Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
"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.
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.
I can has sig?
To silence critics. If you are against the proposal you like child pornography and aids terrorists.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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?"
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.