Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Censorship "Live Trials" Won't Be Live
Xiroth writes "In what could be the first step to backing down on the plans to censor the Australian Internet, Communication Minister Stephen Conroy has made it known that the live trials of the Government filter will not, in fact, be live, instead being downgraded to a closed network test. Given that this would provide no further information than what Government tests have already provided, this may prove to be a face-saving measure before the plan is quietly scrapped. Nonetheless, concerned Australians are encouraged to attend protests planned for this weekend to ensure that the Government gets the message."
It turns out the UK has been censoring the web all along.
I'm surprised this hasn't been on Slashdot already as it's been on the news quite a bit here.
Who decides what to censor? Why do they get to decide? Put 4 Aussies (or, for simplicity, 4 humans),in a room, and you'll get 6 opinions. I'm in favour of censoring you. What if I were awarded that right by whomever you have chosen gets to decide? How would you feel about censorship then? cheers,
Censorship is never a good idea (or even "not a bad idea" ). You probably think that because you probably never lived in a country where real censorship existed (and often with "immoral" people "disappearing", after all, it's easier to silence the critics as they appear than to dismiss and censor all that they say).
If you let the government tell you what is "immoral" and what isn't , you go in a pretty slippery slope. Today you may have a "good" government; but no one knows if tomorrow the members of your government go insane and define that now you will live under a dictatorship which will allow them to filter anything they consider "immoral".
Now, what is a good idea is parents educating their children for the real world , teaching them that different opinions exist and some of them are (according to some societies, religious or political groups) immoral . Shielding children from the world will only lead to a mass of sheep that can be easily controlled by the media and the government and can't take their own decisions.
That might be the case if there was any chance it would even remotely work in the real world. But I think this is a sign of them finally coming to the realisation that it is going to flop spectacularly and this is a way to find that out away from the publics view.
A real world trial would have showed up all the problems that everyone has been pointing out, and it would have brought those problems right into the homes of voters all over the country.
This way they can continually have it in testing until it fades from the publics mind then mothball it.
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
I will say it one last time. You have clearly not read the national classification legislation. Otherwise you wouldn't be consistently making incorrect statements. Stop being ignorant, go read it, or shut the fuck up. I don't think this is unfair. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have the means to educate yourself, but you choose not to.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship.
I agree.
Censorship is not inherently bad.
I disagree. Would you care to make an argument? I really am interested in hearing it. You have an open platform. Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.
How we know is more important than what we know.
In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information ...
Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret. Most Australians, myself included, would not disagree with censorship to some degree. However this is a power which in the hand of executive government (or indeed a private organisation) has a great potential for abuse. Consequently what is required is complete transperancy. The secrecy of current plan achieves the opposite of what our system of government requires.
The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.
Exactly! And given the decisions of the High Court regarding the "implied right to political communication," inherent in the Constitution, it is also beyond the power of government to do so. If, however, we are to be kept in the dark as to what is being banned, how can we have any confidence a government is not indulging in such unconstitutional behaviour?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I've read all your comments. You have said:
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Repeating yourself and declaring your opinion to be correct does not an argument make. Why do you think censorship is "useful"? What are these "good reasons" you have for censorship? I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Guy guys guys, not even close, its more like this:
1. Drink Beer
2. Knee jerk reaction to minority public opinion
3. Implementation
4. Ignore public opinion, frame debate in terms of moral shades of black and white
5. Drink beer
Note the whole 'concept' part is where you have all been getting this wrong.
Where is it? Come on Rudd, where the hell is the broadband infrastructure promised during the campaign?
This is what gets to me the most of all in this debate, they have not even begun to build the infrastructure they promised to build, and here we are bogged down in this utter waste of time instead! I am dead set against the censorship plan, but what I am even more pissed off about is that the national broadband scheme has taken a back seat to this bullshit!
The one reason this government appealed to me is that they appeared to understand the importance of infrastructure to the digital economy. But it seems like they are not even close to getting it.