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."

Comments

While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[iDav]

It's new here because our supposedly left-of-centre Labour government is trying to impose a decidedly right-wing policy on the public. That and the (dis)Honourable Senator Conroy responsible for the plan shows only complete disregard for the truth and logic, and utter disdain toward the general public and ISPs.

The primary reason for the protesting and media coverage is the fact that the blacklist that would be used is to be secret, and there will be no transparency or public accountability in regards to the content of the list. The fear is that the government could easily, and quietly, block ANY content they want at any time. This simply cannot be allowed. In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.

Re:While all the news is about Aussie censorship

[Xiroth]

In fact, they've already indicated that they're looking to ban illegal but morally grey information such a euthanasia methods. Independent special interests in the Senate such as Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding have indicated that they're interested in banning sites where the legality hasn't even been settled, such as gambling websites and hardcore pornography.

The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech. Euthanasia, in fact, falls under that, as the Greens and Democrats have indicated their support for legalising it - in fact, if memory serves, as a precautionary measure a Greens state senator read out methods of euthanasia in parliament under the protection of parliamentary privilege with the knowledge that the proceedings of Parliament must be recorded and be made freely available to the public, rendering the government unable to block the publishing of the material. If material regarding euthanasia and other controversial topics is blocked, could that not soon lead to the blocking of political speech of minor parties and political activists that wish to overturn the bans on the material?

Re:Its not such a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

A lack of transparency

[Capsaicin]

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?

Re:A lack of transparency

[PopeGumby]

Of the greatest concern is that the list of what is blocked is secret.

The biggest concern, of course, is the potential censoring of political speech.

Exactly!

You should decide which one is the biggest concern, because they are seperate things. If the greatest concern is that the blacklist is secret, then you're saying that if the Labour party just came out and said "we censored euthanasia page waystodie.com, because we felt like it", you would be okay with that?

My greatest concern is that no other person should not be controlling what I can and cannot see on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.