Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors

pnorth writes "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of the Australian regulator's own Wikipedia entry. The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content. The very same link motivated the regulator to serve Aussie broadband forum Whirlpool's hosting company with a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine. Last night, the link became the subject of 'warring' between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to its removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."

Comments

Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

>Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."

Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?

Re:Wikipedia

[unlametheweak]

Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?

Why don't you get an account and then log in and say that, Jimmy Wales?

Re:Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest that this is in reality a test for future exercises in internet access denials.
If the people tolerate the abolition of links at the governments will ALL information received is to be consdered suspect.
When the world approaches a world war communications and the control of information becomes the first priority.
Disregard the subject matter of this exercise and consider what can be done with the power if the government is successful

Re:Wikipedia

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

Exactly. It's not like they've never censored anything else:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Wikipedia is as politicized as anything else. They don't want to make a fuss when it doesn't suit them, and they're more than willing to make a fuss when it does.

Of course, explaining the "mentality" of Wikipedia is like explaining the "mentality" of Slashdot. There are different groups and cultures involved, and it can look a bit schizophrenic on the outside looking in.

Overall, though, the pattern is as clear there as everywhere else: say one thing, do another, and accuse your opponent of whatever it is you're doing behind closed doors.

Re:Wikipedia

[Blakey Rat]

I don't get how this does anything other than annoy the Australian censors. What point are they trying to prove? "It you put fetus pictures on a webpage, it'll be blocked?" Isn't that point already proven?

Re:Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

And now on slashdot: a few seconds ago a comment with the linklist in full has been removed from slashdot. Interesting, right?

Re:Wikipedia

[Hordeking]

I would suggest that this is in reality a test for future exercises in internet access denials. If the people tolerate the abolition of links at the governments will ALL information received is to be consdered suspect.

Wikipedia, I'd like to introduce you to a very lovely friend of mine. Her name is Streisand Effect, and I know you'll get to be really good friends.

Actually, this is a test case, but it's an important one. Not just to see if there's a double-standard (if ACMA doesn't send an order for its own entry, there is), but to see how well Wikipedia stands up to the legal challenges of blacklists. Now, I'm not an Australian, so I don't know if ACMA is a government or private body (like England's is), but I do know that this stuff needs to be done. I understand their wish to "not hurt their friends" (the ISP). It also, as you mentioned, brings the veracity of the articles into question. If wikipedia bends for this, then they may bend for more. They may bend for a non-government-approved version being illegal and remove it.

Wikipedia might not like being a test case, but they're the biggest one of all, like it or not.

Re:Wikipedia

[Hordeking]

I don't get how this does anything other than annoy the Australian censors. What point are they trying to prove? "It you put fetus pictures on a webpage, it'll be blocked?" Isn't that point already proven?

I think they're trying to do 2 things here.

1. See if the ACMA will blacklist their own article on Wikipedia, because it has a link to a blacklisted site. If they don't, there's a double standard in play.
2. To demonstrate that the ACMA is overstepping whatever authority it has by extending its censorship beyond the original charter (child abuse/porn/think of the children) and has moved onto graphic material, though not obscene in the normal sense of the word.

For 1, this is straightforward enough.

For 2, this is interesting, as the people publishing the forbidden link are anti-abortion. Now, many people who are anti-abortion (I would guess) are quite rabidly pro-ACMA. They also view abortion as a form of child abuse (remember, they usually consider conception to be when life begins, not when the baby comes out of the breach). So what we end up with is essentially people publishing images of murder victims/abuse victims with the explicit intent of showing the harmful effects of the abortions. The ACMA probably claims to be banning the material because it's graphically revolting, but then again, that would be a personal judgement call. Given the reason for the ACMA (think of the children), this probably oversteps the boundary of what they are there for. One might also make the leap and say that just by blacklisting the site, the ACMA is making conflicting statements ("We condemn child abuse, but you aren't allowed to speak against it unless we approve.")

Re:Wikipedia

[cojoco]

You're an idiot.

The people publishing the forbidden link are pro-civil-liberties, not anti-abortion.

They chose the anti-abortion link because it is both political and gory, and hence could be expected to be censored by ACMA.

What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understand, the site's hosted in the US. What can the Australian authority do about that?

Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[Tubal-Cain]

Block Wikipedia in Australia. At least in theory.

Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Better that than give them the right to censor Wikipedia for the rest of us.

Why are they trying to censor links to the content, though? Isn't censoring the content itself enough?

Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[daveime]

The Pirate Bay is hosted in Sweden, that didn't stop the whole world blaming them for copyright infringement violation of DMCA piracy arrrrrrrrr ... etc etc

Offtopic I know, so save your mod points for something useful ;-)

Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[rohan972]

Why are they trying to censor links to the content, though? Isn't censoring the content itself enough?

There are four things that are never satisfied, and a fifth one in a category worse than the others: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; the fire that never says, It is enough; and the government seeking to expand its control over the people.

Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make Australia follow the lead from China!

There are some things we shouldn't see

[BadAnalogyGuy]

As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[cbrocious]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Break some eggs to make an omlette?

Lets reverse that statement. Who cares if we can't debate the governments new law to kill all black people, so long as I don't have to look at offensive signs held up by anti abortion protesters!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't know about protesters holding up graphic images in public, but concerning shock sites:

The internet is not for children. It is not PG-13. It requires parental supervision, like so many other activities.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Lieu21]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public and demeaning of social groups?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Wizard Drongo]

Not very worse off at all.
But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be.
Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list.
Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded.
Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State.
I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it.
Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them.
Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Capsaicin]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?

... or Christians, Dentists and Travel agents for that matter.

It is arguable that there are some materials so objectionable that ThePeople(tm) in a democracy could ask their governments to ban or restrict general access to them. But that is not the case here! This was meant to be a secret list, which means we have a (supposedly democratically elected) government acting without public oversight. This is to be tolerated only in the rarest cases when it strictly necessary (such as on some issues of national security). What the Australian government is proposing here is intolerable.

Hopefully the release of the list will serve to warn people about the potential scope of the secret list. And hopefully this will strengthen Sen. Xenophon's resolve (and perhaps pursuade some other cross benchers) to scuttle the enabling legislation in the Senate.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[cbrocious]

I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it. Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them. Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

I agree fully, and that's why my Troll moderation is nonsensical. Apparently I should've laid down the sarcasm a bit more thickly...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Capsaicin]

how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public

We would be very much worse off! The breastfeeding rate would fall. Child abuse in the form of bottle feeding would become rife, with obvious negative effects on future economic and sporting performance as well as the rise in criminal acitivity among abused children. In cases when mothers resisted such bottlefeeding abuse, we would have an increase in the number of hungry babies crying in public. Worse still some mothers might take their babies into public toilets to feed them, the psychopathological effects of which don't bear contemplating!

But yeah, you're right ;)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[amiga3D]

How right you are! As much as I may dislike what some people may have to say I love that they have the right to speak it. It means that I have that right as well. You can't shut the mouths of those you disagree with without shutting your own mouth as well.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Ashriel]

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[GrahamCox]

... aborted fetii...

Your speech is certainly free - very free. Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word. I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[1u3hr]

As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square.

That IS NOT what happened. It is just a TEXT link, clearly labelled and you proceed at your own risk if you want to see it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jimbob The Mighty]

Yes, there are somethings that perhaps I do not want to see. And I am perfectly capable of choosing what they are for myself.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mjwx]

Not that I entirely disagree with you but the problem with free speech as most US citizens would see it (a la Voltaire) is just as dangerous as restricted speech. Ironically enough for the same reason, it absolves responsibility for the speaker, except in the case of Voltaire style free speech there are absolutely no consequences for any hateful act inspired or incited by the speech.

I don't promote limited speech but I do promote that one be held responsible for their speech. Most speech can be free and without consequence but some can be destructive but it is only after that destruction happens that the speaker could be punished. Free speech without consequences will only serve to make free speech worthless as it will be abused. I believe some yanks refer to this as "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".

Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

First they came for the Jews and so on, the entire western world has taken steps towards fascism, no point in singling out the UK here, the US with warrant-less wiretaps and detention without charge has done a bit more in the march towards fascism then the UK or other western nations, holding onto some veil of protected speech doesn't change that. But we are all aboard the authoritarian train heading to fascist central so there is no point arguing over who's the worst fascist and if we really need someone to blame, we needn't have to look far.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Lieu21]

You broke it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[FutureDomain]

It's proper Latin, you insensitive clod!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Samah]

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?

Well, Australia would have an R18+ video game classification, for one thing.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[bitrex]

Who decides what "hatemongering" is? As far as I have been able to tell, at least in the Western world, it currently works like this: Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and it's hate. So you think speech should be "free" and yet it should totally be confined to whatever speech the powers-that-be decide is offensive or isn't offensive to different racial or religious groups through obvious application of double standards? What's free about that?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[MindlessAutomata]

Very, because the very worst of us at least have the function of testing how much freedom we really do have. Once society starts selecting which views can be public and which can't, then ALL of our heads are on the chopping block because that means we are only allowed to express thoughts society lets us express. Great if you're a huge conformist, not so great if you want to think independently. Do you really want to put yourself at the mercy of Leviathan?

What's scary is, liberals tend to like that idea because adhering to the norms and expectations of society and thinking in terms of what's good and functional for society is more important than thinking in terms of individual rights (unless they feel those individual rights ultimately serve society) and conservatives want to PROMOTE STANDARDS and edicts in their holy book.

They're all the same.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[unlametheweak]

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?

It would be much worse off. Having censorship (like this) would be equivalent to not having an Internet. When governments, ISPs or special interest groups can determine what is normal and decent to look at and what is not normal and decent to look at then most of the advantages of having an Internet are extinguished to nothing more than a heavily regulated, private Bulletin Board System (akin to the early 1990s, but far less free).

If people don't like what's on the Internet then they shouldn't use it. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone. Throughout history governments and organizations have been censoring to the detriment of society. Throughout history these tyrants have said they are doing it for the good of society. People don't seem to be able to learn from history. We need the Internet to be more decentralized and immune from censorship as possible so that people aren't victim to censorship and the myriad excuses used to justify it.

You let me have some goatse.cx, and maybe the Chinese might let people have some Falun Gong, and maybe I will let America have some Scientology sites, or maybe even some of the perversions of Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes all or nothing is the most sensible way to go.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are right.
I also think this this censoring crap is getting totally counter productive.
Now I really don't want to care, but it's a bit bugging me, that anyone with a bit of technical knowledge can access the list that get so much attention right now. Actually nobody would care if they would stop this shit, but this way most of us have to care and any actual bad people gets a full database of..
Oh and by the way, because nobody dares to think about children anymore they are getting lonely and an start to get rare.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Fluffeh]

Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

Either learn to make a proper counter argument, or stop using the "For the CHILDRENZ" argument. Both will help you look less like a fool here on slashdot.

Secondly, while I don't disagree that we wouldn't be worse off without the two sites you mentioned - I do STRONGLY disagree that sites that for example promote anti-abortion should be disallowed. (For the record I am pro-abortion). My point is if the law was passed to block child porn sites, okay, block child porn sites. Don't start using it to block anything you want on a secret list that you can't discuss.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have people disagreeing and cuss words?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[tirefire]

Stop trying to protect children from reality.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[carlzum]

As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

My beef with abortion protesters isn't with their right to use graphic images to support their argument. I doubt they've received any form of consent to use the images. It's distasteful from the patient's perspective to abortion-rights advocates and from the child's perspective to pro-life advocates. I dislike the campaign's tactic for the same reason, a political site, or even pornography, would have been a better choice.

Also, there's a difference between street corners and targeted communication like Web sites and pamphlets. Forcing graphic images on people robs them of their right to avoid them.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[TapeCutter]

Well said and it implies the trial was maybe not a complete waste. Think how much funnier it is now the pet senator of one of those groups, having bartered his senate chips for mandatory blacklists, is forced into the position of voting on a blacklist that has the nasty side effect of banning his most ardent supporters....oppps....mind your step on the way out senator...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[unlametheweak]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

I would presume that the fetuses are naked, and nudity is often equated with pornography by the religious right (when it suits their political needs). Showing dead naked fetuses presumably bring out necrophiliac impulses in people who are prone to have that "illness", so in order to stop fetus abuse we need to stop encouraging the demand by limiting the supply. That's the theory the Australian (et al) government uses against the purveyors of fetus abuse. Or at least that's the mindset as far as I can understand it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

teh babby got a PAGINA!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Maxo-Texas]

Dang. And I think this had a shot at being a new Slashdot meme.

Free speech meme, we hardly knew ye.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Dramacrat]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Communists and their apologists?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anzya]

Man, I couldn't decide if I wanted to rate this funny or informative :)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[fractoid]

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have you?

(This isn't a personal attack, I'm just trying to point out that one man's lols is another man's wtf, so to speak.)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[lumenistan]

I don't mind your flawed logic, but dude. I had to friggin sit through Latin in school, the last year it was required (lucky me) so now I get to be a self-righteous poindexter grammar asshole on slashdot. The plural of fetus is "fetuses". Not "feti", and sure as hell not "fetii". Now get off my lawn and turn off that damn swing music, damn kids...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes

Uh oh. As much as I'm all for you retaining your life, but I think you should die.

I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

In the words of the immortal Carlin, "Fuck the children." Kids are subjected to violence every day on TV, yet can't see the real-life consequences of it to keep them from doing stupid shit? One of the problems with the crowd that thinks it's a sin to allow your 10 year old kid watch an R rated Terminator movie is thinking how their ideal, sheltered kid will be royally screwed up at 18. At that age, suddenly considered adults, they need to face unadulterated life and to one extreme they can immediately join the Army if they sign up for it fed with some jingoist propaganda how glorious war but without ever having seen a guy with his brains blown out on some shock site.

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?

You know I have this great little thing, when my mouse goes over links, it tells me what address I'm about to click on on the bottom. Also, I have WOT (web of trust) enabled, giving a nice little color coded circled next to all the links in a page. I can choose and am warned when a site is "bad" according to my criteria.

Having spent half my life in Europe, one of the few things America is blessed with is freedom of speech, allowing the people to choose over the government. (Yes, the FCC and other such shitty agencies are doing their damnedest to encroach on it all the time). In Germany, there is Constitutionally protected Free Speech (Meinungsfreiheit) that get more and more undermined at every chance. Now, feel-good public measures like Holocaust denial are outlawed (since the 90s, society was such that this wasn't needed anyway because neo-nazism has nearly 0 acceptance among the people), but with those few exceptions more and more others came pouring in. Video games with blood are outlawed (but movies still have them IIRC, why?) And it creeps down, if I curse a cop or any lowly bureaucrat I can be fined 5000 euros. Newspaper aren't even allowed to mention the nationalities of perpetrators of crimes often for fear of a backlash against foreigners. Excuse me, but I thought Nazi loved censorship too.

The entire police state mentality is there since at least the 1800s, getting worse all the time, as people worship the bureaucratic state to solve all their problem or at least take care of the problems they have with their neighbor because the two can't talk it out between each other. This time under the control of a different political spectrum but it's still constant control nonetheless. So please excuse me when I roll my eyes when you say "How much worse off would we be without" those sites.

I won't miss those sites either. I'll miss the ones the state suddenly decides are bad next and down the line as they keep an ever growing black list.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[fractoid]

mock a Muslim and it's intolerance

From my media-driven viewpoint, and as far as such groups can be generalised, Muslims are the first to jump on the "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant religion.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[quadrox]

I don't think it is right to hold the speaker responsible for other peoples actions - unless these other people are minors or mentally handicapped perhaps.

But for every grown up person we must assume that these people know the law, they know what is right and wrong, and they are capable of making their own decisions. After all, we let these people elect our government so it is clear the we have some assumptions about how much they know and how mature they are (regardless of how true this may for particular individuals).

I would therefore suggest that it is every persons own responsibility not to act against the law, even when inspired by "hate speech" and the like. You don't imprison the bartender who served you alcohol after you run somebody over while drunk-driving after all.

Free speech must be entirely unrestricted. Everybody is responsible for his own actions.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[beelsebob]

Oh, I thought he had typoed and they were holding up signs of confetti!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mjwx]

I don't think it is right to hold the speaker responsible for other peoples actions

I'd argue that speech itself is an action and to incite others to act via speech is something that one should be held accountable of, after the fact. Talking is just talking until some action results from that.

You don't imprison the bartender who served you alcohol after you run somebody over while drunk-driving after all.

If the bartender had obviously encouraged the person to break the law (drive whilst intoxicated, getting drunk is not a crime in most places, its when the drunk gets behind the wheel), this can be done. But of course in this scenario both are imprisoned as both are culpable, but it is more likely the bartender goes to court in a civil suit. But clear evidence must always be shown, the thing about hate speech laws is that in order not to be abused they must 1. take place after the destructive event and 2. have clear evidence (but most hate mongers like to record their ramblings).

Free speech must be entirely unrestricted. Everybody is responsible for his own actions.

Speech should be unrestricted but it should not be without consequence as this would just invite abuse (E.G. inciting to riot, this should only be a crime after the riot has occured).

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[ChameleonDave]

It's proper Latin, you insensitive clod!

If you're talking about leaving the o out, then yes, it's proper Latin. The word was fetus in Classical Latin. It gained an o in the mediaeval period. Standard English overwhelmingly prefers this later spelling, but the etymology does give Americans a very good excuse for removing the o in this particular word.

The plural of this word in Latin is spelt the same as the singular, but the u is lengthened in the pronunciation. When this is the case, we in English just give the word a normal English plural in -es.

Giving the word a plural in -i (by analogy with words like alumnus) is a forgivable mistake, but "f(o)etii" is just idiocy. You might as well write "babyses".

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Skapare]

If people didn't post those things, we would be no worse off. But the issue isn't about whether they are posted. It isn't even about what is posted. The real issue is that a government can make decisions about what gets blocked, with no transparency, no review, and no acceptance of responsibility. This is the most extreme danger, because it gives a government so much arbitrary power that cannot be challenged.

So they say this is about protecting children. Yet the mechanism they use goes beyond that ... far, far beyond that. So clearly, "protecting children" is a mere excuse. This is about government trying to take control over people ... adult people.

A proper system would provide for a means of review, including by anyone that chooses to be a reviewer. Clearly, anyone choosing to review this better not be squeamish. There also needs to be a process to challenge this. Anyone reviewing, or impacted, must have a means to have each entry reviewed, with a public openness of the challenge process.

A proper system for protecting children would be focused on children. For example, parents could be required to restrict children to a special internet connection reserved for children, while as adults, they personally can choose to bypass that protection. Mandating these filters for schools is understandable. But for every adult, too? Something is very rotten down under.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Mr_eX9]

Neo-Nazis are good things to have around when you need somebody to ridicule.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[gnud]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

It seems you don't know the meaning of the word pornographic.

I quote the third meaning of the word:

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[AC-x]

Can you please explain to us what exactly is wrong with breast feeding in public??

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[wisty]

Given that I only hear about Neo-Nazis when their freedom of speech is curtailed, censoring them is almost counter-productive. Crackpots love to be censored - it's free publicity, and their flaky ideas are not tested in any public arenas.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[daveime]

I beg to differ, now fuck off !

See how much *fun* that is ?

Most of us gave up on the "why can't we all get along and sing happy songs in a pink fluffy bunny kind of world" when we became teenagers. What's your excuse ?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[daveime]

That would depend on the breasts in question ... some of the flabby, dangly, purple-veined monstrosities you tend to see are perhaps better hidden from fragile eyes.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[daveime]

I don't think I've ever once heard a bartender suggest "you should drive home drunk".

In fact, a lot of them are far more likely to say "looks like you've had too much, you'd better not drive tonight", and even call you a taxi.

A bartender wants to sell beer ... he doesn't want you to break the law. A punter who is in jail or rehab is unlikely to buy more beer.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[daveime]

and Travel agents for that matter

Computer says no ... *cough* ...

(For those of you in the dark, look up "Little Britain" on youtube).

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic)

You've got some pretty twisted fetish there.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jaysyn]

The US needs to liberate the poor Australians from the evil Conroy regime.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hognoxious]

I don't think it is right to hold the speaker responsible for other peoples actions

Soleley responsible, no. But consider this (purely hypothetical, couldn't happen) example: some one eyed, hook handed loony who lives at taxpayers expense preaches in his mosque to kill all the jews, and that afternoon two of his congregation burn a synagogue down. I think there's a strong case for considering him an accessory.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[machine321]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

Were they nekkid? Were there farm animals involved?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Auldclootie]

It's a word now! 'Fetii' NEEDS to be right up there with 'Walrii' - which of course is the plural of walrus - I'll take descriptive over prescriptive anyday.But seriously... Wikileaks are the good guys here...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Conley Index]

From my media-driven viewpoint

Do these media for example include aljazeera? It is rather a selected media-driver viewpoint.

and as far as such groups can be generalised

No, they cannot. Your statement does not get any more valid with this disclaimer.

Muslims are the first to jump on the "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant religion.

The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions. There are many (fundamental) Christians that do not accept the Islam.

I do not think that the Islam is more tolerant than Christianity, which many Muslim claim. In most countries with an Islamic majority you should rather not even think about converting away from Islam. Anyhow, your claim that the Islam is "uncompromisingly intolerant" is rather close-minded (and very _certain_ media-driven).

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[smoker2]

I realise you are trying to be sarcastic, but all your type ever seem to say is "we should defend freedom of speech", you never propose a solution to the problem of people or organisations who use that free speech for nefarious purposes.

I agree you should be free to say, or write anything you want, from a philosophical point of view. But when you go further and attempt to extend free speech to mean freedom to deliberately cause trouble, real physical trouble for other members of the world, then you're over stepping the mark.

It's pretty childish to just finish the sentence at "allow free speech" without qualifying where that freedom ends, especially when you conflate free speech with complete and total freedom to do what you want. It's like people bitching about dependence on motor vehicles or being stuck in traffic and burning fuel. The glib answer is "ride a bike". You say "but I have to travel 50 miles" or "I have only got 1 leg" but they don't have an answer to that. They don't want to consider the consequences just make a point and move on.

Take the Nazis for instance. If you really believe your nation would be better run by Nazis, then you need to read a bit of history. Time and time again the democratic process has proved that people don't agree with it. But you are willing to give the Nazis the right to free speech and you just hope that nobody ever takes them seriously enough to get any power. I think there should be limits before it gets that far. You are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery - why should you be allowed to vote for a vicious, xenophobic, racist, elistist bunch of scumbags like the nazis ? Giving them a platform in an election is lending them legitimacy, as if it's OK to kill people you don't like or agree with. I don't believe that is a legitimate viewpoint.

Draw a line where you believe no respectable political movement should go beyond, or you will end up regretting it. It's like the "your freedom to throw a punch, ends at the tip of my nose". It's too late when they hit you, they have already gone too far. If you allow the nazis sympathisers to march up and down a predominantly jewish neighbourhood, that is getting pretty close to the tip of a lot of peoples noses, and for what ? Are you seriously defending the right to deliberately piss people off just because you can ? And yet we see the same apologists complaining vehemently about cases of bullying even when it takes place over the net and there is no physical danger to anyone. Can we have some joined up thinking please ?

I'm not against free speech, I'm against finding out the hard way.
(note that the Nazis didn't originally come to power under a banner of "let's kill all the jews", their politics were socialist and publicly promised beer and kittens. Any organisation that is still prepared to call themselves Nazis must be referring to the Nazis as they turned out to really be [hate, ethnic cleansing, racial purity, etc], or else they have a pretty stupid marketing guy. The BNP figured that one out, but "British National Party" is still a bit too close so they have been spotted)

There have been (too) many cases in the UK of people with babies and toddlers allowing their dogs to have free reign. They always say that the dog is no threat, it has always been sweet tempered and friendly towards people. Then one day the dog takes the kids face off. Guess what, it's too fucking late.

What's the quote ?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Who's watching ? You ? Your elected representative ?

It appears to me that like most things these days, it's somebody elses job to do that, while you just sit around mouthing platitudes.

Congratulations if you made it this far. Most people who should read this (the ones I have a problem with) stopped reading as soon as I disagreed with their point of view (ironic huh). Now you can make your own mind up on what is acceptable in a civilised society. I hope you question yourself thoroughly. I'm not running for office, I'm appealing to common sense (heh).

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

It's not odd at all. They're intolerant of your intolerance, but supremely tolerant of their own. In other words, self-serving hypocrites.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jedi Alec]

My beef with abortion protesters isn't with their right to use graphic images to support their argument. I doubt they've received any form of consent to use the images. It's distasteful from the patient's perspective to abortion-rights advocates and from the child's perspective to pro-life advocates. I dislike the campaign's tactic for the same reason, a political site, or even pornography, would have been a better choice.

Sorry, I'm as pro-choice as they come, but if the aborted foetus has no rights as a human being when the abortion is considered, why should it have those rights when the consideration to display said aborted foetus on a photo is made?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[L4t3r4lu5]

The plural of baby is babies. I think you meant babieses.

Sorry :(

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[smoker2]

And if you don't limit things so that you end up with a Nazi police state, how does that benefit anybody ? Slippery slopes can be angled both ways. There need to be agreed levels of asshattery.

It's one thing to defend speech, it's quite another to defend the actions that result from that speech. You prefer to rely on hope and the goodwill and intelligence of others to prevent those actions taking place. Hell, in the US the people have trouble filling in paper ballots. But they should be trusted to recognise a threat to society ?

Do you believe it's OK to teach Creationism in schools ? Even though it is complete and obvious fabrication ? Why should Nazism have more "rights" then Creationism ? Sure an individual is allowed to believe in what they like, but if they seek to push their erroneous views on others that is going too far.

Any group or organisation that demonstrates, through their free speech, that they seek to deprive others of said free speech or worse, should forfeit their right to organise. Can't we agree on a minimum level of conduct that is acceptable in a civilised society ?
Maybe we need a GPL of politics, so that you can do and say what you like with an idea but if you seek to pass it on then you must observe certain minimum rules.

Are the actions at Auschwitz defensible because the Nazis came to power democratically ? What does that say about democracy ?

These are very hard questions to answer, but just proclaiming your outright defence of free speech ducks the issue of consequences.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[unlametheweak]

It seems you don't know the meaning of the word pornographic.

I quote the third meaning of the word:

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

So that means much of Slashdot, right wing radio talk shows, and American religious television shows are pornographic.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hognoxious]

It's quite simple. Free speech doesn't mean free from any consequences.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[RobotRunAmok]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

It's a picture of a naked dead baby.

Both will help you look less like a fool here on slashdot.

Yeah, but oftentimes looking like a fool within the slashdot hivemind is tantamount to appearing insightful and wise in the real world.

Secondly, while I don't disagree that we wouldn't be worse off without the two sites you mentioned - I do STRONGLY disagree that sites that for example promote anti-abortion should be disallowed.

My head just exploded. What was that, a quintuple negative?

(For the record I am pro-abortion)

Thanks for clearing that up. Man, don't they teach proper sentence structure in public school any more...?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

I am disgusted that people like you want to ban things that you personally don't want to see. It is not your choice for the rest of us. What abortion objectors do in public has zero relevance to this issue and you are an idiot for bringing it up here.

What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet. The Internet is not responsible for what children see. Their parents are. The fact that a government chooses these pictures are not appropriate is a form of propaganda on their part.

I have thought about this pretty hard especially from the point of view of do I want to allow people to speak out against what I believe and my answer is yes, so you are free to express your opinion, but don't try to confuse people with something totally irrelevant!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hognoxious]

How is plurals of "babby" formed?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Five Bucks!]

I doubt your commitment to dieing for free speech. As you say, there are groups all around us with the right to free speech revoked and yet, here you are: alive.

But a lot of others claim to be willing to die for free speech. Well... why aren't they dieing all over the UK for their highly vaunted cause?

Furthermore, where are all the privacy martyrs? Face it... very very few in Western culture are willing to die for a cause. We're way too concerned with our next pay raise, our next promotion all to get the newest flat screen TV.

We suck.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly a sexually repressed individual raised by puritanical parents. The OP can't help but think, "Oh my God I'm seeing boobies! Alas, cruel world, now I must gouge mine eyes out for I have seen that which is not meant to be seen."

That, or, this is just Slashdot and the OP is typical geek of juvenile mind who fantasizes about boobies and can't imagine them having a function other than being fun bags.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[rohan972]

The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions.

Wrong. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity were valid religions, ie: Islam, but their versions of the Koran (having once been identical to the Muslim Koran) have been corrupted. The central claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is specifically refuted, as is the claim of Judaism to be the inheritors of the promise to Abraham, Islam claiming that inheritance passed to Ishmael rather than Isaac. Without these claims, Judaism and Christianity essentially do not exist and certainly aren't valid. That is why Islam teaches that a person converting to Islam from any other religion is acceptable, but converting from Islam to any other religion, including Judaism and Christianity, is a punishable offence.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hognoxious]

Whty do you keep writing "the Islam"? Were you frightened by a Buddhism or something?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Kozz]

The breastfeeding rate would fall. Child abuse in the form of bottle feeding would become rife, with obvious negative effects ...

I'm sorry, I may need more coffee, but did you just say that parents who bottle-feed their children are committing child abuse ? Well then, call children's services to my house.

I'm in agreement that breast-feeding is the ideal. However, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for bottle-feeding a child. You may not be creative enough to think of a few. Or I've been trolled. Hmm, that might be it. But what the hell, I'll post this anyhow.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Atriqus]

mock a Jew and it's hate

Then I take it you don't get Comedy Central in your area.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[that IT girl]

Mod parent up... I have been confused about this myself for quite some time.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries with an Islamic majority you should rather not even think about converting away from Islam.

And even if you do convert, they'll just pass a law that says you're still Muslim.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[that IT girl]

I've jokingly used the word "penii" for years, I think it makes perfect sense.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[quadrox]

Not to offend you, but I feel your view represents a wish for a nanny state, at least with regards to free speech. This view is even supported by law, as it is illegal to incite someone to commit a crime I believe. But I feel that this is wrong.

If I decide to act, either because I get paid, because I have heard a "hate speach" or for whatever reason - it is solely MY decision to break the law, and it should be solely MY responsibility if I commit a crime.

You cannot have two people responsible for the actions of one. Either the "inciter" is responsible, or we assume the "do-er" to be grown up enough to know what he is doing, and as such responsible. I can understand why one would feel that it is immoral to incite someone to commit a crime (esp. if it is murder), but still, it seems illogical to me that two people should be responsible for one crime (if they were not both performing it).*

Otherwise it is far too easy to label something as hate speech and shut people up.

* My reasoning here is similar to my reasoning as to why the RIAAs damages are excessive. They are assuming that each downloader is uploading to a lot of different people, say 100. Thus they have to pay 100 time the cost of the song. But if the RIAA were to catch ALL downloaders, they would receiver 100 time the TOTAL in damages. This is clearly unjust. Either they punish for uploading or for downloading, but they cannot punish for both.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[DaFallus]

if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English

The war ended over 200 years ago man, let it go! Besides, I'm sure Poe or any 19th century literati would consider your English to be a bastardized version of the King's English. But don't fret too much about it, I'm sure all of us across the pond here will be speaking Spanish within the next 100 years and then you can have your precious blue-blooded language back :)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Benzido]

Proper Latin would be feti.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[PhilHibbs]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

Because it's grotesque. Pornography doesn't just mean sex, it also covers extreme violence. Basically it's anything that the mainstream find objectionable but some minority might find fascinating or exciting. For example, the photos of Princess Diana after the car crash are pornographic in the second meaning here.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[elrous0]

You can have my tubgirl when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not for you to decide what I or my kid sees.

Publish EVERYTHING, let me worry about explaining it to my children, (yes ALL images, ALL articles)

Stupidity is obvious to all when visible.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

There need to be agreed levels of asshattery.

This line got my mod point, but the whole post deserved it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jason Levine]

It doesn't matter if the woman's breasts are perfect (a rarity on a real woman's real breasts and usually a sign of a boob job) or, as you put it, "flabby, dangly, purple-veined monstrosities." Either way, the woman has the right to feed her baby anywhere she happens to be. If that means giving her baby a bottle of milk or a breast filled with milk, it doesn't matter. If your eyes are so fragile that you will suffer irreparable damage seeing a small portion of a real woman's breast being used to feed a baby, then there's a really simple solution: Look away! No one is forcing you to stare at the woman feeding her child.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

The plural of fetus is NOT fetii. Even if it was following general Latin pluralization, it would be feti. "Fetii" would be the plural of "fetius".

fetus -> fetuses
bus -> buses
virus -> viruses
fungus -> fungi
radius -> radii (because the singular already has an "i" before "us")

Stop trying to sound smart by replacing "us" with "ii"; it just makes you look dumb and voids any and all points you make in your post.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hatta]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have memes on Slashdot?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[qazwart]

> Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a
> Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and
> it's hate.

> Muslims are the first to jump on the
> "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is
> odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant
> religion.

And while we're at it, don't ya hate how all them colored folks have gotten all uppity?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[stdarg]

I agree with your doubt, but why does that mean we suck? We suck because we're not totally irrational?

Even people who say things like "I will die for your rights!" realize that "free speech" as an absolute cannot exist alongside other absolutes like "privacy" which you mentioned, or "religion" or anything else that has a component that may restrict speech.

The West's rationality and introspection is a great strength not a source of suckiness. I guess it's not a strength, but more a thing of beauty. I know what you mean though. It sucks when you have that attitude but the people you're fighting don't. Things change, exceptions are made.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[stdarg]

Seriously, "uppity" is the wrong word -- it's intolerance not arrogance -- but the GP is exactly right and you are unwittingly right by applying the same message to blacks in the US. One reason people voted for Obama is that he's making it possible for whites to engage in discussions with and about blacks without being branded racists for simply positing the existence of some problems.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[fractoid]

What's a 'colored folks'? My friends range from red with brown spots to pink with red spots to light brown to very dark brown to very pale pink. Which of them are 'coloured'? None of them seem unduly 'uppity'. I'm confused.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[stdarg]

None. We'd be none worse off.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[stdarg]

Then everybody has free speech, even under the most oppressive regimes, so what are we worried about?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Intolerant in a kind of "we're not that keen on Western values steamrollering over centuries of culture because it doesn't quite fit in with their World Police ethic"? Yeah, how disgusting of them

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Fex303]

It's cute how you assume that all Muslims are a single group.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[fractoid]

It's cute how you assume that all Muslims are a single group.

It's cute how you skipped the entire first part of my post where I explain that I don't.

Intolerant in a kind of "we're not that keen on Western values steamrollering over centuries of culture because it doesn't quite fit in with their World Police ethic"? Yeah, how disgusting of them

(Replying to the AC above to reduce spam)
Yeah, centuries of stoning people to death for things like "not wanting to be Muslim any more". Centuries of campaigning to combine church and state so they can impose Sharia law. That the culture you're talking about?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mdwh2]

Right, you're now facing a hefty fine and possible prison sentence for linking to those sites - don't you know a child could be accessing this site?

The point isn't so much whether we'd be better off with or without particular sites. You also have to look at the consequences for breaking that law. This is even more of a problem for laws where people can't be sure if a site is legal or not. This is the point: yes we hate it when someone tricks us into a goatse, but no one here thinks "How dare he - now he should be spending years in prison for that!"

And as much as I am no fan of anti-abortionists, the fact that you are in favour of suppressing political content - under the grounds that it is "disgusting" - rather than arguing with reason why they are wrong, shows why your stance is wrong. Yes, I'm pro-choice, and part of that is not opposing abortion merely because the images look horrible.

Deciding that we should ban images because they look horrible isn't really that different from the anti-abortion point of view that we should ban abortion because it looks horrible.

As for your "think of the children argument", there are ways to control access to underage. If we banned for everyone anything unsuitable for children, then that's an argument for banning vast amounts of material.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mdwh2]

As far as I have been able to tell, at least in the Western world, it currently works like this: Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and it's hate.

In the UK, the law that outlawed specifically Christian blasphemy was only repealed last year. Yes, the laws on what constitute "hate" are confusing, but please don't play the "no one cares about Christians" card.

Note also that "Jew" can also refer to both the race of Jews, and a follower of Judaism. I agree that criticism of religious beliefs should never be considered "hate", but if you see a different standard, it may be because you are also confusing the issue with examples of racism against Jews.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're right about "fetii", however...

I wish I knew Middle English, so that I could use it to write a complaint about your use of the bastardized version of the language that is Modern (British) English.

Of course then someone would use Old English to complain about my use of bastardized Middle English. Where would it all end?!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Effexor]

You cannot have two people responsible for the actions of one. Either the "inciter" is responsible, or we assume the "do-er" to be grown up enough to know what he is doing, and as such responsible. I can understand why one would feel that it is immoral to incite someone to commit a crime (esp. if it is murder), but still, it seems illogical to me that two people should be responsible for one crime (if they were not both performing it).*

So if I offer to pay you $5000 to kill my wife and you do... am I responsible or are you? There could be money in it if you get the answer right.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[russotto]

Either way, the woman has the right to feed her baby anywhere she happens to be. If that means giving her baby a bottle of milk or a breast filled with milk, it doesn't matter. If your eyes are so fragile that you will suffer irreparable damage seeing a small portion of a real woman's breast being used to feed a baby, then there's a really simple solution: Look away!

It's not that the man who sees the breast will suffer harm from the sight. It's that he's going to be made to feel like a creep if he sees it. It's not really reasonable that women both

1) Get to breastfeed in public and
2) Judge men harshly when men see them do it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[russotto]

Soleley responsible, no. But consider this (purely hypothetical, couldn't happen) example: some one eyed, hook handed loony who lives at taxpayers expense preaches in his mosque to kill all the jews, and that afternoon two of his congregation burn a synagogue down. I think there's a strong case for considering him an accessory.

A very weak case, if he was limited to generalities like "kill all the jews". A strong case if he'd said "go burn down that synagogue down the street".

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[dprovine]

There are some people who got very upset about the pictures at Abu Graib -- maybe the moralists went a little too far bringing such graphic images into the public square.

If you're a pro-lifer, making people look at the results of abortion is a completely valid way of showing them what they are supporting. If you'd stop them, what's to say somebody else won't stop images of something you are opposed to, because they're graphic and it goes a little too far?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[DrLang21]

I think your sarcasm detector needs some repairs.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[DrLang21]

That's all well and good but do you then care to explain to me why at any other occasion it is illegal to expose a woman's nipples in public? I get irked about it more because of the absurd double standard than I do about the act itself.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[91degrees]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have people spreading atheism and false religions, and criticising our democratically elected government.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

2 chicks at once!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

One mans patriot is anothers racist xenophobic scumbag. You do know that the Nazis were democratically elected, right? Don't be so sure that they were any less outwardly benign as our own governments.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jason Levine]

I think that's ridiculous also. A woman can wear a string bikini with only the barest square of cloth covering her nipple and she's ok. But should that tiny square move over an inch or so and suddenly it is the end of the civilized world and children in a five mile radius are scarred for life. I was watching a "History of Sex" program on the History Channel one day and they mentioned that it was once thought that the mere sight of a woman's leg would drive a man into a fit of uncontrollable lust. In fact, men were thought to be so weak that a table's leg would remind them of a woman's leg and they would go into fits. Table skirts were invented to hide the table legs and protect men from the embarrassment of being caught humping a table leg. (Seriously, were men back then that weak-willed?!!)

I think if women were allowed to go topless whereever men are allowed to go topless: In the short term, there would be a lot of stupid, drooling teenagers and heart attacks among religious conservatives. In the long term, the female breast would become like a woman's leg. An object of attraction, but not considered solely a "sex object."

Certainly, tiny wardrobe malfunctions shouldn't cause national uproar and millions of dollars in fines.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children."

Yes, "bordering on pornographic" indeed - you idiot.

Do you not understand the definition of 'pornography', which is about SEX?

You don't want anti abortionist protestors to show people what abortion IS, as simple as that.

And nice to see you added the good old stalwart "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

Abortion is an atrocity. You don't want people to know about it.

Let's discuss how so many millions of supposedly 'intelligent' women keep "forgetting" to take their pill...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jason Levine]

I don't think many women flaunt their breasts when they breastfeed in public. That is to say that they don't rip off their shirts/bras and dance around for a bit before nursing their child. (Sorry to any teenagers/single geeks here if I've just killed a fantasy of yours.) Most women will lift up one side of their shirt, pop out just enough breast for the child to latch on to, and let the child nurse. Many times, they'll cover the entire deal with a light blanket of some kind. I've been at the table when my sister was nursing her child and I wasn't uncomfortable. (She was covered up and I, of course, looked at her face and not the baby.) I've seen other women nursing their children and it's not a big deal.

About the only time a woman would be right to chastise a man would be if:

1 - He's staring. Really, it's not right to stare at any time, especially if a woman's nursing her kid. Staring just makes you seem like a creep. And if you can't look somewhere else other than the little bit of exposed chest, well, maybe you are a creep.

2 - He confronts her and tells her to cover up and/or take it to the bathroom. In this case, the man is just an idiot. Feeding your child in the bathroom is gross. Think about some of the public restrooms you've seen and ask yourself if you'd want to eat your lunch in there. I've even heard men claiming that the only reason women breastfeed is to get a sexual thrill and a woman's breast should only be a guy's plaything. (I'd be willing to bet good money that the guy who said that doesn't have a woman to "play" with.)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[AthanasiusKircher]

Proper Latin plural would actually be fetus, with a long 'u'. (I don't know how to get the macron to display correctly.) Fourth declension masculine nouns form plurals by changing the final 'u' from short to long rather than using the second-declension plural ending of 'i'.

Contrary to popular belief, not all Latin words ending in "-us" form a plural form with "-i". All the more reason to use English plural forms (add "-es" to the end) rather than trying to form a foreign plural through erroneous means. The plural of "fetus" should be "fetuses" (or "foetuses", if you prefer).

No grammar mistake is more glaring than when rules of foreign languages are misapplied to English. To those who aren't familiar with the other languages, it comes across as pretentious. To those who do know those languages, it comes across as ignorant.

Better to stick to the rules of English.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?

I don't know, you tell me, because people like you keep linking them everywhere ;-)

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[brentonboy]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

The definition of pornography is broader than you would think--it is not limited to sexual images. Anything that is sensational or obscene and has little or no artistic merit is pornographic. Obviously it's a very subjective definition, so you can argue that just about anything is pornographic or not pornographic.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[z80kid]

> you never propose a solution to the problem of people or organisations who use that free speech for nefarious purposes.

The solution is education, of which free speech is an integral part. How am I supposed to know if their purposes are nefarious if I'm never allowed to hear them? Oh, I see. I should take your word for it. How do I know if your purposes are nefarious?

> Take the Nazis for instance. If you really believe your nation would be better run by Nazis, then you need to read a bit of history.

I think we all know what Nazis are, smoker.

> Time and time again the democratic process has proved that people don't agree with it.

They were elected democratically. And they used their elected power to censor and "protect" the people against "dangerous" views that countered the Nazi party line.

> But you are willing to give the Nazis the right to free speech and you just hope that nobody ever takes them seriously enough to get any power.

I'll take that gamble if it means I get to hear from everyone - not just what the people currently in power want me to hear.

Seriously, the next time a Nazi type politician comes to any sort of power it won't be by wearing a swastika, hanging pictures of Hitler, and calling himself a Nazi. You'll need to recognize them by their beliefs. Which leads to:

> What's the quote ?
> "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

And how do you propose to be vigilant with someone else telling you which viewpoints you can read and which ones you can't. The author of that quote wasn't referring to vigilance on the part of the government. He meant you, smoker.

> Most people who should read this (the ones I have a problem with) stopped reading as soon...

Wish I'd have stopped sooner. It wasn't worth it.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[number17]

What is the age limit on the baby? Can I still try to get breast fed in public when im 60?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[sgt scrub]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have public displays of religious symbols and other advertisements for prejudiced beliefs?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[HTH NE1]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

It's a picture of a naked dead baby.

Exactly. It's child snuff porn.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hordeking]

As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?

As much as I am for freedom speech...

You don't have a right to not be offended. If you don't like it, you are free to ignore it (don't feed the troll principle). If you simply can't ignore it, then fell free to express your opposing opinion. If you disagree with their expression, but do concur with their opinion, then express yourself in your own acceptable way alongside them.

This holds for speech that actually tries to convey content. I suppose one could incorporate shock-shit to make a point, which then makes its use in that context protected.

This veers off-topic for a little bit, but gets back on later (I promise)

However, there are those who will argue that this freedom extends to goatse.cx, tubgirl, and child porn. Fair enough. If someone feels that the content of goatse, tubgirl, or child porn has some inherent value, then so be it if they want to go find it. However, this question isn't about the consumers of the information. Is the producer of tubgirl breaking a law? Probably is somewhere. Goatse? Same thing. The child porn? Let's look at that; this is all largely academic, so don't read too much into it.

An obviously sticky problem, really the pornographer is committing the crime when he engages in sexual activity with the kid. If he records it and sells it, that's secondary. Of course, the secondary effect is made illegal, per se in the attempt to remove demand for that which necessitates the forbidden act. So really, what is happening is the freedom of speech is being abridged here, in an attempt to prevent what is required to make this speech. Now, you're going to make the argument that murdering someone because you don't like their policy/politics/business/whatever is also illegal. Let me rebut this. Is regular porn illegal? No (well, it isn't in most places). So, neither the act of sex or the depiction of it is illegal. Is showing a video of a murder illegal? Not that I'm aware of. But murder itself is pretty much uninversally illegal. The act doesn't make the depiction illegal to begin with. But I digress. Child porn is a special case of think of the children. Look on the bright side, both the murderer (who admits it to make a point) and child pornographer to do their thing and leave all sorts of evidence to prosecute the actual illegal acts when they do get caught.

Now, wasn't that a delightfully off-topic section? Back to the topic.

Freedom isn't just about being able to express your opinion. It's really about being able to express your opinion, no matter how unpopular or offensive it is with the rest of the town square. You can do this in pretty much any way you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. The other side of the coin is that they're also free to not deal with you.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hordeking]

I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?

How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups I didn't like?

How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups you didn't like?

How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups I didn't like, but you did?

How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups you didn't like, but I did?

Now, that's the power of freedom of speech and self-determination.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Kozz]

It's interesting the perspective one can have after several hours and doses of caffeine. That being said, astonishingly good satire is virtually indistinguishable from reality. And there do exist a group of people out there who might feel this way.

There seem to exists extremists of every color.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hordeking]

I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?

Sure, you may not want to see that stuff. You not looking doesn't mean I don't want to look (not an endorsement of goatse). So what happens when an arbitrary third party comes and tells us both that we shouldn't see something, because it knows best what is harmful to you? All good and well if you blindly trust this authority. But what if you feel you can handle it, make a better decision, or don't believe the authority? Well, my friend, you are royally fucked.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

"and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list."

Oh no! Not "things that are" "HATEFUL" !!! Oh the humanity!

I take it you mean - anything that doesn't agree with the Jews' plans to completely destroy the white race.

Show me a white country which ISN'T heading for a majority non-white population within the next thirty years....

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hordeking]

I think your sarcasm detector needs some repairs.

Uncle DrLang21, this /. Unit has a bad motivator!

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Jason Levine]

If your 85 year old mother still wants to nurse you, sure. Of course, by that age it gets a little creepy.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[TheoMurpse]

"Pornography" can mean anything depicted in unnecessary detail or "sensational material."

It's sad to see words lose their secondary meanings :(

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Lars T.]

I don't think it is right to hold the speaker responsible for other peoples actions - unless these other people are minors or mentally handicapped perhaps.

So if some person, let's call him Hinkler, said that all, errm, all Shews should be killed, and millions of Shews were killed, Hinkler would not be responsible?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a point. What irks me is the singular of 'sheep'.
EG: 2 feet or 1 foot - Well that's ok.
2 sheep and 1 shoop?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Failed Physicist]

[...] will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii.

In what freak world does aborted fetuses pictures border on pornography?

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[commodoresloat]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

You're just not trying hard enough...

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Lars T.]

Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

I would presume that the fetuses are naked, and nudity is often equated with pornography

Not to mention they are obviously under age.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mjwx]

I don't think I've ever once heard a bartender suggest "you should drive home drunk".

This was the grand parents suggestion, I pointed out that it was a particularly bad one. As you said, a bartender wants to sell beer, a return customer is better for that. In my experience, a good bartender will take care of their regulars although these days bartenders like that are getting hard to find.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[mjwx]

Not to offend you, but I feel your view represents a wish for a nanny state, at least with regards to free speech.

I'm not offended, you're entitled to your view and you've put it across in a rational manner but I definitely think you've misinterpreted what I've said. I don't believe in a nanny state, quite the opposite I believe that one should be responsible for what they do. I don't recommend restricting speech, I recommend holding one's speech against them if it is misused.

This view is even supported by law, as it is illegal to incite someone to commit a crime I believe.

What if one commits a crime on the insistence of another? Is the responsibility of he who insisted or he who acted. In my opinion it is both, in equal measure and both should be punished under the law.

If I decide to act, either because I get paid, because I have heard a "hate speech" or for whatever reason - it is solely MY decision to break the law, and it should be solely MY responsibility if I commit a crime.

Different senario's covered under different laws but have the same effect, both are to entice you into committing a crime, of course the enticement does not absolve you of responsibility but it does place additional blame onto the person who enticed you to commit the crime. It makes you partners in a way, picture a bank robbery, Frank planned the act but did not take part, Bill committed after being instructed to do so by frank, is frank free of guilt in the bank robbery? Frank is at best an accessory, but assume that Bill would not have robbed the bank if he hadn't been instructed to that makes Frank more culpable then Bill.

You cannot have two people responsible for the actions of one.

You're quite correct, one must be responsible for their own actions. However more then one person can be involved in a crime even if they were not found at the scene. This is why I hold speech up as an action in itself.

Either the "inciter" is responsible, or we assume the "do-er" to be grown up enough to know what he is doing, and as such responsible. I can understand why one would feel that it is immoral to incite someone to commit a crime (esp. if it is murder), but still, it seems illogical to me that two people should be responsible for one crime (if they were not both performing it).*

Motive means everything in justice. If you willingly ignore the motive and punish the act only is justice achieved. Of course it isn't, the person who had the destructive motive is not punished at all and will likely re-offend when they have found a new pawn. Both are culpable, both need to be punished under the law, after a crime has been committed. If I tell you to murder your wife and you don't, no crime has been committed and no one is culpable, but if I tell you to murder your wife and you do it do I not share blame for the crime? Hate speech like incitement should not be a crime until after a crime is committed.

Otherwise it is far too easy to label something as hate speech and shut people up.

You're automatically associating hate crime with thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime is the problem with you argument, I agree that thoughtcrime is wrong but hate crime is not automatically thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime can be applied to any crime if judgement is passed before the crime is committed(conspiracy to commit is more thoughtcrime then hate crimes). Justice and punishment can only take place after the act, the point of justice is to discourage further acts by showing that there are consequences, if we can incite others without consequence justice will be perverted.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Hognoxious]

Really? It's not like he said they had to do them all at once.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good but do you then care to explain to me why at any other occasion it is illegal to expose a woman's nipples in public? I get irked about it more because of the absurd double standard than I do about the act itself.

I agree with you 100%! It should be illegal to breastfeed, but all other public exposure of women's breasts should be encouraged. After all, breasts are really for feeding babies! Breasts are for entertainment.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[Anonymous Coward]

s/breasts are really for feeding/breasts aren't really for feeding/

Oblig XKCD

[rockNme2349]

Please mod me down.

http://xkcd.com/545/

Re:Oblig XKCD

[Tubal-Cain]

You're one of these guys, aren't you?

Apostrophe's

[jginspace]

"the lead up to it's removal"

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

Re:Apostrophe's

[Gibbs-Duhem]

It's meta funny because the comic's claimed grammar rules actually make it sound like "it's" can be either "it is" or "its" (possessive)

The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Firehose story here

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Is wikileaks up for you at the moment? I'm on a ISP that is on the content filtering scheme and wikileaks has been unavailable to me all day. It hasn't come up with a red blocked screen yet however, which did happen to another website I tried to visit a couple of days ago...

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[palegray.net]

What ISP are you on, and in what country?

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

globaldial, au

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[auLucifer]

Looks like it's not just you it's down for. I'm in au and can't access either but to save the conspiracy theorists:
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikileaks.org

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[kramulous]

Man, why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory? I thought my ISP was blocking me (when they shouldn't be, apparently) and was getting nice and toasty under the collar.

Or, is downforeveryoneorjustme in on it? Oohhhhh

Re:The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Yaur]

Isn't that what tor is for?

don't want to be used to prove a point?

[liquidsin]

i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for

Re:don't want to be used to prove a point?

[broken_chaos]

No, they just want to be a record of all points.

Well, all points that someone at Wikipedia takes a liking to.

Re:don't want to be used to prove a point?

[SupremoMan]

So true. I remember one time, back in my WoW days, my guild was doing a joint raid with another guild. To help the time pass by we decided to have some fun with them. One of our guys had wikipedia account. I am not sure how it came up but we told them that piranhas are not fish and that they breastfeed their young. We had our guy go edit wikipedia so that when they looked it up, it was true.

Re:fpfpfpf

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful where you aim that! You don't want it in your eye, trust me.

Why they did it.

[DAldredge]

Using wikipedia to prove this point might endanger their donations. Lack of donations equates to not as many expensive dinners out for the higher ups and that has to be avoided at all costs.

Re:Why they did it.

[Ashriel]

I don't know about that. If the administration had taken a public stance that they weren't going to take down the link no matter what, I would've been motivated to donate to Wikipedia for the first time ever.

Error in story

[spazzm]

The link has not been removed. It is at the bottom of WikiPedia's ACAM article as "Prohibited link".
The story pretty much describes the opposite of what happened - the page was protected because a minority of users (many of them IP users without a login) kept on removing the link.

Re:Error in story

[broken_chaos]

Check the history. The link was removed when the page was protected, and then re-added by someone else seven hours later for reason: "Restoring state to prevent a witch hunt or anything. Could people please assume good faith in future?".

Definitely sounds like a bit of an internal edit war, etc.

Re:Error in story

[z0idberg]

So is anyone able to see if any of those IP addresses are from the ACMA offices?

Re:Error in story

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the history again. The link in the main text may be disappearing and reappearing, but the link at the bottom of the page is was there both when the page was protected and when I checked a few seconds ago.

Re:Error in story

[spazzm]

Nope, the link has was there when the page was protected, immediately after and when I checked a few seconds ago.
Maybe you're confusing the link we're talking about (at the bottom of the WP page) with the one that keeps being added and removed from within the WP text?

Re:Error in story

[broken_chaos]

Link at the bottom of the page was removed 15 minutes after inital the protection by the same administrator who protected the page. Personally, I considered that short enough a time to consider it "at the same time". Approximately seven hours later (significantly longer than the initial 15 minutes) it was added back by another administrator.

Diff in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278141091&oldid=278071658

Re:Error in story

[spazzm]

>Link at the bottom of the page was removed 15 minutes after inital the protection by the same administrator who protected the page.

Nope, the protection was applied by SoWhy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278062010&oldid=278060875

The link was removed by VirtualSteve approximately one and a half hour later. VirtualSteve also removes and re-applies the protection. Scarian then re-inserts the link nearly seven hours later.

Re:Error in story

[Yaur]

Does it matter? The link is in the history regardless of what the current version of the page looks like.

You're Trolling...

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct plural of foetus is foetuses or foeti, not fetii.

Re:You're Trolling...

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmmmmm... foeti

Re:You're Trolling...

[Hecatonchires]

That reminds me, who's up for veal?

Re:You're Trolling...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Wouldn't want to get that one mixed up at a wedding...

Re:You're Trolling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Foeti?

Have confetii, the flaked version. Yum yum. Also good for weddings.

Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[serps]

For those who are interested, the Sydney Morning herald reports that the full internet filter list has been leaked. It's pretty interesting - there's a lot of not-actually-illegal content on it (including a dentist's site?).

It's interesting to note that this is the minimum that will be blocked in Australia; the gov may (and will) add to this. This sounds like much more of a test of the censors than what TFA writes about...

• Article on Wikileaks

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[broken_chaos]

Wikileaks seems to, unfortunately, not be loading right now... Anyone have a mirror?

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[Chuck Chunder]

Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[thegrassyknowl]

It won't surprise me if the list has been updated to include Wikileaks. It seems that the site is not responding, but that could be the slashdot effect kicking in.

What really offends me about this mess is that (AFIK) images of aborted babies are not illegal to look at, even if they are gory and sickening to a lot of people. In fact, these very images can serve as educational material AGAINST abortion because most people don't really believe that there's a little person in there yet until the day they give birth... it would serve well to show the gruesome things that are done in the name of "choice" (I am pro-choice, but I think education on the facts is still worthwhile).

Government controlled secret censorship lists are a bad bad thing. Conroy did a bad bad thing (I could go the whole way with a parody of Chris Isaak here). Why are they fearing making the list public? If all the sites are required to be blocked by ISPs then there should be no way Australians can access the 'disgusting' material on the list anyway. *sighs*

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[mrsurb]

Why are they fearing making the list public? If all the sites are required to be blocked by ISPs then there should be no way Australians can access the 'disgusting' material on the list anyway. *sighs*

The censorship is currently undergoing a trial... not all ISPs are involved, notably the big ones. I'm Aussie and I'm against the censorship - I think that there are real ethical and technical problems with the scheme that has been proposed. I do not trust either the current government or any likely alternatives not to use this to their political advantage. But this partial censorship is just farcical!

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[SpazmodeusG]

As mentioned in the previous article, wikileaks is banned here in Australia.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[antic]

Stephen Conroy has since said that the leaked list is not the actual/current ACMA blacklist.

Either way, the blacklist is a fucking stupid idea and I'm ashamed that any mainstream group are pushing for it.

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the url of the dentist's website? Im happy to check that site from work to see if its blocked (im in a filtered isp), I'd rather not check one of the childporn sites ;)

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he would. My response is "It is the real list to me until someone proves to me that Conroy isn't a liar, by showing be the REAL FUCKING LIST".

Conroy deserves every piece of crap he cops over this, as he was the one who engineered his own indefensible position.

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[u38cg]

It 504s (gateway timeout) for me. I'm on my work connection and IWF-listed material usually is blacklisted internally. I imagine there are a lot of Aussies hitting Wikileaks at the moment, though.

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

http://dentaldistinction.com.au/

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[xenobyte]

"No one interested in cyber safety would condone the leaking of this list."

What a load of BS! - Just the use of the word "cyber safety" ranks this as ignorant remark by a buzzword-happy moron.

Now, let's do this one more time... Nobody has ever been harmed by looking at something on the net. Offended maybe. Provoked probably. Annoyed very likely. But harmed? - Never.

Now, there are studies that very clearly show absolutely no harm to children from looking at porn. If they're too young, they don't care and don't understand. When they're old enough they'll seek it out actively and no amount of censorship can stop them.

Hate speech? - It's free speech protected by basic human rights. Just because your opinions isn't mainstream doesn't mean that you have less right right to have them or to express them. Yes, racism legislation is a basic human rights violation because it restricts free speech.

Kiddie porn? - Blocking based on a blacklist only affects the rank beginners in this field. Everybody else knows the 'secret' sites with everychanging names and adresses, and those really into it don't use regular websites at all but circulate their 'warez' using closed ftp-sites with encrypted connections and heavily password protected access.

In other words: This blacklist serves no other real purpose but pure censorship.

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[L4t3r4lu5]

You check wikileaks from work? Are you sure that's a good idea?

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[afaik_ianal]

Can't someone on one of the blocking ISPs test it? Try going to each of the URLs on the list, and see how many get through (one could even automate it with wget, and something to grab the status code, and throw the content away, right?) It's not going to be 100% accurate as it's meant to be a few months old, but it'd give us some idea of how close it is to the real thing.

Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless you're a damn retard and go clicking on the links in the articles on Wikileaks, no.

It's an information site, that's all.

Links are there and locked, now

[1u3hr]

"Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site ....

You might hope that Slashdot editors would CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINKS THEY POST and see the story is wrong at the time of being published. The current version of the page does indeed include the links, and it's been locked. Of course, the part of it being the subject of an edit war was true, and the linked Discussion page is a warzone.

Re:Links are there and locked, now

[DAldredge]

/. editors don't edit.

Re:Links are there and locked, now

[Hecatonchires]

They enable?

A *greased* Yoda?

[grub]

Ah fuck. I was supposed to grease up the Yoda doll? That explains the horrible pain and encrusted blood on the backside of my wizard's robe.

*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN ***

[overbaud]

Remember is order to ban these sites public servants have to visit them and view the content. As a result the images are downloaded both to their local machines AND departmental AND isp proxy caches. This means that not only are public servants viewing child porn (in order to classify it) but actively distributing it to others servers. The administrators of these server are probably unaware that individuals on behalf of the Australian government are causing child porn to be placed in their servers. Further for proxy servers to work they need to keep a list of servers visited, this would include the banned servers. Heaven forbid their cache list becomes public.

So that's why Barrys page gets edited all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many secret service agents it takes to work around the clock to scrub out the truth?

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[broken_chaos]

Such a banned list also inevitably leaks out, and provides a *huge* number of links to such sites, which is even more disturbing to me...

mirrors

[serps]

ppl have been having issues, so here's some mirrors:

• http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://wikileaks.se/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

If wikileaks was being blocked I would expect to see a bit more action here:

HerdictWeb report for wikileaks.org

Re:mirrors

[bug1]

None of those sites work for me. (im in aus btw)

Re:mirrors

[SpazmodeusG]

Errr... Australia is currently marked as red on that chart. It is the only country not to have access to wikileaks.
Iran, China, Russia are all fine. You can access wikileaks from there. We Australians can't though.

Re:mirrors

[bug1]

woops, false alarm, tin foil hat removed...

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't access it either. Using iiNet from Melbourne.

Re:mirrors

[Barny]

Nice, apparently all of /b/ is to be blocked...

img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html

Re:mirrors

[totally bogus dude]

I can't access it but it seems to just be slow / timing out. A traceroute gets through to what I think is Sweden, and the behaviour is the same across my home ISP, my work ISP, and my server at a colo in the US.

Maybe Australians are the only ones caring enough to report the site is unreachable?

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

I see lol.to on that list and they're a FREE BLOG HOSTING service! (asking you to make them your homepage, but that's besides the point) What the hell is wrong with BLOGS in Australia?

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4783073/ACMA-Censored_Abortion_Pictures

Pirate Bay, you're next.

Re:mirrors

[julesh]

From the list:

www.goat.cx, 2girls1cup.com

So Australia's legislating for taste, then?

(lots of IP addresses including some with reputable hosting providers like Verio)

So hard luck if you got them after the original user whose content was blocked, then?

partypoker.com, www.pacificpoker.com, pokerroom.com, coralpoker.com

OK, the obnoxious advertising is more than a little annoying, but blacklisting them? Isn't that a little extreme?

hogtied.com

Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.

encyclopediadramatica.com

OK, I know they're blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia (with good reason), but blocking the entire site for an entire country -- a little extreme for being obnoxious, isn't it?

biz

Huh?? Not sure how their interpretation of this list works, but with a badly written filter this would probably block all .biz domains. With a well-written one it would achieve precisely nothing.

myusenet.net

A usenet service provider.

churchofeuthanasia.org

A site that seems to be intended to make a political statement about population control, although doing it in a rather crude fashion.

satanservice.org

A site of information about self-identified satanic religious groups.

libchrist.com

From the site: "Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Nonmonogamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others."

18yopics.com

So, they're not even pretending to have underage models, yet they get blocked anyway? Presumably on the off-chance that some of their models are younger than they claim?

www.torrentspy.com/directory/1503/adult/videos+%2d+hardcore

A list of hardcore movies, 99+% of which are totally legal (although, in most cases, copyright violations).

http://xfreehosting.com/

A hosting service provider's web site.

pornspaces.com

Another one.

http://pornstarpasswords.com/

A site with a collection of pictures of well-known US adult stars and a 18 USC 2257 compliance statement.

www.bowwowlyrics.cn

A site that, when it existed, probably contained lyrics and images relating to a vaguely-popular 80s New Wave pop group, and in a mirror of the Wikipedia/Scorpions debacle was probably blocked for hosting a copy of this album cover, which shows the naked back of the band's 15-year-old lead singer.

torrentfive.com

A generic bittorrent links site.

legal-models.info

A collection of non-pornographic images of children.

pussy.org

An average, run-of-the-mill hardcore porn site with US legal compliance statement.

sensualgetaway.com

A swingers' classified ads site.

piratetourism.com

"a full service travel agency, operating with the full license of the Ministry of Tourism and a member of the Association of Travel Agencies of Turkiye"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n

Two collections of somewhat-risque pictures that appear in wikipedia articles. None of these images appear to constitute child pornography.

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

Andnothingofvaluewaslost

Seriously though, it appears 70% of that sensor list is just normal porn. RedTube and Megarotic are on the list. So this is totally a "Protect the children!" list rather than a ban of illegal content sites.

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n

Perhaps wikipedia might suck less if it wasn't populated by pompous pseudo-intellectual asshats?

Re:mirrors

[atmurray]

Actually, we Australians can at the moment. The blacklist isn't being enforced yet, it merely forms the basis for third party filters. However, this could change with the proposed mandatory filter being considered by the current Federal Government.

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

i got a red blocked screen for a website 2 days ago with the reason of: government.

Re:mirrors

[mgiuca]

I'm in Australia and haven't been able to get in all day.

I'm on Herdict now, and it looks like Wikileaks is being reported down for people all over the world. Just a lot more in Australia right now because we're pretty interested in it.

Let's not start overreacting and crying "filter!" We've got enough to cry about.

Re:mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

I also placed a copy here: http://stashbox.org/454970/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt

Re:mirrors

[rohan972]

Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.

As far as I'm aware, depictions of actual sex acts are illegal here, so softcore only. Some exception for the ACT or something (where all the federal politicians are). You won't find hardcore in the newsagents, you can in the adult stores but they get raided from time to time.

Re:mirrors

[elrous0]

"depictions of actual sex acts are illegal here"

You know; the level of pathos, despair, and violence in those Mad Max movies is finally starting to make sense to me.

Re:mirrors

[VoltageX]

Has something changed since Wednesday? I had no problems accessing Wikileaks from an Aussie connection then.

Re:mirrors

[lucas teh geek]

it's illegal to sell in most state, but possession is fine. it's plenty legal to buy hardcore porn from the ACT and take it home with you, I think you can even legally mail order it

Re:mirrors

[rohan972]

Not according to the ACMA statement on this page:
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7272:acma-list-of-prohibited-and-potentially-prohibited-overseas-hosted-content-&catid=72:australian-news&Itemid=29

The following categories of online content are the sole categories that are prohibited:

* Online content that is classified RC or X 18+. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, ...

The censorship has started.

[mcsporran]

I try to get to Wikileaks from my Australian (state) government computer, and I'm getting a error 504.

Exactly the type of stupidity that believes this filtering will serve any useful purpose, also believes that blocking wikileaks serves some useful purpose. They can't even begin to understand.

We haven't even started "protecting the children" yet, and already we have a list of thousands of unpleasant sites, in the wild, and available to any determined individual of whatever age.

I so hate seeing my money spent on such clueless "policy", the insane idea that things will be the way they wish, if they just make enough rules.

Re:The censorship has started.

[broken_chaos]

Cool down a notch or two there. I'm in Canada, and Wikileaks isn't loading either. Slashdot effect or other server problems, I expect.

Re:The censorship has started.

[Grail]

Of course, if the Aussie Guvmint had asked a favour of the DHS folks (heh "DHS" is a courier service here in Oz), someone could have just "accidentally" cut a few power cables to the data center.

Heck, it's (almost) happened to people playing EVE online, why wouldn't a real-world Government do the same thing?

Wikileaks currently unavailable

[hatblack]

After noticing the ABC report (3 hrs after published at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520591.htm), wikileaks is currently not accessible. AFAIK, my ISP is not part of the recent filtering trials, so dont know why I am being blocked. Will need to do a little digging. In the meantime, it would be interesting to know if others can reach the site, and especially the AU blacklist page.

Re:Wikileaks currently unavailable

[SanguineV]

I was able to reach Wikileaks when the story was posted on the Sydney Morning Herald, but not since. Probably been slashdotted... by everyone who reads the news in Australia. :P

Re:Wikileaks currently unavailable

[overbaud]

The irony is that many people will see the /. effect as censorship in action.

Re:Wikileaks currently unavailable

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the ABC report. People worldwide are having problems accessing the sites...

But just look at some of the filth

[Anonymous Coward]

This was on the list!!!

http://files.kavefish.com/pictures/collections/funny_cat_pictures/_index-list.html ... btw, pointing to that link could cost you $11k in Oz

Re:So that's why Barrys page gets edited all the t

[Hecatonchires]

In Australia a starting ASIO Intelligence Analyst role was going quite cheaply - before 9/11 anyway.

Re:So that's why Barrys page gets edited all the t

[Anonymous Coward]

All 110 percent of them. (That's not a typo)

I've already moderated so can't post logged in.

What exactly are they trying to prove?

[jrumney]

Wikipedia is not located in Australia, and I fail to see where "double-standards" would come into it, as the wiki page is clearly not under control of the Aussie net censors. So what is the point that the activists are trying to prove?

Re:What exactly are they trying to prove?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a flying crap? People edit Wikipedia to make whatever damn point they want, and if there's some controversy, you can bet there's somebody stirring it up by trying to push their agenda regardless of how close it is to reasonable or truthful.

Or effective.

One of the reasons I left the place was because it just got too apparent how much nonsense was shaping the behavior there.

Re:What exactly are they trying to prove?

[bakes]

They prove that forcing Australian servers to remove links to banned sites is pointless, as the links will just show up elsewhere. Wikipedia is a high-profile site and banning it would attract a great deal of attention to how stupid this whole thing is.

Re:What exactly are they trying to prove?

[mdwh2]

Don't they block sites too, no matter where they're hosted?

If they block Wikipedia, it generates a load of publicity against their action (as shown by the UK's IWF recently). If they don't block it, or back down, it shows a double standard, as well as making the whole thing seem pointless (again, as shown by the recent IWF case in the UK).

A history lesson

[RockMFR]

Censorship is one area where the behavior of Wikipedia as a whole is very predictable. Virgin Killer, AACS encryption key, Jyllands-Posten, etc... If you try to remove something controversial from Wikipedia and it gets publicized, it will get added back, usually with administrator support. If you make a really big fuss, the censorship effort will get its own article and it'll probably get mentioned in one of the articles about Wikipedia itself. WP:V + pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed.

Re:A history lesson

[unlametheweak]

pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed

On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship (all things being equal), because working on an encyclopedia demonstrates in interest and love of knowledge, whose antithesis is censorship. That's why Librarians are often advocates for free speech. It's not very surprising.

Re:A history lesson

[Hognoxious]

On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship

This article needs a cleanup to remove excessive negatives.

Re:A history lesson

[Jurily]

This article needs a cleanup to remove excessive negatives.

Or a syntax cleanup. How about

"On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) !(possible) !(to have admins) that are !(!(pro-censorship))"

Re:A history lesson

[hvm2hvm]

impossible not=very probable (to have admins that are) not anti-censorship=for freedom. So you meant that it's very probable to have pro-freedom of speech admins; why can't you say that? :P

Re:A history lesson

[PhilHibbs]

Au contraire, Wikipedia usually stands like a rock and is not swayed in either direction. If something is included in good faith, then any attempt to remove it is treated harshly. On the other hand, if something that has been censored elsewhere is included purely in order to make a point about censorship, it is relentlessly removed despite any arguments that the includers make as to the material's relevance to the article. This case falls into the latter category. Wikipedia does not like to be used as a test case.

Re:A history lesson

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship

On a forum like Wikipedia, I think it is inconceivable that there are no admins who are pro-censorship.

A lot of people do not appreciate just how fragile the status quo of Wikipedia really is. If mass public opinion had been a little different, or if a few major scandal broke recently, the position of the Wikipedia admins could be a lot different. More crucially, if Jimbo Wales should suddenly be persuaded to take a pro-censorship stance, Wikipedia, as a whole, will quickly follow.

Re:A history lesson

[Blakey Rat]

All the censors have to do is to tell Wikipedia that the fetus website is actually a webcomic, then they'll pull the link post-haste.

Re:A history lesson

[NeoSkandranon]

Or a regional band

Re:A history lesson

[ChienAndalu]

I agree that this is the case with the American Wikipedia, the German however has some odd issues with censorship.

The name of the perpetrator of the recent school shooter is Tim Kretschmer. The English media and Wikipedia don't hide this information. The German Wikipedia however first didn't mention the name at all, and after some struggle the article displays "Tim K.". It pretty much became a wikipedia drama with admins competing on how "ethical" they are by not including the full name.

Re:A history lesson

[PhilHibbs]

Oops I'm wrong, they left the link in there, my bad.

Re:A history lesson

[David Gerard]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a platform for investigative reporting (that's Wikinews), it's not a place to publicise leaked information. So yeah, of course the link was removed. Every spamming activist claims administrator bias. This rubbish happens all the time.

Re:A history lesson

[Teancum]

Jimmy Wales doesn't have nearly so much influence on Wikipedia as he once did. Owing to the fact that he can no longer "pull the plug" and turn the site off, nor really do much of anything other than voice his opinion on the Wikimedia board of trustees. Even that vote is being questioned.

This said, previous "community standards" on Wikipedia... which Mr. Wales did help to set... are generally anti-censorship and support the free distribution of knowledge. While this particular incident with the Australian government and this silly restriction of free speech is new, censorship of Wikipedia pages is hardly something new, nor is the host of teen-aged administrators on Wikipedia either.

Dealing with teens and young 20-somethings who think they know all there is to know about Wikipedia is a continual problem on Wikipedia. This shows up with the impatience of trying to resolve an issue in a short period of time (1 week is rather typical on Wikipedia) and some of the hot tempered turf wars that happen. Life experience is also something many of the Wikipedia admins seem to lack (not all of them), and that shows up with policy discussions and how they treat new users.

This said, I'd rather be dealing with a bunch of teens than a bunch of senior citizens.

Re:A history lesson

[bigmadwolf]

This article needs a cleanup to remove excessive negatives.

Or a syntax cleanup. How about

"On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) !(possible) !(to have admins) that are !(!(pro-censorship))"

Nope, that didn't help. I still can't figure out what unlametheweak is on about.

Re:A history lesson

[billcopc]

You fallaciously assume that Wikipedia users are well-balanced, intellectual people.

The fact that anyone can sign up, should tell you that the makeup of Wikipedia mods is in-line with every other web site's user base. 99% asshats, 1% disgruntled idealists.

It's like slashdot, only they have a gazillion articles to spread the hate instead of focusing it on the dozen daily news articles.

Re:A history lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

>On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible NOT to have admins that are anti-censorship

...fixed that for you
(For the record all I did was make you write NOT in all caps. See what a little inflection can do? Now your sentence is actually comprehensible, if barely.

oh and I had to delete another "not" outright...

Pornographic?

[spaceturtle]

You find photos of dead fetuses remotely pornographic? How?

Re:Pornographic?

[Faylone]

Isn't it obvious? They're not wearing clothes!

Re:Pornographic?

[Gorphrim]

I think he meant it in a less-commonly used sense, where eroticism is not involved. Per Merriam-Webster online, the 3rd definition is:

"the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction "

As an Aussie

[boyter]

Please everyone who is not in Australia or an Australian help distribute this list. Conroy (the arsehat behind the whole thing) has said he will hunt down any aussie who helps destribute the list.

Re:As an Aussie

[Barny]

I say we wrap the list into every torrent for every recent released TV show, its a trivial amount of extra data, and it means a huge amount of aussies are "helping to distribute it" :)

Moving to China

[theolein]

At least there I know I'm being censored and for what.

Already happened.

[spaceturtle]

The photos linked to in the article couldn't be really considered hate speech ... hate speech against whom? Not the fetuses, as the site is "pro-life". If publishing photos of dead fetuses is hate speech against pro-choicers then we may as well tear up free speech. (Technically the ACMA censors offensive images as well as hate speech, but still I don't consider the existance of such images offensive if they are not being waved in my face)

Re:Already happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

If publishing photos of dead fetuses is hate speech

It is a woman's choice to kill the fetus, but no man can publish a picture of it when it's dead.

Is publishing a picture worse than killing?

Re:Most Nerds...

[theolein]

..... and that by loving browns and mud people they'll somehow get in the pants of "hip stylish urban women" who love to agonize over the supposed crimes of whites against "oppressed minorities."......

Sounds very much like you're agonising over the fact that those "hip stylish urban women" won't let you into their pants and you're blaming everyone else for it. Sad, man.

Re:Phirst Poast Tsarkon Reports YODA GREASE UP YOU

[fractoid]

Troll? It's just a particularly tortuous Slashdot analogy. You see, the Yoda doll is the new internet blacklist, the grease is alleged child porn (allows you to accept the doll more easily), and 'you' represent the Australian public. The improbability of the whole process neatly mirrors the f**king impossibility of this scheme ever working in the real world.

I concur it was rather obvious but still, it could at least get an 'informative'.

uncomfortable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe these images are forcing you to face some uncomfortable truths about your own abortion opinions. The images look too human to you. When faced with these images, you are unable to deny the humanity of the unborn. You can't objectify them.

Re:uncomfortable?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when I view goatse, I am unable to deny the humanity of that man's gaping ass.

Civil disobedience

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Australian and I just downloaded the blacklist. Now what is ACMA going to do about it? I am tempted to start printing off the list and handing it out to strangers as a list of "all the good sites on the Internet". From a quick scan most of it looks to be random pron sites, they would have never gotten away with actually banning that many pron sites. Aussies love their porn. Though maybe they didn't ban the big pay ones as a thanks for all those anonymous donations.

Oh, and they have all the *chans. /b/ might almost be readable again if they ban all us Aussies.

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember is order to ban these sites public servants have to visit them and view the content.

C'mon, that would involve work. This is a government department we're talking about here.

The List is Fake, or so it appears...

[sasha328]

"There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist," he [the minister] said.

Also, one of the ISPs involved in the testing confirmed that this list is not the ACMA list. More news coverage here on the ABC

No. It's real

[femto]

More likely the list is real, and it has been salted with additional sites. It is very much in Conroy's interest to try and make people believe that it is fake.

Conroy's press release does not say the list is fake. It says:

"There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist."

A huge difference. You can be sure that "some common URLs" translates from politico speak as "1061 URLs", meaning the list is ACMA's. The delightful irony is that the only way Conroy can defend himself is if he actually says which URLs he considers to be fake, thereby giving even more info on the contents of ACMA's list.

Ask yourself this question: "If it's not ACMA's list, why is Conroy threatening:"

"...referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."

It's not illegal to distribute a list of random URL's. The only way Conroy could make the above threat is if the list is the real thing (or a superset of the real thing).

I'm curious as to whether Conroy's threats extend to the off-line world. For example, would it be illegal to print out the list of URLs and attach it to a noticeboard?

Re:The censorship has started

[tg123]

I try to get to Wikileaks from my Australian (state) government computer, and I'm getting a error 504.

Exactly the type of stupidity that believes this filtering will serve any useful purpose, also believes that blocking wikileaks serves some useful purpose.....

now that you mention it I cant get wiki leaks from home
Im getting the message "...... could not open the page âoehttp://www.wikileaks.org/â because the server is not responding."

http://www.wikileaks.org/

Holy Shit I'm being censored. Bastards

can other Australians try this please

Speedy work by Wikipedia

[DerekLyons]

From the summary: Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours

So much for the claim (so often made by the WikiMafia and their fanboys) that trolling is caught and reverted within minutes.

Re:The censorship has started

[mcsporran]

I've got nothing from home either.

Is the site up ?

Could someone with a proper internet connection please check ?

Time to Karma-Whore

[Quothz]

I have not, personally, checked any of these links out, but here y'go, folks. Visit at your own risk, and all like that: The ACMA blacklist March 19 2009 * http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 * http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm Aug 6 2008 * http://tgpme.com/ * http://newthumbs.net/ * http://bbs12.mail15.su/ * http://cybermovs.narod.ru/ * http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439 * http://hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html * http://imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5 * http://lolitacj.freepimphost.com/ * http://mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189 * http://myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm * http://ourworldkids.info/ * http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in * http://tinygev.com/ * http://trueincest.com/ * http://www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html * http://fulltiltpoker.com/ * http://www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html * http://nasty-virgins.org/ * http://pretty-pretty.info/ * http://realcruelfamily.com/ * http://www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php * http://vi5search.com/ * http://www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html * http://top.angels-list.com/index.html?97 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://ganja.vipzax.com/ * http://shave.vipzax.com/ July 30 2008 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net * http://littlevirginstgp.com/ * http://cutiesveta.com/ * http://youngwetmodels.com/ * http://preteenmasha.com/ * http://forbi-dreams2.info/ July 28 2008 *

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, don't visit any of these.

In particular, don't visit http://dentaldistinction.com.au/, which does appear on the list. It's depraved, I tell you, depraved! He wants me to brush my teeth and see a dentist twice a year!

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[BarMonger]

Why are they blocking online poker/betting sites as well? How can that possibly be legal?

I saw fulltiltpoker in that list and afaik it's a perfectly legit poker service.

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[Anonymous Coward]

So Conroy wasn't kidding when he said he'd add sites that are banned in Britain to the blacklist.

I guess that applies to dentistry as well.

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[Quothz]

In particular, don't visit http://dentaldistinction.com.au/, which does appear on the list. It's depraved, I tell you, depraved! He wants me to brush my teeth and see a dentist twice a year!

From an article at IT Wire:

The inclusion of Queensland businesses Dental Distinction and Maroochy Boarding Kennels would seem to confirm fears that sites could be incorrectly added to the list. According to reports, Dental Distinction was previously a victim of hackers which may have triggered its inclusion on the list.

I was gonna add a wry, sarcastic comment of my own here, but I just can't do this justice.

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[Anonymous Coward]

ACMA will mod you down!

Re:Time to Karma-Whore

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Australia, and these links work just fine. The Government is not blocking these sites, rather only certifying vulentary internet blocking software that includes these sites to be blocked when installed.

WP:POINT

[pfafrich]

This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.

Re:WP:POINT

[julesh]

This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.

Being able to see the content that was blocked increases the encyclopedic value because it allows the reader to decide for themselves whether or not blocking it was appropriate.

Re:WP:POINT

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering what happened, I think the whole Australian censorship is certainly worth an entry. Perhaps move the link to a page dedicated to the censorship?

Re:No. It's real

[MartinSchou]

Which part of "making this content publicly available" makes you think it doesn't apply to a public noticeboard?

Re:The censorship has started

[tg123]

Message to Stupid Ivory towered white shoe brigade who are the most hypocritical bunch of wankers.

Australian Government FUCK OFF !!! I like viewing my porn.

Now I was quite happy for you to block Kiddy porn - I agree with you thats stuff is just wrong but lay off calm down even ......

the fact that you taking it up the arse from the chinese government doesn't mean you have to use there ideas

jesus man why did you have to block wiki leaks its were I got the best news from. [snif snif]

anybody know what the latest wikileaks cover names are ?

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[Skapare]

Yeah, I bet you are disturbed ... all that traffic now slowing down your favorite servers.

Re:No. It's real

[Anonymous Coward]

The legislation on which the comment is based. I think he is bluffing.

WikiLEAKS has now been blocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cannot access WikiLeaks from Aus at the moment... Absolutely discusting behaviour from the Minister, Stephen Conroy - he should resign immediately, and the WikiLeaks link ( which according to Conroy is fake anyway ) should be posted EVERYWHERE!

Re:No. It's real

[srjh]

Nice catch... presumably if it had nothing to do with the government blacklist, he would not only say "they have URLs we don't have", he would also say "we have URLs they don't have".

It's not the government blacklist, but it is likely a superset of it - it's possible some of those sites were added by the filter vendor who leaked it.

Re:No. It's real

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not illegal to distribute a list of random URL's.

No... but if it IS the list, then copyright would apply, just as it does to a TV guide or a phonebook.

They WILL be used to prove a point

[unity100]

i remember wikipedia was an encyclopedia by the people, for the people. we are 'the people'. our contributions create wikipedia. when we are in distress, you are going to shut the hell up and help us.

perv

[r00t]

graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii

Not only are they children, they're DEAD children. Eeeeew.

So... what exactly to you dream about doing to them?

fetii as a plural for fetus?

[Nicolas MONNET]

That's a new one. I didn't take latin for long, but I do remember that plurals were /much/ more complicated than replacing "us" with "i." And indeed, see wiktionary.

The whole idea of importing the plural from the language of origin is very misguided pedantry, esp. considering how you're not transposing the various cases (nominative, accusative, etc.)

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[tg123]

......

C'mon, that would involve work. This is a government department we're talking about here.

Mod this previous post up please.

I have done government jobs and work is not one of the requirements.

The full list

[jonaskoelker]

I also found it on pastebin:

http://rafb.net/p/jqJCYC53.html

Spread it around. 09 F9 11 and all that :)

Leave something to the imagination.

[spaceturtle]

I prefer fetuses that are those sexy... what are they called... nappies. Leaves more to the imagination. Each to their own I guess. ;)

Blacklist from wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, I do hate the lameness filter. Making this line longer so it might compensate and such.. foo bar baz quux quuux quuuux quuuuux quuuuuux quuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux

Say again, foo bar baz quux quuux quuuux quuuuux quuuuuux quuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux

And again, , foo bar baz quux quuux quuuux quuuuux quuuuuux quuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux

And yet again, but this time another long sentence that makes no sense whatsoever or maybe it will this time, we could try to find out or something or we can just keep typing. Maybe it is long enough yet but probably not

#Aug 6 2008
tgpme.com
newthumbs.net
bbs12.mail15.su
cybermovs.narod.ru
groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439
hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html
imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5
lolitacj.freepimphost.com
mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189
myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm
ourworldkids.info
rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in
tinygev.com
trueincest.com
www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html
fulltiltpoker.com
www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html
nasty-virgins.org
pretty-pretty.info
realcruelfamily.com
www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php
vi5search.com
www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html
top.angels-list.com/index.html?97
forced-news.com
ganja.vipzax.com
shave.vipzax.com
#July 30 2008
forced-news.com
sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net
littlevirginstgp.com
cutiesveta.com
youngwetmodels.com
preteenmasha.com
forbi-dreams2.info
#July 28 2008
www.zeytincioglu.com.tr/dosya/new/index.html
pussy-dump.com
www.realcruelfamily.com/main.html
mclt-sites.net
arinadream.info
destroyeddaughters.com
mclt-sites.net
blacklo.vipzax.com
tinyteencj.sexpornhost.com
joyisle.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n
cma-stars.com
pzw.hut2.ru/imgboard/7.htm
lolitacj.freepimphost.com
#July 17 2008
general.free-usenet.net/2278/teen-models/alt.binaries.models.petite.html
lolita.bilovers.info
armorbot.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=83
armorbot.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=86
www.allofincest.com/?id=topotop
m13.mail.qq.com/cgi-bin/groupattachment?att=01494642000000160001021617D720
www.evilshare.com/423d50aa-84f8-102b-a8ce-0007e90cfb90
www.submityourflicks.com/videos/913/teen-girlfriend.html
teenlib.com
www.zeytincioglu.com.tr
mylazysundays.com
lolsonly.org
xlola.biz
rapesection.com
images13.51.com/106/a/f2/4f/yangzongqi2/1199699016_46859300.jpg
images13.51.com/124/a/f2/4f/yangzongqi2/1199699024_87991300.jpg
images13.51.com/128/c/f2/4f/yangzongqi2/1199699029_67105600.jpg
images13.51.com/130/b/f2/4f/yangzongqi2/1199699012_78670100.jpg
images13.51.com/18/a/b2/e8/aiyouyouasd/1193901534_0.85306200.jpg
images13.51.com/28/a/b2/e8/aiyouyouasd/1193901578_0.94736800.jpg
images13.51.com/29/a/b2/e8/aiyouyouasd/1193901535_0.00767600.jpg
images13.51.com/47/a/b2/e8/aiyouyouasd/1193901582_0.71140700.jpg
images13.51.com/48/a/f2

Re:Blacklist from wikileaks

[AI0867]

Second part:

quuuuuuuuuux lameness filter is highly annoying again, could we get rid of that please? or maybe I can just paste some dissociated press somewhere

And again, , foo bar baz quux quuux quuuux quuuuux quuuuuux quuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuux quuuuuuuuuuuux trying not to be repetitive here or something

And yet again, but this time another long sentence that makes no sense whatsoever or maybe it will this time, we could try to find out or something or we can just keep typing. Maybe it is long enough yet but probably not

Usually when one mentions the words âoeDetroitâ and âoeRenaissanceâ together, one is referring to Detroitâ(TM)s Renaissance Center, four 39-story towers which were originally a Ford Motor Company development project in the early 1970â(TM)s and are now owned by General Motors. As someone who grew up in nearby Ann Arbor, with its tree-lined streets, PhD-educated cab drivers, and insanely overpriced real estate, Iâ(TM)ve always sadly thought of Detroit in the same way I might think of Beirut: a slightly scary, bombed-out city that I might have to pass through to go elsewhere.

At the same time, Iâ(TM)ve always held some hope for the place, in spite of its history of corrupt mayors and urban blight. Iâ(TM)ve always though that if Cleveland can do it, so can Detroit. Which is why the Powerhouse Project excites me. Although a small project initiated by a handful of people, itâ(TM)s gaining international attention thanks to groups like Amsterdamâ(TM)s Detroit UnReal Estate Agency. The basic story is that Detroit couple Gina Reichert and Mitch Cope bought a run-down house in northern Hamtramck (letâ(TM)s start calling it âoeNoHamâ!) for $1900.00 with the intention of building a mini green power grid in the neighborhood. The project has snowballed a little, so theyâ(TM)ve gotten considerable positive press. To learn more, check out this piece at ModeldMedia.com, this NYT Op-Ed piece, or the WFUM Radio segment The Upside Of Foreclosures, which has both a transcript and an audio stream. You can also visit the Powerhouse Project web site. Letâ(TM)s go, Detroit! With inspired thinking like this, maybe we can avoid the Bushvilles of Sacramento!

On occasion recently Iâ(TM)ve missed the simple message of terror and paranoia served up on a regular basis by the Bush administration. At least you felt like you knew where things stood. Although I got a definite kick out of the Democratic Partyâ(TM)s brief dalliance with making Rush Limbaugh the new GOP leader, it ultimately just smacks of politics as usual, and as a friend of mine pointed out yesterday, a candidate isnâ(TM)t likely to get elected in this country unless theyâ(TM)re playing pretty nice with the existing (and frankly corrupt) Washington bureaucracy. All of which leaves me a little disillusioned; although my gut tells me that Barack Obama is a good man with good intentions, can those good intentions survive in the cesspool that is our nationâ(TM)s capitol (and guidance from a guy like Rahm Emanuel who offers parenting advice like this), or will Obama end up being another Jimmy Carter?

#June 20 - 2007 - Update
myrashechka.com
www2.freehosting.com/hardcore/thegallery/inter002.the.htm
supermodellinks.com
hornypharaoh.com
img.34chan.net/b/wakaba.html
#June 01 - 2007 - Update
pignekkmuss.com/hello
finnteen.com
kaposi.nano.m5n.com
www.hi5.com/friend/group/displayGroupGallery.do;jsessionid=ajMG9msAKMY8?groupId=614531
www.torrentspy.com/directory/1503/adult/videos+%2d+hardcore
unisearch.name/mature/
www.our-search.com/x/?littlepussy.biz
prestigeclub.com.au
gaysitepasses.com
www.chatrooms.net.au/sex_chat_rooms.html
worldhomevideo.com
image4u.jp
teen-tgp.biz
anyvideo.info
super-cartoon.com
tickler.newmail.ru
darkhost.info
kds.rompl.net
dorki.info
favp.com
thumb60.com
204.177.92.193
208.97.162.142
access.rapid-pas

It's their sensorship, not ours.

[cronostitan]

'Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point.'
That seriously sounds like that what German people said when the Nazis deported the Jews.

"I don't want to get involved."

aka

"It's their internet censorship, not ours".

This attitude fails to see that once this censorship has established itself in other countries it will eventually come closer to being a global issue more and more.
There is no point in having freedom and no censorship in your country when all others around you are already gagged and have censored content. The internet community has eventually to realize that they are sitting in the same boat.

Re:It's their sensorship, not ours.

[Anonymous Coward]

That seriously sounds like that what German people said when the Nazis deported the Jews.

Your Godwin slip is showing :-D

Re:Most Nerds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...What?

Re:The censorship has started

[Hognoxious]

Not working from Belgium; no ping either.

why would they censor that?

[jipn4]

site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses,

I don't understand why that would be subject to censorship. True, it's disturbing and it is motivated by a political agenda, but it doesn't seem to fall into any of the prohibited categories (violence, child pornography).

Re:why would they censor that?

[myowntrueself]

I don't understand why that would be subject to censorship. True, it's disturbing and it is motivated by a political agenda, but it doesn't seem to fall into any of the prohibited categories (violence, child pornography).

Er well one assumes that the foetuses are classified as children and are photographed naked?

What would Bruce do?

[morkk]

"No one interested in cyber safety would condone the leaking of this list." (Senator Conroy)

Re:your sig

[rohan972]

If you're a Muslim, please don't kill me.

I'm not a Muslim, so I take it this request doesn't apply to me.

Freedome

[Andypcguy]

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:The censorship has started

[unlametheweak]

I'm not (AFAIK) affected by filters. I think Wikileaks may have been slashdoted (or DoSed?). I can certainly get on other "filtered" Web sites.

"Fetus" never had an O in Latin

[tepples]

Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word.

Correct. But:

I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).

Bastardized? "Fetus" never had an O in Latin. Did it steal one from "unborn"? :-)

That's "activism"?

[hessian]

I passed out drunk and naked on my front porch to protest public anti-naturism statutes.

Come on, let's stop calling petty acts "activism" because all they do is cause annoying drama. Activism is getting a PAC together to change laws, or a voting block, or even picking up a rifle and seeing how many you can bag before the snipers drop you.

It's not posting links on Wikipedia (which, thanks to Google's sponsorship, has an importance far advanced of the quality of its content).

Re:That's "activism"?

[mdwh2]

If posting links carries a hefty fine, then I think it's certainly more activist than most things.

And the point here is about the publicity generated (especially if they blocked Wikipedia), which highlights what's going on to people, far better than petitions or protests or anything else. Sometimes the easier routes are the most effective.

Things we shouldn't see.

[maillemaker]

>As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little
>too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist
>protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters
>showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

What about protesting war by showing photos of war atrocities?

The truth may be ugly, and the truth may be brutal, but the truth is the truth. Why whitewash it? For the children?

Re:The censorship has started

[unlametheweak]

Just tested Wikileaks right now. Seems to be back up again. For those who can't get it, I will post the front page article here (so those who care about what type of information the Australian et al government does not want you to know. BTW, Google cache seems to work as well, which may be a work-around for people who are censored).:

Murder in Nairobi: Wikileaks related human rights lawyers assassinated

On Thursday afternoon, Oscar Kamau Kingara, director of the Kenyan based Oscar legal aid Foundation, and its programme coordinator, John Paul Oulo, were both shot dead at close range in their car less than a mile from President Kibaki's residence. The two were on their way to a meeting at the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights.

Both had been investigating extra-judicial assassinations by the Kenyan Police. Part of their work forms the basis of the "Cry of Blood" report Wikileaks released on November 1 last year and subsequent follow ups, including a UN indictment last month.

Since 2007 the Oscar foundation has documented 6,452 "enforced disappearances" by police and 1,721 extra-judicial killings.

The murders come just two weeks after United Nations Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings Professor Philip Alston called on on Kenya's Attorney General and Police Commissioner to be sacked.

On 18 February 2009, the Oscar Foundation presented its findings for use in a parliamentary debate.

The Oscar Foundation vehicle was blocked by a minibus and a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle, both of which had been following them along State house road. Several men were in the two vehicles. Two men got out, approached the vehicle of Oscar Kamau Kingara and John Paul Oulu, and shot them through the windows at close range.

According to eyewitnesses, the driver of the minibus was in police uniform whilst the other men were wearing suits. The closest eyewitness to the incident was shot in the leg and later taken away by policemen.

A coalition of civil society organizations released a statement blaming police for the murders.

"These were very decent men who had done more work than anybody in examining police killings," said Cyprian Nyamwamu, the executive director of the National Convention Executive Council, a non-governmental organization advocating social and economic reform. "I have no doubt that is why they were killed."

Police said that students from the nearby University of Nairobi moved Oulo's body into a hostel and one student was shot dead when officers tried to retrieve it.

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights have demanded an immediate external investigation into the deaths. The US Ambassador to Kenya has offered the Kenyan government the services of the FBI. The offer has been declined.

Those with intelligence assets in the area, or non-public information on Police Commissioner General Hussien Ali or other suspects, please contact us via wl-kenya@sunshinepress.org

Make a contribution to assist our investigation of these murders. Every contribution helps:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/

If you are in a position to significantly fund a reward for conviction or apprehension of the assassins and those behind them, contact:

wl-kenya@sunshinepress.org

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[mdm-adph]

Dick Cheney -- is that you?

Youth is Beauty.

[spaceturtle]

Oh. I thought he liked just liked to pick 'em young :P

Re:The censorship has started

[tg123]

Wikileaks is working now - happy the good stuff is back.
maybe it was not blocked?

I feel bad for a few seconds.........

right this firewall thing has to stop what if they banned wikileaks for real ?

Re:No. It's real

[mdwh2]

I wonder if there are also different versions with intentionally added URLs, in order to help tracing it - if it's leaked, they know which ISP it came from.

Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a good deal of government motivation is in fact to view child porn. Look at the examples of the government seizing young girls' cell phones to view images they made of themselves to send to their boyfriends. It sounds far-fetched, but who would have thought priests were forming networks for child-molestation? Institutional sexual perversion is possible, especially amongst politicians, almost all of whom possess severe neuroses.

British Commonwealth?

[interglossa]

I obviously don't know much about Australia, but does anyone know how a country like them in the English-speaking world became so extreme in their Internet censorship? I'm amazed at this. I would expect this in the third world if at all.

Wikipedia is right. Post all links in new topic

[Coward Anonymous]

I suggest someone (preferably not Australian) start a new Wikipedia topic to track all the banned links. It could be very useful as a reference for Australians to know which links they should not post.

Re:Wikipedia is right. Post all links in new topic

[TrueRecord]

Almost the same goes in UK (still speaking English) as I remember their ISPs filtering and blocking some wikipedia's page.

Re:Phirst Poast Tsarkon Reports YODA GREASE UP YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

Points 1 to 8 ok, but for the life of me I can't find a Black and Decker appliance that would boot Linux.

Re:No. It's real

[sasha328]

I think the point that is being made, unsuccessfully, by the minister is that whoever leaked it or published it added lots of URLs that were not added by ACMA (his key word is that lots of URL "were not the subject of investigation or complaint" which means they wouldn't have been on any list.

It's good to argue against censorship and ISP level internet filters etc, but let's not turn to "faking the evidence" to make a point.
An example is the "dentist's website". I find it hard to believe that the site would make it past ACMA scrutiny unless it: 1) actually had specific content to be filtered and 2) someone submitted the site to be reviewed by ACMA.

My gut feeling is that this is one of the sites that "are not on the ACMA list" to try to discredit the list. But I still reckon it's the wrong approach to discredit ISP level filtering.

Child Porn Sites

[WebmasterNeal]

Anybody think any of these sites are actually illegal, i.e child porn sites? I clicked on a few links and I'm wondering if the FBI will be breaking down my doors in a few weeks.

Centrelink...

[akayani]

I think we should go for the Centrelink entries next my Australian bothers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrelink I'll make as start tonight even.

Re:Centrelink...

[akayani]

responsible for "litigious" delivery of human services... It's time we filled in the blanks in all government websites. Let them argue that isn't absolutely correct.