Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Pages Added To Australian Internet Blacklist

cpudney writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has added several Wikileaks pages to its controversial blacklist. The blacklisted pages contain Denmark's list of banned websites. Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine as the hosts of the popular Australian broadband forum, Whirlpool, discovered last week when they published a forum post that linked to an anti-abortion web-site recently added to ACMA's blacklist. The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian government's proposed mandatory ISP-level Internet censorship legislation. Wikileaks' response to notification of the blacklisting states: 'The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.'" So Australians aren't allowed to see what it is that the Danes aren't allowed to see?

109 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. Oh great, there goes slashdot by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any Australians fined yet for coming here?

    1. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fine article also states that Thailand's blocklist has been leaked. I thought you'd want to read it for yourself in addition to the Denmark one.

    2. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Aussie here, it has always been my contention that Conroy was in charge of the project to drag it out and make sure it DIDN'T happen, I think they are about to sign the death certificate...

      Relevent info in amoungst the links...


      "The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked. The Opposition has obtained legal advice that "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required", but others have said it may be possible to implement the scheme without legislation. Speaking at a telecommunications conference last week, Senator Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs to pass the right legislation."

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you can answer a couple of questions...

      1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
      2. Have they blocked TOR access?

      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    4. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by SJ2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They haven't actually blocked anything, big difference having a firewall setup actively filtering content and putting something on some list saying it's 'bad'.

    5. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by novakreo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      --
      O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    6. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by SJ2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoting myself here:
      "[...]many of Australia's rights are "implied" in the constitution and exist merely through the High Court's "creative" interpretations. Such as the implied right for Political speech in Australian Captial Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (1992) which was also extended in 1994 in Theophanous v. The Herald And Weekly Times. Australia also took an active role in 1948 when drafting the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
      Unfortunately, many attempts to introduce entrenched Human Rights into the constitution such Lionel Murphy in 1973 and 1985 with the Federal attorney-general have failed before they even reached the stage of a referendum."

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=436328&cid=22244392

      Ironically it may turn out that my comment towards the end was a bit too quick to judge.

    7. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have no constitutional rights to free speech. We do have implied protected political speech, but that's not in the constitution. In practice, however, we have free speech. In fact, I can say things like s^@$[CARRIER LOST]

    8. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      mmm...danishes...

    9. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by mrsurb · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Australian Senate (which is where such legislation would be blocked) is semi-proportional - and Senators sit for six years (twice the length as in the House of Representatives). Which means that a party has to win elections fairly comfortably two years in a row in order to be able to push through whatever they want. And as our last (Howard) government found out, being able to push through whatever (Workchoices) they want can end in a political backlash. Australian voters don't like either party having too much power, many actually vote for third parties in the Senate precisely as a control on the system. A previously successful third party (the Australian Democrats) had an unofficial slogan, "Keeping the bastards honest."

    10. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you can answer a couple of questions...

      1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
      2. Have they blocked TOR access?

      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      No they just banned the sites hosting the proxies and sites listing the location of proxies.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    11. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Informative
      That article is terrible.

      Additionally, Pike notes, another "absurd ruse" is that "hate criminals affect interstate commerce, by terrorizing their victims into traveling across state lines â" or not." "Considering the pervasive influence of interstate commerce upon our lives, how often can the government meddle in local hate crimes enforcement? Any time," Pike wrote. "In fact, this ridiculous argument could be used to justify federal intervention in a crime of any kind, since any crime victim might be scared into different spending or traveling choices."

      Really.

    12. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      That's what happens when you let convicts & jailers found a country. /ducks

      Old joke: a man gets off the plane and walks up to the Australian customs desk.

      Name? John Smith
      Where are you from? New York
      Purpose of your trip? Vacation
      Do you have a criminal record? No. You don't still need one to get in, do you?

    13. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by nosfucious · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the salient (how do you spell that?) point is "you saw". Healthy paranioa says that there are plenty to people that dissapear even in the United States of Australia.

      As a roo and emu passport holder, currently based O/S, I'll happily mirror a list or seed a torrent on my PC of banned sites. The Australian Govt can fornicate off on this lump of fertilizer. Bittorrent ... is there anything you can't do?

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    14. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by tg123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ....... In the upper house, the Senate, the Opposition (the coalition of the Liberal and National parties, that's practically acted like they're one and the same party for so long most just call them the Liberals or the coalition now) and minor parties currently hold more seats than the government, allowing them to block legislation.

      Just to add ... both the House of Representatives and the Senate have the same powers the one difference is the Senate can not introduce supply bills. The House of Representatives is elected using Preferential voting and the Senate is elected using proportional voting.

    15. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by meist3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting how there are several dozen links to Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk on this Thai list. What's being blocked? The biography of the Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The future of internet is NOW. Citizens have no right knowing who makes for their government. That's the future right at your fingertips. Glad Germany will get this pretty soon, too. I love to be protected from things that aren't supposed to be secret.

    16. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      I think we have some daft politicians in the Conservative Party here, but looking at Australia ... maybe we aren't as bad off as I though? Yet ......

      In fact, it's the Conservative Party which is starting to rein in the excesses of the "human rights commision" Star Chambers which have been working hard at eliminating freedom of speech in Canada.

      Staff at the "human rights commissions" have been caught breaking into websites, spreading hate themselves, outright lying, and even worse. One of their "prosecutors" even admitted it

      Read the "human rights" stories on Ezra Levant's blog: http://ezralevant.com/

      I like the one where a "prosecutor" refuses to do his job because he wasn't in a "serene state of mind".

    17. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kwandar · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Couldn't they just bring you before the Canadian Human Rights Commission? No jury there."

      There is no jury there because it isn't a criminal charge, and sure, and just like any Federal tribunal I'd make application for judicial review under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. Charter rights clearly take precedence to a tribunal.

      But you of course knew that, didn't you?

    18. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by adona1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Australia (or at least the Federation of, & the Constitution) was founded by lawyers & politicians, which kinda explains why there isn't a guarantee of freedom of speech. Might interfere with their livelihoods ;)
      Interesting aside, many people who are descended from convicts in Australia actually take pride in it - possibly a colonial equivalent of being descended from people who came across on the Mayflower?

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    19. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Healthy paranioa says that there are plenty to people that dissapear even in the United States of Australia."

      Parinoa is not healthy, you should try skepticisim instead. eg: I am skeptical of things that you and I have no evidence for.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by beav007 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here's some even better questions:
      • how do we know we're linking to a banned site, as we can't see the list?
      • are forum and blog owners responsible for links posted in comments? If they are, how do they know when someone posted a banned link?

      I know I'd just love to go away for a week, and return to fines up the wazoo because an AC has posted the entire list of banned sites in my comments.

      What if someone posts these links to my FB page? Or someone that I follow on Twitter posts them?

      This whole plan just goes to show how little our legislators in this country know about technology and the internet.

      Dear Mr Conroy;

      You're a dumbass. No, I really mean it. You have no idea how the internet works, do you?

      As a moderately trained network admin, I can come up with a number of ways to defeat your precious firewall that would take between 2 minutes and 2 days to implement, and be completely untraceable. Anyone who is sufficiently motivated can work out how to do it in a similar time-frame.

      Given that your blocked site list now contains material that is not illegal in Australia (such as sites rated at R18+ - seriously, I can go into any video store and rent R18+ films, and they aren't even in a special closed-off section), you have given me the required motivation, even though I'd probably never want to look at the sites anyway.

      The effects your filter WILL have are:

      • People will stop buying personal webhosting in Australia to minimise the chance of fines
      • You'll slow down the internet even further, which is already slow here in Australia
      • People will get around your precious filter, and you'll never find out about it
      • People will start looking for the blocked sites in question, to see why they shouldn't be looking at them

      Your blocking solution, and the secrecy surrounding it, is entirely unacceptable in a democracy such as ours. If you want the filter to be an acceptable solution, the list of filtered sites and the reason for filtering must be open, and must have provisions allowing opt-out.

      Mr Conroy, you have made it absolutely clear that we cannot trust elected government officials to make sensible, well informed decisions regarding technology in Australia.

      Implement this filter and you won't see another term.

      -beav007

    21. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kzieli · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes well. At the last election we had a choice between.

      John Howard; One of the few leaders of the developed world who refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement. Liked to setup off shore detention centers. And do anything the Bush Administration asked him to.

      And Kevin Rudd. A moderate politician. And also somewhat of a moralist and a prude (even if he has been to a strip club once).

      We chose Rudd. On balance it seemed the better option, after 13 years of the Liberal Party. The idea of mandatory internet filtering is an unfortunate consequence of that decision.

      --
      read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
    22. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree you have summarised the politics well. However this doesn't mean Labor are immune to the back-handed machevalian bullshit that Liberals did so poorly (I say poorly because they got caught doing it time and again). Labor is playing the same "game" with Fielding as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.

      Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's are in the same position but they only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
      Xenophon[sic] and Fielding (the two independents) both wanted a mandatory filter, (Xenophon has an anti-gambling platform). Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon to his credit has seen the glaring human rights error in his plan to ban offshore gambling sites, Fielding has nowhere to go his vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, Fielding has shut the fuck up, the Lib's, Labor and Greens are happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, Rudd is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard,....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.

      Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by stavros-59 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm currently in Australia and can get to the list of banned sites on Wikileaks just fine. I'm at work and we use http://www.macquarietelecom.com/

      The mandatory censorship scheme is not yet in place.

      The blacklist referred to is the current list that is sent to the maintainers of local PC based child filtering systems. Until December last year, the government provided these free to any interested parents. The uptake was so poor that this scheme was canceled and the current censorship proposal is supposed to work better "to protect the children". The blacklist doesn't do anything else at the moment.

      The current blacklist is entirely complaint based. By ACMA's own data, less than half the list is related to child depiction or child pornography. The rest of the list is material that would be legal (MA15+, R etc.) if it was in the broadcast media or it is material that has been refused classification. Refused classification material has not been reviewed by the Classification Board. ACMA assumes it would be prohibited if the Classification Board did actually see it. AFAIK none of the blacklisted material has been put in front of a court that would allow the word illegal to be applied.

      If, and when, the mandatory internet censorship scheme is implemented the blacklist will form the basis of the "censored" material. There have been rumours of also using the IWF list or incorporating the IWF list into ACMA's blacklist.

    24. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ahhh, I never claimed people aren't out to get you, I'm claiming that paranoia won't help you find out.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [snip]
      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      What are you smoking?

      --
      $ make available
  2. Happiness is Mandatory! by Leafheart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFS:

    Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

    So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

    Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

    --
    --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    1. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

      What is your security clearance, citizen?

    2. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by faloi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm afraid if you're not ultraviolet, you can't ask that question. Can you tell me if the chainsaw looks like it's going fast enough, look closer.

      I loved that game.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

    4. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

      Yeah, but it's also filled with lots of women with Australian accents. Please excuse me while I go find some felony to commit...

    5. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

      So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

      This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.

      I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.

    6. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by psyron · · Score: 5, Informative

      The link in question was to an anti-abortion page containing some pictures of aborted babies. Apparently a member of the forum decided to test the filter by posting a link to the page and then submitting a complaint to the ACMA asking for such a link to be banned, for the purpose of seeing what would happen.

      Lo and behold someone at the ACMA must of looked at the page, seen the pictures (I'm sure you can find much worse in any medical journal mind you) and decided that linking to the page was now illegal. So they sent a notice to the forum's hosting provider (bypassing the forum all together) informing them to take the link down within 24 hours or risk being fined $11K per day. The host then contacted the forum admin who obviously didn't want to put this on his provider took down the link.

      I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people, including most ISPs, are against it. But I'm not so sure anymore.

    7. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by alexhs · · Score: 2

      They're preparing to replace Web2.0 by Web3.0, a.k.a TV2.0 .

      Big Corp. know what's good for you and won't be bothered.

      If you're not Big Corp. you had nothing to link here in the first place. You just deserve that fine, collateral damage or not.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    8. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear god someone link them to 4chan. Or GNAA. Or Kids in the Sandbox. Or 2 girls 1 cup. Or Efuckt. Or Goatse.

    9. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The link in question was to an anti-abortion page

      For someone who hasn't been following this too closely - were they still pretending that this was about blocking child pr0n (in which case, this shows the claim up to be false), or did they drop that pretence?

      (Even if it was about blocking child images, laws about automatic fines for linking are very worrying - linking to such images can be dealt with specific laws, and it should be up to a court to decide if the image constituted an illegal image; it shouldn't be a case that linking to something on a (secret) list is automatically illegal, no matter what the content.)

    10. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by ReadErr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lots of countries have "freedom of information" laws. They might have different names, but the idea is the same.

    11. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that what we brits used australia for in the first place?

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;) Seems pretty ironic that your convicted criminals were more loyal to the Empire than your religious zealots.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course the prisoner's were sent over with loyalist guards who became the power structure of australia. The Puritans were not sent with guards and the powerful folks opposed english rule.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    13. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people

      Just wait. In the end, it will certainly be scrapped *, but in the meantime, there will be many lulz.

      When people implement ridiculous ideas, the only thing they accomplish is to provide fodder that helps prevent the idea from being implemented again. And they get their 15 minutes of fame, even if they wish they could take it all back.

      • (* okay, there's a miniscule possibility that Australia will march firmly in the direction of fascism, with new layers of secrecy being created just to hide existing layers of secrecy, but the likelihood that this pulls down all of democracy in Australia, all by itself, still seems miniscule)
    14. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by conureman · · Score: 5, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    15. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by psyron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now that my net is back up I'll reply (oh how I loathe BigPond):

      I don't think this had anything to do with child porn, the ACMA merely ruled that the page contained prohibited content. Why pictures of aborted babies were ruled to be prohibited I'm not sure, the pictures certainly weren't something you'd want to see before you sit down to eat, but there was nothing whatsoever illegal about them.

      Here's a link to a thread on the forum about the topic and the reply the ACMA sent to the person who submitted the complaint: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1161107#r4

    16. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;) Seems pretty ironic that your convicted criminals were more loyal to the Empire than your religious zealots.

      Dead people don't pay protection money. While organized crime sometimes need to "set an example" or start gang wars, what they really want to do is business. For real willingness to kill including genocide, blowing yourself up and absurd dedication to the cause, always go with the religious zealots. Really, an absentee government half the world away should be almost ideal for organized crime, why revolt and make one right there that could really create problems?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...okay, there's a miniscule[sic] possibility that Australia will march firmly in the direction of fascism...

      Australia is not merely marching down that path, it has been running headlong down it for over a decade. The fact that the major political parties swapped the reins of government in 2007 has made no difference, since the Labor party is still stirring up the same narrow-minded xenophobic nastiness that Howard fostered so insidiously. Historically, the Labor party's main agenda used to be centred on social justice, but it seems that has gone the way of last year's management theories.

    18. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is why they took all the guns away!

    19. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      The Puritans were so insufferable that they couldn't even stand each other, which is how Connecticut got founded (by one of the same guys the Dutch threw out...)

    20. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by srjh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, the fine is for ignoring a request for deleting links to prohibited content. It would be stupid to significantly penalise someone for breaking a law they aren't allowed to know about... but if I had a dollar for every time I thought "That would be stupid, there's no way the ALP will possibly incorporate that into the net censorship plan", I'd be able to forget about this whole financial crisis and retire at 26.

      What's just as concerning is the apparent recursive nature of the blacklist. Link to prohibited content, and your website becomes prohibited content. Therefore, any links to your website become prohibited content. Given the nature of hyperlinking and the internet, the whole web is probably only a few steps away from being banned. At this stage, I'm not even sure that's not what Labor wants.

      It's actually worse than this - the blacklist doesn't just deal with "prohibited content", it deals with "potential prohibited content". In other words, material that has not been found to be prohibited, but which a single bureaucrat thinks has the potential to be prohibited if it was investigated. Given that even MA15+ (i.e. material that is legal for a 15-year-old to view) content can be prohibited, and a significant proportion of the blacklist is legal for 18-year-olds to view (i.e. R18+ and X18+), that's an extremely low threshold for something to be considered off-limits to Australian web users by our government.

      Ugh... the whole thing sickens me. I was hoping it would have been dropped like a hot potato for now, but it's obvious they aren't backing down. Our only hope is if it goes to a vote in the senate and fails.

    21. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      Were I the Dutch, I would've too... Nothing harshes a good bud buzz like the smell of burning witch...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    22. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Score +5 Informative, because there's no score -HolyFuck GougeMyEyesOutWithASpoon.

      4chan Random image boards. Daily flood of random crap.

      GNAA Internet Troll headquarters. Obnoxious text, but I'm not aware of any eye-gouging image content.

      kids-in-the-sandbox Some men might scream in pain at the thought of a dildo being shoved INTO their penis.

      2girls1cup.mpg The most famous video you really really don't want to see, unless you have a fetish for watching girls eat soft shit then vomit it into each other's mouths.

      efukt Tag line "Porn you wish you never saw". Assorted video collection: Anorexic sex, a donkey giving itself a blowjob, gay anal fisting nearly to the shoulder, etc etc etc.

      Goatse The original mammoth asshole you wish you never saw.

      And how can we not include TubGirl Another image you really wish you never saw, unless of course you think getting blasted in your face with your own fountain of enema spray is really really HOT.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    23. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Funny

      They could save a few steps and just ban Kevin Bacon.

    24. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might be onto something there, actually.

      The Southern colonies actually *were* used as prison dumping grounds. Interestingly enough, when the Revoultion happened, that's where the "Loyalists" were concentrated.

      The British landed an army in Georgia and marched north, turning over pacified areas to the Loyalists as they went. The problem was that the further north they went, the less Loyalists they found. It didn't work at all once they got to Virginia. The army finally got bottled up in Yorktown, Virginia and had to surrender.

      After that the Brits had to find a new prision dumping ground. That's where Austrailia comes in.

    25. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by ross.w · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was ideal for organised crime, and it started early, to the point where the army was involved and staged Australia's first and only military coup when the Governor tried to put a stop to it.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  3. That's Kafkaesque by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eh, what?? A $11k fine for breaking a secret law? How are you supposed to stay clear of it if you can't read the list of things you can't do?

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:That's Kafkaesque by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. No right thinking citizen would ever do anything that is on the list. What more do you need to know?

    2. Re:That's Kafkaesque by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know, it's like these people read Kafka for ideas on how to F things up.

      OT, but I once had a friend in the Marine Corps who had his clearance suspended due to an investigation into his supposed leaking of classified information (for which he was eventually cleared). The investigation contained Secret information, so they couldn't show him the charges that were pressed against him. We had some good laughs about Kafka, especially once it was all over.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:That's Kafkaesque by PMuse · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is turning into one of those plans, isn't it?

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    4. Re:That's Kafkaesque by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not the mods, of course, so I can't say; but I'm sincerely hoping that the "insightful" mods are a mixture of "funny; but I think you deserve karma" and "Insightful; because you have correctly caricatured precisely the response that a creepy statist would actually exhibit".

      I urge anybody who actually agrees with my original post to explore a fulfilling career in being on fire.

    5. Re:That's Kafkaesque by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know, it's like these people read Kafka for ideas on how to F things up.

      Hopefully it's actually Heller (Catch-22). Because if it's Kafka, we're in for some REALLY big trouble once they get past "The Trial" and into "Metamorphosis"

  4. And it sucks more for Australians by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

    For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

    1. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

      For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

      Wifi outside the US embasy?

  5. Well done! by the_germ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you can't see what pages are on the list, but if you happen to link to one you pay $11,000 per day...

    Welcome to BDA - Banana Dictatorship of Australia!

  6. No Internet For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't we just block Australia from the internet altogether until they learn to use it properly?

    1. Re:No Internet For You by phyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

      but but but.. urrgh... fair enough.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
  7. Good luck with that... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blacklist is secret

    These guys just don't "get" it still, do they?

    Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.
    Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.
    Step 3) Compare the two lists.

    Simple as that. Nothing more than a few hundred megs of shotgun-requests, and you can map the portions of the web that look dark but shouldn't.

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.
      Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.
      Step 3) Compare the two lists.

      You'd better be quick. The amount of non-censoring countries is drying very fast.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that's a great idea. All you have to do to get a copy of the blacklist is check every URL on the entire internet twice. I'll get my iPhone started on that!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Good luck with that... by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All you have to do to get a copy of the blacklist is check every URL on the entire internet twice.

      Given the choice between dealing with government bureaucracy or using a technical end-run around the same, I'll take the technical approach every time. At least it will deterministically give the desired results.

      And as I mentioned, you don't need to get the whole page, just check the headers. This task would also parallelize perfectly... A few dozen people splitting the task between them could probably do it in under an hour. You could further optimize it by only checking the list of possible positives in the noncensoring-country phase.

      But by all means, feel free to complain to the politicians, and see which of us gets an answer first... And which of us trusts the answer we get (if any).


      Personally, I think this would make an interesting exercise for a potential link aggregation site... Run the same experiment daily from various known-censoring countries, and post them to the FP so everyone can instantly see the day's new "Big Brother disapproves of this" content. Sort of an automated Streisand effect.

    4. Re:Good luck with that... by schmiddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And as I mentioned, you don't need to get the whole page, just check the headers. This task would also parallelize perfectly... A few dozen people splitting the task between them could probably do it in under an hour

      LOL. I take it you've never actually tried to write or run a web crawler before? It's a fun exercise.. try it sometime.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    5. Re:Good luck with that... by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you spider the internet, if you are only checking headers. The whole point of a spider is that you recursively follow all the links returned from each page.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  8. I'm sorry, I must be new here... by wandazulu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but when did Australia become the poster boy for blatant censorship and policies akin to fascism? I lived there for awhile back in the early 90s and it seemed like such a laid-back, friendly place where pretty much anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

    The irony of all this is I remember getting a "talking to" by a fellow in a bar who held up McCarthyism as one of America's saddest moments because it directly attacked free speech and free thought of individuals in the name of the "commie boogyman". With news like this coming out of Australia, I'm wondering if I'm going to see him again on TV in some show trial, being accused of thoughtcrime.

    Actually, no, I won't, because unlike the McCarthy hearings, the ones in Australia would probably be censored.

    1. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's as if countries in the "western" world these days are in a race to see who can remove citizen rights the fastest.

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      As always, it's just a matter of following the money and/or who has the most to gain from these measures. Find that, then you can combat it.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      This isn't a popular opinion but I think it's a natural consequence of people turning to Government for all manner of problems that Government wasn't originally intended to deal with. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by rpresser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a direct correlate to the financial meltdown: it is a political meltdown. The political class has become too powerful, too insular, too overconfident, and too stupid. And just like the financial crisis, this is a worldwide phenonmenon, ranging from the Taliban to the Australians to the Danes. There is no escape.

      But if there is hope, it lies in the proles.

    4. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Media is the most powerful branch of government.

      Only because a bunch of "progressives" got the bright idea that we needed more "democracy". The Founding Fathers rightly feared the power of the mob and took steps to mitigate how much damage it could do. If you want to limit the influence of the media let's start by repealing the 17th amendment and flogging those that want to get rid of the electoral college.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >It's as if countries in the "western" world these days are in a race to see who can remove citizen rights the fastest.

      >I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      *All* governments have *always* wanted the ability to spy on everyone, including their own citizens. It's not even paranoia or a matter of the government somehow having a mind of its own: it's just individuals doing their jobs and wanting to make sure that they never get in trouble for not having done enough to keep their jobs and country safe.

      The primary difference between what we're seeing now and the Stasi or the Star Chamber is that now, every government *can* easily record 100% of the information that they have access to.

      So they are. All of them, all the time, because they feel like they have to.

      Governments are *always* the most dangerous entities to humanity, and it's not even like the governments can help it. They just become that way because that's how power works: people functioning in their own self-interest and self-preservation, will always make larger and more intrusive governments.

      Let's hear it for strong crypto.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    6. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

      I like that quote, but have never heard it before. It didn't quite ring right for Jefferson, so I dug. According to WikiQuote, it's actually from Gerald Ford's address to Congress in August, 1974.

    7. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tragedy today as former President Gerald Ford was eaten by wolves. He was delicious.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    8. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Darby · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      No, it's been slow and steady ever since WW2. That was the great war against fascism. Most people forget that the
      American industrialists were huge Hitler supporters and one of the reasons they hate FDR so much is that he manipulated us into war against Hitler, instead of adopting his policies.

      So after WW2, we immediately started a national policy of rabid anti-leftism, which was exactly Hitler's starting point in creating his philosophy.

      Never let yourself forget for one second that Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, and the grandfather of our former president, Prescott Bush, as well as much of the rest of the wealthy and powerful in America were rabid Nazis before WW2 and they, and their descendants intellectual and literal are still rabid Nazis to this day.

      So there is nothing fast about it. This plan has taken over half a century to come to fruition.

    9. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...but when did Australia become the poster boy for blatant censorship and policies akin to fascism?

      Shortly after the government banned all useful weapons so that they didn't need to fear the people anymore.

      Followed by;

      Mod parent up. Note how Orwellian Orwell's home country has also gotten after the effective banning of all firearms and how they're on the verge of banning knives, now, too, in a desperate attempt to legislate civility.

      Both posts make valid points.

      Why are objections or alternative viewpoints to the idea of governments taking away citizens' means to defend themselves "Flamebait"?

      Is it now crimethink to object to being at anyone with a weapons' mercy? Have the media and the progressives really done such a thorough job of convincing everyone they can't trust themselves with sharp, pointy things or things that go "bang!"?

      I mean, c'mon! If *you* were to be handed a gun or knife, would you turn into a blood-thirsty, murderous criminal (barring being a criminal for the weapon possession alone)? If you're of the opinion that if you had a gun you wouldn't start knocking over convenience stores or shooting people in the street, why do you think it's different for your neighbor?

      Banning weapons won't keep them out of the hands of criminals and won't stop violent crimes from being committed. The only thing that banning law-abiding citizens from owning weapons *will* accomplish is rendering them helpless against the government.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  9. It's all child pornography. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The vast majority of the list looks like kiddie porn sites or links to kiddie porn sights. You know, teenagers and younger being exploited.

    Frankly, the Danes and the Australians are doing the "liberal" thing in trying to block these sites. If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.

    But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:It's all child pornography. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.

      And if we outlaw drugs, people still stop using them and drug abuse will stop. That's admirable.

      But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

      That thought has occurred to me as well. Why block these sites when you could presumably get warrants to see who is going to them and actually investigate the people breaking the law instead of trying to impose a censorship scheme that will never work anyway?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:It's all child pornography. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

      With laws like this the pedos will realize that they need to move on to something more secure than open HTTP.

      This way the kids and politicians alike will not be able to see the stuff; just like it was before the Internet took off. Politicians will then be able to back to the way they used to handle this problem: http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-03-15/ (focus on the last pane)

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:It's all child pornography. by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The vast majority of the list looks like kiddie porn sites
      Please post ACMA's blacklist so we can verify.

    4. Re:It's all child pornography. by ketilwaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Y'know, even if people are serving prison sentences, or in serious therapy, there is still the matter of the kids in those pictures and movies. The idea that users are investigated for using the sites, doesn't even begin to solve the problem of those kids being violated.

      I'm an American too, but I say: come up with some better ideas. Starting with doing away with the taboos about sex in general might be a step in the right decision. The American idea that violence is pretty much OK, but sex is not to be talked about, and naked bodies should be considered racy or disturbing is such a perversion. A natural relationship towards sex could start with breaking down the structural homophobia that is still widely accepted.

    5. Re:It's all child pornography. by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "all", you mean "all cases except where it's something else instead, such as an anti-abortion site".

      This is a usage of "all" I was not previously aware of.

      (But yes, I agree with your last paragraph; it's unclear what the intent of censorship is, and the problem is when the scope widens beyond that of abusive non-consensual material.)

    6. Re:It's all child pornography. by __int64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's not actually about stopping childporn, it's about imposing censorship. Whether childporn is weeded out is irrelevant, and these filters don't actually have be effective at stopping childporn to be effective at making people complacent.

    7. Re:It's all child pornography. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I would say that just leaving them up would be bordering on entrapment.
      It wouldn't be hard for somebody to spam people with HTML Email with links back to those sites. Most people don't turn off the images in email like I do.
      If a site is illegal in a certain country for some reason and that country decided to block it then that list should be made public.
      Keeping the list secret is just wrong.
      Every site that is blocked should have a reason that it is blocked and they type of content that is on it. If you are going to block it the let people know why.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:It's all child pornography. by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who modded this funny? I wasn't trying to be funny - I was trying to point out that the list is secret, so GP doesn't know what's in it. Until this assertion is backed, I call bullshit.

  10. Actually... by acehole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The anti-abortion website was purposely reported to ACMA (the gov dept looking after the censorship) to test the waters in reporting websites.

    All it took was one email.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  11. dear all australians: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?

    1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons
    2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking
    3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see

    i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  12. Catholics by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By far the nastiest and most insidious threat to democracy in Australia is the Catholic far Right. Their home has traditionally been the "right" of the ALP, although some Catholic militants, like Tony Abbott have gone joined the opposition conservative parties.

    In years past, they've played mostly a spoiling role in Australia politics. As fascists, they know only how to destroy, not build, so they formed a right-wing fringe political party (the Democratic Labour Party, which in Whitlam's immortal words, was neither democratic, nor liberal, nor a party) kept the ALP out of government for 25 years and the country stagnated for decades under a conservative government. After B. A. Santamaria died and after the fall of Communism, they went back to infiltrating mainstream political parties.

    These days, their strongholds are right-wing unions (the SDA , of which I was a member -- if I had known my union dues were being siphoned off by Phalangists and militant anti-abortionists, I would've quit instantly...), and the right wings of the ALP and Liberal parties.

    Democracy and rational debate has always been anathema for these fascists. Their malign and destructive influence has been out there for all to see, although there has been very few political forces organised enough to challenge them head on.

    If there's a vicious anti-democratic force in Australian politics, chances are, militant right-wing Catholics are behind it.

  13. Slope by olddotter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully this will not come to be in Australia or not be up held upon legal review. Two things I find are disturbing:

    1) You will be held accounting for violating the law, but you can't see the law to know how to avoid violating it.

    2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same polocies.
       

  14. This makes me angry and sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am watching my country turn into a fascist police state before my eyes.

    Government Knows What's Best For You. Shutup, do your shitty little job, pay your taxes, and be thankful we haven't shipped you off to gitmo yet. Sit back and enjoy the pre-approved content and advertising.

    I honestly don't know what to do anymore. These fuckwits are ruining the planet and there's nobody to stop them.

    If you stand up against them, you're a child pornographer or a terrorist. Not that that even matters anyway, since they have billions and billions of dollars with which you can never compete, and an army that makes the idea of uprising or revolt laughable, especially given the fact that most of the population is not armed.

    200 years ago, some american dudes got pissed at the way the Brits were doing things. Good for them, they just moved to another country and started over.

    What the fuck can we do? That option is off the table. We can move to a different country, but all countries are heading in the same direction pretty much. We are stuck here under an oppressive government with no hope for improvement, no possibility of living somewhere that truly values freedom.

    If the bill gets voted down this time, it's only a matter of horse trading or another election cycle until some other knows-whats-best-for-you little bitch comes in and puts it up for another vote. Eventually, it will get through.

    I'm looking for options. I want to know what we can do to crush these corrupt fucking assholes before they destroy us all.

  15. No problem... by expat.iain · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's simple enough to proxy through SSH and have access once again and (short of blocking SSH traffic) the Though Police can do very little.

    Iain.

    1. Re:No problem... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if you have a willing HTTP proxy to actually connect to. Far too often the technical solution of "Lets just setup a VPN!" or "We'll just encrypt it and use a proxy!" gets thrown up without realizing that you have to have a working endpoint in a lax country to work with. If you're relying on the "free" ones that pop up here and there - good luck. While you MIGHT get the HTTP proxy setup with them (VPN ain't happening), they tend to flitter in and out of existence so quickly that you're playing a game of cat and mouse more than actually using the net. You're certainly not going to perform a few keystrokes and make the problem go away.

      And without using them or finding some pay equivalent (that you can trust), you have to work in a data connection, server space, and power in some nonrestrictive country. When you start factoring in collocating a server in Mexico then we're beyond the "Just encrypt it!" stage.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  16. Re:The progressive criminalisation of conservatism by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you'll find that people with the most problems with freedom of expression are the right-wing (and extremely conservative) Catholics like Stephen Conroy and Nicola Roxon. The people doing the oppressing here are the conservatives and their enablers, not the small-l liberals.

  17. The F word is not helpful by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with fascism. The problem with fascism wasn't censorship. Censorship is bad, fascism included censorship as a matter of course, but it's not what was particularly bad about fascism. Soviet Russia wasn't fascist. It was bad too, just not in the same way.
    Today the United States are much closer to fascism than Australia, yet they enjoy incomparable freedom of speech.
    Militarization of the economy, dubious appeals to patriotism, booming prison population, the collusion between corporate interests and government, that's fascist-ish.
    Censorship, that's what you find in China, which is not nearly as bad as the US in the areas I just listed (but by no means any better overall, don't get me wrong.)

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Fud, Fud, Fud by the_germ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe you should read the whole post you linked to...

    It's not FUD, sadly...

  20. netnuterality by drknowster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    do we realy need these people around claiming to represent a consensus ? we have the technology,but we gotta do it "before" they have thier way with it .The best bumper sticker seen yet"politicians and diapers should be changed often ,and for the same reasons."

  21. Finland is way ahead of you by mjrauhal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Finnish police have already censored the Wikileaks page on Finnish internet censorship; see my comment at the appropriate talk page.

  22. I blame The Gay Alien Flying Pigs Coalition! by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Funny

    The "Catholic far Right"? Damn I'd heard it was the gay alien flying pigs that were behind it all!!!!!!!1111one!!!!eleven!!!111!

    That was probably the most paranoid posting I've ever read and I read a lot of Slashdot!

    Seriously, did you forget to take your lithium this morning?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  23. The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is because it is self indulgence and traditionally our culture is against self indulgence. When people are focused on their bodies, they aren't doing anything productive, and more importantly, are fixated firmly on themselves and not the world around them. That's a good value and to some extent gay activism will always bump into the charge that identifying oneself so strongly with one's sexuality is to accept a narcissistic lifestyle that is sorely at odds with the values that actually worked to make the country prosper.

    Violence, on the other hand, can actually be useful. Violence is about a life not centered around self. Indeed, depersonalization is required to a degree to accept violence, and depersonalization is often useful. There is a bad guy, go get them. There is an animal attacking, go get them. The earth is doing something, so we engage in some act to right it. IT cements the idea that we can alter the world around us, whereas, sexuality only seeks to see that we are pleasured within whatever world we are in.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sex is traditionally connected with the biological urge to procreate....So, I plainly think you're wrong

      Well, I'm not. The taboos against sexuality are driven by those who have some serious misgivings about the animal nature of man. A lot of people say that sexual taboos stem from procreation so that they can say that those taboos should be removed, rather than try and attack the idea that humans should not be so body focused head on.

      Other people do say that though, and have said it. The whole "if it feels good, it must be right" mentality of the sixties generation comes from that line of thinking. It's body-centricity, placing one's body ahead of the world around you.

      --
      This is my sig.
  24. Newspeak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

    What is your security clearance, citizen?

    Citizen, plus good you unpraise crimethinker. Plus ungood you post in oldspeak. You go plus speedwise ACMA center for transport to joycamp.

  25. Six Degrees to Australian Blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're blocked if you link to a banned site.
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?

    I wonder how many links from the Commonwealth's site it takes to reach a banned site?

  26. wtf? by oftenwrongsoong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. So you're not allowed to see which sites are on the blacklist but if you link to one you get fined $11,000 a day? How the hell are you supposed to avoid linking to something that you don't know you're not supposed to link to? All Australians are stupid and I'll justify that statement. Those Australians who work in government are stupid for putting together such a stupid thing. And the rest of the Australians are stupid for allowing such a government to exist at all.

  27. yo dawg by harry666t · · Score: 4, Funny

    i herd you liek blacklists so we put a blacklist on our blacklist so you couldnt browse things while you couldnt browsing things.