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

[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.")

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.

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

[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

[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

[Lieu21]

You broke it.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[Hognoxious]

How is plurals of "babby" formed?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Firehose story here

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

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

[liquidsin]

i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for

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.

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

[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

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

[Chuck Chunder]

Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?

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

[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.

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

[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

[Barny]

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

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

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

[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

[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:You're Trolling...

[Hecatonchires]

That reminds me, who's up for veal?

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.

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

[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.

Pornographic?

[spaceturtle]

You find photos of dead fetuses remotely pornographic? How?

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: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'.

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:Wikileaks currently unavailable

[overbaud]

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

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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.