actively trying to circumvent it has any problems whatsoever. Though I suppose it migth keep a few people from ending up somewhere they didn't intend to...

Re:slow boiled frog

[MichaelSmith]

Someone will find a way around it, then everyone will have a way around it, and then your are back where you started except that you've spent millions of dollars which would have been better spent hunting down the people who hurt the kids in the first place.

If you are a Labour party senator you have bought valuable votes to tuck away for the next election, and got your face on the evening news. That is well worth the millions of dollars.

And if you want to bypass a filter, a 13 year old is definitely the person to see about it.

Re:slow boiled frog

[SacredByte]

The main problem with this legislation is that it is based on a slippery slope fallicy; The fact that you can tell the difference between group sex among consenting adult and forced sex between adults and children means that you can tell the top of the slope from the bottom.

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.

Add to this the problem of the label 'sex offender,' and you have a recipie for disaster. The biggest problem with the label 'sex offender' is that it is so broad, encompasing everything from raping and murdering an adult, to molesting (a) child(ren), to public urination. Add to this that politicians make laws abridging the freedoms of these so called 'sex offenders' all whilst waving the 'protect the children' banner. The best example of this are laws requiring 'sex offenders' from handing out candy on Halloween. The issue here is that the 'sex offender' label does not differentiate between granny-rapists and child-rapists, thus unnecessarally abridging the freedoms of those who have never sexually exploited children.

I have little problem with laws that punish certian offenders equally and equitibly, but I feel that current laws restricting 'sex offenders' are so broad, that they associate such completely different crimes (public urination has as much to do with intercourse as my use of a car to get to a bank has with a bank robber's use of a car for his getaway) with one another thus causing it to fall into the realm of "cruel and unusual punishment" as people automatically assume that 'sex offenders' have sexually exploited another human (usually a minor) resulting in those so labled having difficulty living 'normal' lives.

Re:Better check the details

[Chandon Seldon]

Here in Sweden, it's explicitly to prevent "healthy" people from accidentally seeing kiddie porn, because they (the filterists) believe that pedophilia is contagious; if someone sees kiddie pron, they will become pedophiles. No, I am not making this up.

You should be able to simply ad-hominem them out of the discussion in that case. Get to state their position on TV and simply respond with "So then, what you're saying is that if you saw a picture of a little boy getting it on with a dog you would be sexually aroused?"

Re:Better check the details

[ScrewMaster]

Get me?

Possibly he does not. Some people, a lot of people, want to be told what to think, want someone, anyone, to keep all the bad stuff away from them, all the bad thoughts out of their pretty little heads. I think it's some kind of a longing for a return to early childhood, I don't know. But he's right about one thing: ideas have power. The problem is, being afraid of exposure to ideas can enable other people to have power over you. Personally, I think it's better to accept that life has an ugly side and make your own judgments about right and wrong, than have some arbitrary and untrustworthy agency put a pair of electronic rose-colored glasses atop your head and make those decisions for you.

But that's just me. Joe Australian may have a different opinion, although I've always had this idea in my head of Australians being a fiercely independent people. I'd be sorry to hear that's not true.

Re:Some FUD here? Then is a v-chip gov. censorship

[QCompson]

They're not MANDATING the USE of the filtered content, only that the ISP has to make it available. While they may not be forcing Australian citizens to use the internet filter, they're doing the next worst thing because you have to take an affirmative step in order to get it removed. The ISPs/government will have a handy list of all the "perverts" who want access to the unfiltered internet. There's no excuse for why this is an opt-out filter in private homes.

Re:Better check the details

[1u3hr]

So it is only logical that some people will develop a taste for kiddie porn once they see some of it.

No,it is not "logical". You may have noticed that there are "children" in the REAL WORLD. Anyone likely to be sexually stimulated by looking at pictures of children would already have noticed he was getting a hard on when walking past a kindergarten, or at the beach or swimming pool.

This kind of thinking is exactly why women are compelled to wear burkahs in fundamentalist Muslim countries.

And besides, even if some people did "develop a taste for kiddie porn", the evidence that that translates into real world action is thin. Lots of people sit on the subway reading horrific serial killer novels on the way to work. Hardly any go n to become serial killers. However, kiddie porn itself should be illegal, because of the harm done to the participants in the making. But that is a completely separate issue, and filtering is going to make zero impact on that.

Re:Better check the details

[Hucko]

Joe Australian

doesn't sound Australian. It is likely to be "Mr. Jones down the road" or Bluey, Red, Old Mate, Cobber, Jack (or Jacky Jacky) or "The Average Bastard". (Some may refer to Richard Cranium but it is a diminishingly small number.)

No, we aren't particularly independent. If we were, we would've got rid of the bloody pommies years ago. We hate grandstanding and hierarchy/class systems though, so we do tend to lean towards anarchy as a preference. However, we are very communal. For instance our national heroes tend to be antisocial criminal bastards that formed gangs. If you are willing to have a go, you're a part of the community. Self depreciating could also be a pivotal Australian charateristic.

Cobber over there may have a different opinion, although I've always had this idea in my head of The Average Australian Bastards being a fiercely independent people. I'd be sorry to hear that's not true.

Yeah, well, sorry bout that. Win some, lose some.

Re:Better check the details

[PitaBred]

So move to the EU somewhere where the government will take care of you and everyone to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. Here in America, we were founded more on the idea of personal responsibility and freedom. If you don't like being free, GTFO. And no, I don't think the direction our country is taking is the right one, and GWB has done more to harm American freedom than any other person in history, including King George III.

You have the freedom to go to a website without being spammed with porn. If you can't figure out how to do that, you should just not use the web, since you're obviously incompetent. Raise your kids to know when something is a bad idea, and they won't be "copycats". Really, it's all pretty easily dealt with unless you don't want to take a little bit of time to educate and protect yourself. And if you don't want to do that, go find some Socialist state to live in.