Aussie Minister Backs Down on Internet Censorship

gballard writes "After the constant furore raised by rights groups, ISPs and concerned citizens over the Australian Government's planned 'internet filter,' it seems that Australia Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is finally backing down. In a recent interview, the Minister conceded that many of the sites blocked by the filter were legitimate businesses (including, in one case, a Queensland dentist's homepage) and changed his story on whether the planned filter would restrict 'Refused Classification' websites or use the broader (and more vague) criterion of 'prohibited.' It's a positive step, but as the article above suggests, at the moment it's only one crack in the defenses of a censorship plan with broad ramifications for Australian internet users."

Comments

To view the show

[acehole]

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/59#watchonline

The hour long show which had the minister and various opinions on the filter.

Re:To view the show

[acehole]

Also take note of the Australian Christian Lobby rep "Lyle" who interjected during the discussion saying that the majority view of anti-filter people was that rape porn and child porn had no effect on children which was not said by anyone in the audience or at anytime.

Its that kind of view that has to be struggled against. If you're for the filter you're pro child if you're against then you're pro child-porn. Its sickening.

Re:To view the show

[Techman83]

The only time I didn't spend yelling at the TV was during the AD breaks. Senator Conroy only further showed how disconnected from reality he is.

Re:To view the show

[Techman83]

I also I believe one of his comments was "We are happy with the filter being to RC (Refused Classification) material For Now"

Which is a big part of the problem I have with the filter (amongst other things) is that it's open to scope creep. Pet peeve of the month will be used to help get ministers onside, especially at the moment to pass anything Labour need the help of the Independant ministers, ones like Family First Senator Steve Fielding, religious right wing nut job.

Re:To view the show

[sakdoctor]

I think there is an idea from marketing that is relevant to this political issue.

Never try and compete directly with an idea that people have already bought into. If many people believe that anti-filtering is anti-child, to change someone's mind 180 they must admit that they were wrong...and people don't do that.

Re:To view the show

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And because of scope creep I must say that the only acceptable filter is no filter. The basic premise of CP or whatever is simply not good enough of a reason to give such a big stick to the government.

Re:To view the show

[totally bogus dude]

Perhaps, but you're the one yelling at your TV!

Re:To view the show

[Techman83]

Funny :)

Re:To view the show

[wooferhound]

Stop yelling at your TV and Yell Out the Window,
I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more . . .

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an additional problem. People doing what I do for a living:

My relatively clear view of how things work on the inside is that not only senators, but many middle and senior level execs are little better than the good old BOFH. They are the voyeuristic. Whatever their pet peeve of the week is, they'll often act on it simply because they have the power to make a difference. Myself, working for the man in a little known corner of a little known secret 3 letter agency in Australia, we come across a fair old chunk of CP. Most of it, in fact the absolute vast majority of it is completely non sexual shots of single children, no toys, not an adult in sight, just a naked kid between probably about 10 and 15 years old, most of them on the beach, many of them oblivious to the camera. I guess people have a thing for bodies as they hit puberty. Good or bad? I don't really know, we usually skip it and get on with the job. The sickening kind of CP is so exceedingly rare that you'd stumble on it maybe once every other year - and report it up the chain, track it, ID the parties at either end of the link, then dump interpol on their arses. This is something we definitely do undertake with the same resolve that any parent would have if it was their child at the wrong end of that crap. Lots of success too.

Not everything on that list comes from a single government department, quite a few people have as much input as they want, too much really. As to the corporations that made it on there, that obviously doesn't happen by accident. How it happens? You're dealing with politicians and their vested interests, no more need be said.

A little bit of chair throwing happening inside government on this one, so it pays not to rock the boat, I'll stay anonymous this time.

Re:To view the show

[Xest]

Maybe people need to be more assertive in trying to reverse that argument? Start spreading the idea that anyone for filtering is just hiding the fact abuse continues to happen anyway only that it's pushed underground.

Start using arguments such as anyone defending the filter is allowing child porn to continue as a dirty little secret that's kept out of the publics minds and that they're basically okaying it as long as the general public doesn't stumble across it or know about it.

It's eqaully a bit of a stretch, but they're not playing a game of truths and facts here.

That said it may not even be necessary, whilst people like the guy you mention are already using this kind of argument it doesn't seem to be getting them far for the most part. Governments seem to finally be getting the idea that these plans aren't such a good idea and are backing down a bit. Perhaps just keeping up the pressure as is is good enough!

Re:To view the show

[drsmithy]

Most of it, in fact the absolute vast majority of it is completely non sexual shots of single children, no toys, not an adult in sight, just a naked kid between probably about 10 and 15 years old, most of them on the beach, many of them oblivious to the camera.

I believe this is referred to by the "victims" as Nudism. There are whole sites full of such pictures.

Re:To view the show

[freedom_india]

The only time I didn't spend yelling at the TV was during the AD breaks.

You like Aussie TV ads?? Really? Why?

Re:To view the show

[twostix]

On Q&A on the ABC The smarmy newspaper "columnist" that was giving Sen. Conroy dreamy looks all night gave himself away as well "Why should people be allowed to read Jihadist literature" plus the constant fall back to "Well in a civil society x *should* be banned" argument with of course him deciding what's civil and what's not.

This is not and never was about child porn.

And I've got to say, the internet losers (sorry harsh but they *were* classic examples of) who were there didn't help things at all. Dear 4chan losers, your internet memes are funny to you on the internet and in your dorms with your loser mates, but in the real world and to the average man on the street they're embarrassing and weird. You did *far* more harm than good to the perception of the anti censorship argument with your childish rubbish and mealy mouthed tired soundbites. Did someone seriously stand up and say "1984 is a warning not a manual" in real life on national TV? Yes yes they did and I gotta say it doesn't translate....at all, not to mention wasting time that someone who actually had a reasonable point to make could have used. Oh and everyone watching groaned and face palmed except Conroy who smirked at the easy pickings.

Seriously if that's the best you can come up with, regurgitating +5 slashdot comments, don't bother standing up and opening your mouth.

Re:To view the show

[L4t3r4lu5]

Start using arguments such as anyone defending the filter is allowing child porn to continue as a dirty little secret that's kept out of the publics minds and that they're basically okaying it as long as the general public doesn't stumble across it or know about it.

[Conroy]Only a paedo would say that![/Conroy]

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

"NC12-B: Young Teen Jr. Pageant Contest DVD"

OMG mod parent +6 God-like
I've been waiting my whole life for a site like this. Typing my CC now!

Re:To view the show

[_Hellfire_]

"It's so hard to have a Gaytime on your own". FFS.

Note to mods: the only thing that should be modded troll is that ad...

Re:To view the show

[drinkypoo]

Everything is susceptible to creep of scope. It's all a matter of perspective. The real problem is having ANY censorship at all; once you permitted it in other forms of media, it was bound to come to your internet access sooner or later. THAT is the TRUE "scope creep" here - you have missed the point completely.

Re:To view the show

[drinkypoo]

Seriously if that's the best you can come up with, regurgitating +5 slashdot comments, don't bother standing up and opening your mouth.

They don't let competent, intelligent people serve on juries if they can help it, either. You actually believe that was a random sampling? If that's the best you can come up with then please, never breed. (Wait, this is slashdot, there is little danger...)

Re:To view the show

[kestasjk]

You can stay anonymous and still leak all the details of whatever agency you work for.. As this article shows, leaking information is one of the best ways to fight censorship.

Do we even have a right to know who is monitoring us?

Re:To view the show

[Techman83]

After watching Q&A I was really disappointed in Andrew Bolt, I expected a lot more common sense out of him. I've always enjoyed his interesting opinions in the Herald Sun. He really need a bib for the amount of BS he was dribbling.

Re:To view the show

[Techman83]

MythTV, watched it a bit later in the evening, so in essence I stopped swearing whilst pressing the skip button.

Re:To view the show

[sortius_nod]

He was also on Q&A (another show like Insight, but on ABC http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/) last week saying the same thing. Pretty much he's merely using this to support his denial that the list leaked was a real list.

He even states the list is only 1300 sites big, rather than the 1600 that ACMA state. Pretty much it's not a backdown so much as a side step.

Chink in the armour, but not the beast defeated.

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

I was really disappointed in Andrew Bolt, I expected a lot more common sense out of him. I've always enjoyed his interesting opinions in the Herald Sun.

Andrew Bolt... common sense... interesting opinions. One of these things is not like the other.

Re:To view the show

[sortius_nod]

mmm... golden gaytimes...

Re:To view the show

[h4rm0ny]

If the producers of a televison show want to create particular impression of a group of people, they'll pick the people they think will create that impression. There really is no patch for biased media, except replacing it with non-biased media. The best you can do is make such a name for yourself that they have to use you to represent a particular view, and can't select someone else without it being an obvious dodging of debate.

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

i liek mudkipz.

Re:To view the show

[Xest]

Yeah but then you just repeat what he said until he gets annoyed, stamps his feet and runs off crying ;)

Re:To view the show

[Barny]

Yeah, you can know who is monitoring you, but not what they are monitoring you for.

Re:To view the show

[MindKata]

"because of scope creep"

Scope creep is a major aspect, but its worse than that, as it also provides an example to all governments, which is a danger to everyone around the world.

People who seek governmental power go into that kind of work because they want to have power over others (and power also means money). (They are constantly looking for new ways to gain more power for themselves and fearful of loosing power to their opponents). The drive to seek power and the fear of loosing power is why they are seeking to control the Internet.

All governments are like slime moulds seeking food and what feeds governmental power is finding ways to control people. All the individuals in the governmental slime mould are clambering over each other to feed their thirst for power. Its why different departments of government work independently yet all end up moving in the same direction, as they all ultimately seek the same thing. Power over people. The Internet (and extending the Internet into the real world) is a huge potential source of power over people. People in power both want and fear the Internet, because of what it means for their goal of seeking power. For example, large numbers of people viewing things online can stir up public opinion, which can undermine the people in power, as this leaked block list demonstrates.

This battle for censoring the Internet is just part of a larger battle, which is going to get ever worse control of everyone, until everyone stands up and provides opposition to the people who seek to use the Internet to gain ever more power over people. Also as fast as some stupid power grab over the Internet is forced back, the different members of the governmental slime mould all force forward dozens of other new power grabs, some of which take time to surface. That's why scope creep is so difficult to limit, bacause as fast as we try to stop one power grab, they add loads more power grabs.

This battle isn't between different political parties. They are all the same when it comes to their core goal of seeking power over people. Therefore there is no effective opposition to the political parties on this point. They all want to control the Internet.

This battle is between the elite few in power and the majority of people who the elite few aim to control (and then exploit for their own gain). This will continue to get ever worse control until the minority in power make life so difficult for the majority, that they finally stir up the majority to force some kind of fairness out of the relentlessly power seeking minority.

It will continue to get ever worse control because that is what the people in power want and currently there isn't sufficient opposition feedback to rein in their uncontrolled power grab. Its like a machine without feedback. Without enough feedback the machine runs out of control. Thats exactly want is happening now all over the world, with relentless power grabs to find ever more ways to control peoples lives.

Almost all the censorship talk is simply using FUD to sell the idea the governments need to grab control of the Internet ... and the "almost" aspect is a key part of their plan. Its a clever chess move as it provides a thin Veneer of credibility to hide their core goal behind and to force people to accept what the governments want. Which is simply to seek more power, just like they always do.

Re:To view the show

[mdwh2]

Dear 4chan losers, your internet memes are funny to you on the internet and in your dorms with your loser mates ... Did someone seriously stand up and say "1984 is a warning not a manual" in real life on national TV? Yes yes they did and I gotta say it doesn't translate....at all

Firstly I don't see why that statement is so bad, although yes I realise one must be careful of 1984-style comparsions, for fear of triggering "But we're not as bad as that, therefore it's okay" fallacy in response.

But aren't these two responses complete opposites? The problem with 1984/police-state comparisons that they come across as too serious and doom-mongering, which is the very opposite of light-hearted jokes and Internet memes. Consider the style of protesting at the anti-Scientology Anonymous protests - the fact that they can be seen having a bit of fun about it helps suppress the "But there are worse things to worry about, stop being so serious" response.

Seriously if that's the best you can come up with, regurgitating +5 slashdot comments

Yes, posts with "+5 Interesting" are obviously of no value ;)

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering SBS is a public broadcasting service that never should have had ads- and that the same lamebrain Conroy is in charge of that portfolio, I don't see why you didn't scream through the ads, too.

Re:To view the show

[MindKata]

... and within a few hours of me writing this above, I find news today that the UK and the whole of Europe is aiming to do exactly what I said other Governments would do when they see what Austrialia is aiming to do. Bring in Europe wide blocking...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/02/eu_filtering_framework/

Re:To view the show

[alexo]

Never try and compete directly with an idea that people have already bought into. If many people believe that anti-filtering is anti-child, to change someone's mind 180 they must admit that they were wrong...and people don't do that.

So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.

The implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader, but I suggest we start using the same dirty tactics the other side.
Accuse the proponents of being closet pedophiles projecting their sick fantasies onto others.
Ad hominem may be a fallacy but if it works for them, it can work for us.

Re:To view the show

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Yes. I'm a NZ'er living in the EU. So i get both "sides" of the story. I do put in my submissions when needed etc. In fact I'm in Austria and some of the stuff coming out of Germany is pretty surprising. With the history and all.

Re:To view the show

[HTH NE1]

Still, monitoring, not filtering, is the course of action if you want to actually make arrests. Instead of blocking access, you log access to any sites on the list and start investigations on those that go to them. Since the authorities don't want to be hassled by investigating false leads, those maintaining the list will have an interest in ensuring that it is accurate instead of the "set it and forget it" filtering mentality from infomercials that allows for anything someone doesn't like to be made to disappear without accountability.

At least, when you are sure those doing the investigations aren't themselves corrupt and the system doesn't just *bing* send a "so@so accessed this page" IM to the politician that added the site to the list.

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all interesting, but I've been thinking: Why go through all the trouble? By the time they manage to attain even a tiny fraction of the power they hope for, they'll either be dying or dead. What reasoning is there behind that?

Re:To view the show

[Toonol]

We have over 77,000+ nude images to guide you. High-resolution, no age-restriction images. We do not discriminate based on age, gender or skin color. Over 1,100 nude videos will help convert you and 300+ nudist articles to help you fill-in the details. Please feel free to browse our authentic Nudist Video DVD domain.

I have no problem with nudist photos being placed online; but it's a bit creepy to have a specific call-out on the front page emphasizing that they sell dvds with "no-age-restriction" photos. I wouldn't want them to be censored, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a photo of a naked child playing on the beach, but it's a little weird to make that a front-page marketing bullet-point. It makes the whole enterprise seem less about 'nudism' and more about 'a legal way to see naked kids.'

Re:To view the show

[geekgirlandrea]

I wish I could mod this to +6 right now.

Re:To view the show

[Alsee]

There are whole sites full of such pictures.

I hope the fuckers running that site all get ebola and DIE.

Oh, I have no problem with the fact that it's videos of nude children. If nudist families want to get together and run beauty pageant, including teen or pre-teen beauty pageants, that's fine by me. They are perfectly free to be nudists if they like, they certainly don't consider themselves victims, and nobody is any victim of any crime there. And I have no problem with people selling what are essentially ordinary family home videos, even if they happen to be nudist family videos with nude children. And I don't even care if someone buys them and sits alone in his parent's basement whacking off to images of naked kiddies.

So what am I bitching about? Their FAQ:

G3: What is DRM video protection and how will it affect me?
To prevent unauthorized distribution of our pageant videos we have implemented Microsoft Digital Rights Management (more info) encoding on all of our *.WMV files. Through initial license acquisition using your Username and Password, the protection makes sure that only our premium members are authorized to view the videos. There are specific software and operating system requirements to play these encrypted files.

S1: What are the system requirements to play your videos?
Due to the fact that DRM video encryption is a Microsoft-based product, at this time our videos will only play on Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. The following Windows versions are 100% compatible: Vista, XP, 2000, Me, NT, 98, 95. Within 6-12 months we will provide an encryption alternative that will support Mac OS systems.

S2: What video player must I use to play the videos?
Our videos will ONLY play on relatively recent versions of Microsoft Media Player. If your Media Player is out-dated, you might be prompted to update. To experience best quality and performance, we highly recommend upgrading to the latest version.

I was never going to buy order videos in the first place, but even if I wanted to I would need to go look for a torrent. I have a Windows machine, but I do not have Microsoft's Media Player installed, I do not WANT Microsoft's Media Player, and in fact I have explicitly deleted the DRM support that Microsoft shoves into the Operating System itself and into the browser, I have deleted the DRM system files such as DRMCLIEN.DLL and BLACKBOX.DLL and DRMV2CLT.DLL and I created an empty read-only file named "DRM" in the Windows\All_Users folder to BLOCK the operating system from re-creating the fucking DRM folder with that name. I refuse to buy DRM crap, and if I do accidentally wind up with a DRM file and try to play it, I have done everything I can to lock it out from trying to silently activate the DRM system.

-

Re:To view the show

[Alsee]

Informative :)

-

Re:To view the show

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought people sometimes do admit that they're wrong, but I stand corrected.

Re:To view the show

[mjwx]

Pet peeve of the month will be used to help get ministers onside, especially at the moment to pass anything Labour need the help of the Independant ministers, ones like Family First Senator Steve Fielding, religious right wing nut job.

But they don't just need fielding,

The Labour party need Xenofon and more importantly the Greens, both of those parties have openly criticised the filter and stated they will vote against it. I stooped worrying about this, without the Greens this has no chance of passing. Xenofon has 1 seat so does fielding, the greens have 5 seats, without the greens they couldn't pass anything over the objections of the coalition (Liberal/nationals).

Re:To view the show

[zuperduperman]

One of the things that I find offensive about this whole debate is that the notion of censoring these kind of things is in fact in itself a proclamation that they are intrinsically dirty, sexual, and forbidden where in their original context they were not.

What this does is in fact sexualises children even more and makes them more "attractive" to those who have such leanings. For many who go down this path it is the very forbidden and unusual nature of it that excites them. I suspect that if the whole internet and every day life was filled with pictures of nude children there would probably be less child abuse than there is now because a whole segment of adults would completely lose interest.

Re:To view the show

[bh_doc]

So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.

How so? Like how the filter wastes money that could be better spent on law enforcement? Or how the filter encourages a false sense of security in parents and guardians, while having little if any real effect? Or that the filter encourages deviants to go further underground, making it harder for law enforcement to detect, track and pursue them? Or maybe the way the filter distracts from much more important and much more real problems of general internet safety? Or perhaps that the filter is based on a secret blacklist that could be easily co-opted to restrict political and civil rights ideas that our children might have an interest in?

You mean like that? Yeah, our "dirty tactics" don't even need to be lies. Shame about the other side.

Re:To view the show

[fractoid]

You realise that if you masturbate to that, the children in it will automatically know that you did, and become victims of child porn, and probably need counseling and huge payouts and whatnot.

I mean really, think of the children!

(@ GGP - "...with the same resolve that any parent would have if it was their child..." With respect, I doubt it, and it's better that way. You would try your damnedest to bring them to justice within the framework of our legal system, whereas a parent who saw their kid being abused like that would probably grab a nailgun and a pair of pliers and get to work, I know I would.)

Re:To view the show

[fractoid]

[Conroy]You hear that, people? He's DEFINITELY a paedo, only one of those sick bastards would oppose my plan to ban a large random subset of the internets.[/Conroy]

If you keep arguing using "logic" I'll have to play my trump card and explain that the devil can quote scripture. That'd prove... something. Yeah.

Re:To view the show

[alexo]

Good points, all of them. Very valid to the average slashdotter, completely "whoosh" to the average voter.

I was not talking about lies, my point was that, unfortunately, appeal to emotion usually trumps logic and facts.
Like it or not, 9 times out of 10 smear campaigns work.

Re:To view the show

[Hurricane78]

Your picture is good, but still far from complete.

First of all, every life form on every planet in this universe exists for the sole purpose to expand/reproduce, consuming resources in the process.
And because on Earth, the concurring life forms are not different animals/plants anymore, but humans only, they fight each other.
It works pretty much exactly like bubbles in cooking water. They rise and grow, until they blast, and others feed off of the freed resources.

So sure you can oppose those in power, and remove them. And place someone better (usually yourself, if you aren't only ranting but actually acting, it will be you) in that place.
And then the same cycle continues. Until the end of all times.

Democracy can never work. Communism can never work. All those "everybody has the same rights" systems can never work. By definition.
Because they do not understand this basic cycle of nature.

You can try to create a government, where there are no people on top, but which is nor anarchist, because it has a software system without own interests to seek power, instead of the humans of other forms of governments. But you would have to create a masterpiece of the work of a genius, to make it in a way that nobody can mis-use it, without being bashed to death by others. ^^ This is what metagovernment.org tries to do. I hope they succeed. Hint: The one-allowed-totalitarian-reality motel of Wikipedia is not going to work!

Or you accept the cycles, and use them in the best way, to your advantage. This is what I am trying to do.

Censoship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Censoring the letter 'r' now, are we?

Re:Censoship?

[overzero]

I, fo one, welcome ou new censoing ovelods.

Re:Censoship?

[lamapper]

No that would be understandable...

most censorship does not make any sense, as this article points out.

Re:Censoship?

[noundi]

If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint. Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure. Trying to censor child pornography makes perfect sense, however the way it's done is sloppy and incorrect. The whole subject is very sensitive as it involves many heavy weighing factors, freedom of speech, innocent children etc. The point is if the filter was applied with 100% accuracy (which as far as I know is impossible to do, at least today) there wouldn't be any problems.

Re:Censoship?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post bought to you by the lette ''!

Re:Censoship?

[TaoPhoenix]

I want a Furore too, preferably with 670 HP.

Re:Censoship?

[Full Metal Jackass]

If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.

Well there should be. If one managed to prevent the production of such material then I would not complain.

You seem to be buying into the idea that this is about protecting children. Or at least the bizarre idea that it's ok for children to be abused as long as we don't accidentally tune into it.

What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.

Re:Censoship?

[Unordained]

100% of what? What exactly *is* "child porn"? Pictures of teens that they took themselves? Pictures of your kids in the yard spraying each other with hoses? Anime child porn? Anime child porn parodies? Adults pretending to be children? Adults who just look young? Teens over the local age of consent but under 18? Teens over their own age of consent, but under the age of consent in the viewer's area? Teens of indeterminate age? Teens having sex with each other in ways that are legal in their local area? If they took the pictures? If someone else took the pictures? Non-naked children in sexually-suggestive situations? Non-naked children in situations that are sexually-suggestive to certain viewers only? (Think of shoe fetishes. Seriously. Would we ban all pictures of shoes?)

It's not enough to say "it catches nothing but bad stuff" -- you have to clearly define "bad stuff", too. Not only are we not comfortable with that, we're quick on the trigger -- like the recent so-called "sexting" debacle.

Re:Censoship?

[noundi]

Please don't draw any sudden conclusions. I'm not buying into any ideas here. My line of thought is very simple so there's no need to quote or draw parallels to what others have said and thought and done.

So back to the topic. If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat, and I think you would to. But your concern is more about "at what cost". I never claimed that this goes above all, rather the contrary. My point was pretty clear. In the society I reside in I tolerate some things and I don't tolerate other things. I don't tolerate murder for example, and by amputating everybodies arms and legs we could prevent murder. But of course this is silly and it's definetly not the right way to do it as there's an immense sacrifice to it, but this doesn't mean we still don't consider murder as intolerable.

If you think that this is no longer about children but instead it's about enforcing views upon others you're repeating what I said. It's not about the censorship, as you imply when you say that it's no longer about the children, but about the way it's enforced.

Re:Censoship?

[noundi]

I'm not the one to define where the line is drawn. But I do know that I don't wish for my nieces or nephews to stumble upon pictures of children being brutally raped on the net, in the library or on a poster. I don't see why this would be strange. But you're right, I haven't considered the millions and billions of scenarios that can occur. I did consider one though, mentioned above, and this is something I think children should be protected from.

Re:Censoship?

[Bigjeff5]

I'm not the one to define where the line is drawn.

Why not? What makes anybody else in the world more qualified to make such a judgement call than you?

The truth is, if it crosses your line and you care about it enough, you should fight for or against it (whichever is appropriate). You should have all sorts of "lines" like these that you fight when they are crossed. You aught to make up your mind on what is not enough, and what goes too far. You have every right to say "Hey, that's not right!" and do something about it, and I would argue that if you DON'T, regardless of your position, you are neglecting your responsibility to your social community - be it your neighborhood, city, state, country, or anything in the middle.

When a lot of people make these kinds of judgement calls on their own, and fight for/defend them individually and with like minded individuals, the end result in a democracy or a republic is usually the closest thing a society can come to a balanced resolution. (In a tyranny, it often ends in executions until enough people are like-minded, then an uprising and civil war happens. Not pretty, but probably worth it if it makes it that far.)

It doesn't always work out to be the most fair, but usually it does. Passing up your right to think for yourself and make your views known only makes it more certain that your own views will not be considered in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Censoship?

[Unordained]

Erk? Now this is about protecting the children from viewing child porn? I guess that has to be considered too: when you find it, what's the purpose?
a) Protect children from images that could scar them for life
In-home filters already exist; there's plenty of non-child-porn material adults want to protect children from, this is a more general solution.

b) Protect adults from images that could warp their minds
Two sides: some say that viewing images keeps some adults from acting on their existing impulses, others claim that the images create the impulses leading to later abuse. This debate went a particular direction for violent media: adults won't put up with censorship of violent media on the basis it might cause them to go out and buy a gun to shoot up the local mall with; when correlation is shown, the argument is generally that the people who are prone to such things may be attracted to violent media, but there's no direct causation.
Lolita is no longer banned; if the argument made sense, wouldn't it still be? Could other non-visual media be censored on this basis? Could the Bible be censored because Lot's daughters effectively rape him to impregnate themselves?

c) Find adults who want images and investigate possible abuse
If adults are known to seek out child porn, can we assume they may be liable to abuse children themselves? If we investigated everyone who watched a violent movie on the basis they might become violent gangsters, we'd just have to put our whole population in prison. Today, child porn investigations assume that even an accidental download, possession (event unknowingly) or transfer involves you in the black market, both as a supplier and a consumer. If you have three images that could be considered child porn out of a whole porn collection of 15000 images, you'll still be thought of on the same level as someone who has nothing but child porn. You might not even know, remember, or cared that they're there -- but investigators do. You could wind up having to prove that each item depicts an adult over the age of 18 -- and even then, that may not be enough if they're pretending to be under 18. Won't that be fun!

d) Prevent the trade of images, cutting off demand from supply, reducing the profit from supply, thus protecting children from harm
This assumes that the abuse suffered by those children is the result of child porn -- that is, they're abused (inasmuch as this is about actual abuse, not voyeurism or images taken out of context) for the benefit of viewers, like some sort of tv show. It also assumes that it's a supply/demand system in the first place; that is, the supply exists because of the demand. Reducing demand may reduce trade, but won't necessarily reduce supply.

e) Protecting children from embarrassment later in life
It's bad enough having been molested as a child. For images of you to be out there in the wild ... yes, that's even worse (if such a thing is possible.) Pictures of you naked on the beach, with your family, are less of a problem -- kids like to run around naked, you were the same way. Would you be fine with posting that cute/funny/innocent picture of you on your website, up until the day you discover it's now circulating in a child-porn "ring", where it's now (because of the viewers, not the content) child-porn?
If adults are pretending to be children, is this relevant?

f) Protecting victims, in general
Should images of a child's rape be available? They're evidence in a court case against the rapist. The same would be true if there were video of adults being raped or molested. What of other videos of crimes being committed? Do we have the same problem with showing video footage of someone being murdered? No! The news media eat that up! Think of the video footage of JFK's as

Re:Censoship?

[Alsee]

If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.

Some people would drop their complains in that case, but not all.

Thus it's not about the censorship, it's about the procedure.

Yes, it is about censorship. The fact that censorship procedures are always bad and always broken merely testifies to the problem of censorship itself.

I say that every single penny being spent trying to censor these images should be revoked, and in fact every single cent being spent to prosecute people over these images should also be revoked, and that every single one of those pennies should be reassigned to finding actual children actual victims, and spent on rescuing actual children actual victims, and spent on prosecuting people actually committing acts against those children.

We do not prosecute someone for mere possession of an image of a crime, such as arson. We do not prosecute someone who collects photos or videos of arson fires. And as warped as it may be, it is not a crime for someone to sit alone in their basement whacking off to images of arson. We put people who commit arson in prison.

Out of a million different crimes, this is the single screwed up case where we break the rule of criminal acts vs images of criminal acts. Arson, bank robbery, murder, fraud, vandalism, even terrorism... not only are images of those crimes legal... anyone would think you insane for suggesting criminalizing such images themselves.

I am tickled pick when I hear some idiot video taped themselves committing arson or anything else. I wish MORE criminals were so colossally stupid. When that video gets spread on the internet or whatnot, that video is the best possible evidence you could hope to ask for to catch and convict that criminal. We don't prosecute other people for possessing or trading that video, we don't even prosecute the original criminal for making that video, we prosecute him for committing the crime of arson.

The fact is that over 90% of the sexual abuse of children is done by a parent(s) or an uncle or priest or other trusted individual in the family environment, countless children in on-going abuse who are not being rescued.

Instead of government censorship to HIDE the problem, instead of all the investigation and prosecution overwhelmingly spent on people not committing those actual criminal acts, I have this insane suggestion that we instead focus all of that on finding and rescuing the actual children and finding and prosecuting the people committing actual acts against actual children.

It is UNFORTUNATE that arsonists don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that burglars don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. It is UNFORTUNATE that child molesters don't all supply the police with convenient photographic evidence of their the crimes. Not only is it the best way to catch and prosecute the criminals, it is often the only way to find and rescue children from the ongoing daily abuse in their own homes.

In another post you said:
If I manage to prevent my kid from accidently stumbling upon pictures of another child being raped I would do it in a heartbeat

Sure, you can run any sort of filter you like on your own computer. I also have no problem with you selecting an ISP that offers a "family friendly" filtering service, or better yet an ISP offering a range of categories and levels of filtering. It is entirely appropriate for you to select what books and magazines you do and don't want to buy for yourself and your children, and what TV/cable programs or radio shows you choose to access or individually block for yourself and your children.

Individual selection for oneself and one's children is not censorship, that is selection. A company selecting what content they want to include or exclude from their offerings is not censorship, that is

Re:Censoship?

[lamapper]

What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.

You pretty well covered it there. Censor yourself, let me censor me and do not worry yourself at what level I choose to censor myself. Oh and by the way, if I censor myself, okay, but trust me, whatever I do will NOT impact anyone else, no matter what. If my actions impact another, without their approval, than I am impacting their net neutrality, their freedom.

That would be taking away your freedom....not something I would ever advocate, no matter how the argument / discussion / proposal was phrased.

In fact lets take this a step further, if I am not willing to stand up for another persons right to net neutrality and freedom, than I do not deserve it myself.

Its my responsibility to decide what the children in my family do or do not see, as their parent, no one else but me has that responsibility. I will not relinquish it to you, to the government, to the church or anyone that wishes to control anything because of their own agenda. If you try to force it on me, you are WRONG. Nothing, will ever make that RIGHT. Get over it...worry about yourself and let me worry about me.

If you suspect someone of violating the law and someone's life is in danger, please inform the correct legal entity for the problem to be resolved. If no one is in danger, perhaps the law should be changed as some other non-thinking-do-guider-with-an-agenda probably had the law passed based on their own personal agenda. If no one is being harmed, the law probably should not be on the books.

So use your brain, maintain personal responsibility, and never, never let another force their views on you. Since I do NOT want another to force their views on me, I must join with you to protect you as that protects me.

Personal responsibility dictates just because another says something, films something, records something, etc.... that does not give any one else the right to harm another because of what was said, viewed, filmed, recorded, etc... If you do something that harms another, you and only you should be called on the carpet for your indiscretion. You must be held accountable for your actions. Period. Game over.

Personal Responsibility, solves most of these moral dilemmas that some people get up in arms about.

One of the best definitions of Personal Responsibility that I have seen to date on the web. Her definition covers the following: Accepting personal responsibility includes:; When you have not accepted personal responsibility, you can run the risk of becoming:; What do people believe who have not accepted personal responsibility?:; What terms are used to describe those who have not accepted personal responsibility?:; In order to accept personal responsibility you need to develop the ability to::; Recommend that you save this link and use it as much as possible for others in similar discussions here on slashdot....Warning note: there is a headless image of a woman in underwear and garters, less skin showing then you would see with most bathing suits, however some might find this offensive...consider yourself warned and take Personal Responsibility for your click and your welcome!

Insist on Personal Responsibility from everyone, holding each accountable to their own actions, period. That is the only solution. Nothing else is going to do it, no matter how your phrase the proposal. No excuses, no BS,

Re:Censoship?

[mgblst]

So your primary concern is to your own child who might see a horrible picture, not the child being abused. This is the trouble with parents.

Re:Censoship?

[noundi]

Where did I say that? I can jump to ridiculous rethorical conclusions too you know.

So you're saying that we should completely ignore the fact that children get exposed in this way, so that not only the pedophile gets to see the child in this horrible state, but so that the world can sit down and have a look at the expense of the life of an innocent child.

But then again, let's stop being idiots and focus on the topic. Just because I feel that child porn should be stopped it doesn't mean I don't care about child abuse.

Re:Censoship?

[noundi]

Why not? What makes anybody else in the world more qualified to make such a judgement call than you?

What? What kind of a question is that? Of course there are many people more and less qualified than I. Just like any task there is. Stop your humanistic bullshit, we're not all equal. Sure we might have to consider eachother of equal value, simply because the factors are too many for a human to consider, but we're not equal. And if we were it would be a pretty worthless world to live in. I'm not ashamed of my flaws, we all have them, just as well as we all have skills. And I can tell you this, I haven't reviewed any case of this nature, I haven't spoken to any people that went through this. I don't know the impacts. I'm not a psychiatrist.

So you see, the world is not black and white. I've made up my mind and I thought I made that clear, but just because I don't reason like you do you seem to have gotten confused.

A human being cannot do everything, thus one cannot demand a human being to do so. We are all capable of different things, and the more specified the task get, the less people are able to get it done, and of course vice versa. I don't give my my right to think, rather on the contrary, my line of thought is very important. I think that someone else can think of a better solution than I can. Thus I'm not passive but the exact opposite.

Email the PM

[Anonymous Coward]

With the new cabinet being decided upon at the moment now is the time to email Kevin and tell him that Sen. Conroy is a right royal wanker. Not only does this guy not know one end of an RJ45 from a power socket he even slanders an internet company in court right now. Seriously, a senior minister trying to influence the court!

Keep thsose censorship lists coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Best CP ever.

[img]pedobear.jpg[/img]

How long will it take people to learn?

[Daemonax]

How long is it going to take people to learn. Blair, Bush, Rudd and Conroy... Four politicians I can name in recent times who advertise their religiousity, four politicians who have backed terrible plans and ignored criticism.

When will people learn to vote for the less religious politicians, or even the agnostic/atheist politicians?

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[macraig]

Forget their "religiosity". When are they and everyone else gonna learn that collective community blacklists don't work? Teach people how to set up and manage their own personal blacklists, which they can tailor to match their own personal values, and then get-the-fuck out of the way!

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I don't think their "true faith" has much to do with what they advertise. They are doggy politicians that will use these things for political gain. Its not like "other" (aka less religious ones) come up with better policies. Just dirty politicians.

The best people to have in power are the ones that don't want it.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Daemonax]

I would say that the politicians that advertise their religiousity are the dodgy ones. They're basically taking the advice of Machiavelli which I'll quote for you here... "A prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality." For prince, simply substitute poticians.

Now with regards to the truely religious politicians who aren't cynically using it as a tool for votes, I would say they're simply not smart enough or critical enough to be put into a position of power.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[indiechild]

You're completely missing the point. These kinds of nutcase zealots aren't interested in setting up their own personal blacklists, instead they want to control what other people see and do.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[krou]

And atheist leaders or secular governments are somehow better? Here's a thought experiment: how many atheist and secular, non-religious governments and leaders can you think of in the 20th century that committed mass atrocities against their people, or others?

If you think quite hard about it, I'm sure you can name a few. Stalin is probably a very good place to start.

I would rather we questioned the whole concept of the state itself, and the type of governance we accept. It's far more likely that we encourage super-structures around our lives that stifle human freedom and creativity that encourage this type of behaviour, than it is because our leader is religious.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[dwywit]

I'm just shocked that we voted him in. I mean, he's got the charisma of a limp lettuce, AND he's a practising christian.

I thought we were smarter than that.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Daemonax]

Yes they are some how better.
Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il... They were very religious. Bertrand Russell had a lot of criticism for the religion of communism.

Part of the step towards questioning the state has to be raising the conciousness and level of intelligence of the general populace. Part of that is getting them to part with childish fantasy.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[krou]

I'm impressed at your ability to quickly denounce them as being religious, and that communism was their religion. When in doubt, they're not true atheists. Tell me, are you equally quick to denounce atheists who adhere to capitalism as being "religious"? Or those that support democracy?

I think you have an axe to grind, and are simply not willing to accept the truth that atheists and religious people can be equally as tyrannical, murderous, and genocidal as each other.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[stonewallred]

If I had mod points, I'd spend them on you.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[evolx10]

they want to control what other people see and do.

..
Most of the public seems to miss this little aspect of our(world) leaders, or whomever is driving the puppet.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Daemonax]

Yes actually, I consider naive libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and others that naively believe in the invisible hand of the market as religious. That is not to say that I don't agree with some of what they say, but the naive ones take it too far.

Democracy I'm in full favour of. But I have no problem with it being questioned/critiqued.

It seems to me that you have more of an axe to grind if you're trying to say that Stalin, Mao or others are somehow reflective of what the vast majority of non-religious leaders are like. Where as I am very likely to find worrying problems with any openly religious politician picked at random.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

And all that shows is that people can be complete fuckwads, which we already knew.

You know what I don't heat though? The religious types admitting that their church is imperfect; they always make it seem like the "Church" is perfect, but the "humans" aren't and manage to fuck it up. Do you know where the word "church" comes from? It's the Greek word for "community". "Community", from definition 5 from dictionary.com: "Ecclesiastical. a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule." Let me drive my point even further: "men and women" are imperfect. Therefore, the church, any church is imperfect by definition.

I don't know any atheists that are fine with genocide. In fact, at least from the people I know, the atheists are the ones that are the most outspoken against it. There is no church to admit is imperfect, so they recognize that the people themselves were imperfect.

So there you have it. People, regardless of religion and what religious zealots say about it (Christianity makes people inherently good when they would otherwise be inherently bad), do terrible things. But the most common religions I know have never admitted that the church itself is imperfect. Not admitting their own imperfections is exactly what makes people in general commit terrible acts of stupidity multiple times.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[krou]

Again, you're missing the larger point.

I don't hold atheism or religion responsible for what leaders do. /. makes a big deal of "correlation is not causation", and it's never been more true than in this case. Most bad leaders breathe air - therefore, air is bad.

Atheism and religion provide necessary justifications and moral conviction to leaders in carrying out these atrocities. They would not be able to carry these out unless they had the moral conviction to do so. But, more often than not, it is the system of world order we have established that dictates that these actions take place. You're likely to find worrying problems with any politician picked at random that is seeking to further the aims of the state, irrespective of whether they are atheist or religious.

An excellent example of this point is actually Aztec human sacrifice. Most people believe that what they did this based on religious grounds, but this is actually not true. Bernardino de Sahagun was a missionary to the Aztec people, and he noted that they did not defend human sacrifice with religious reasons: they claimed that it was no different in concept to the European system of waging war. Most of the victims were actually prisoners taken from enemy tribes, or people they had subjugated. I'm not denying that religion played a crucial role in this process, but it is far from clear that the real reason for the sacrifice had more to do with religion than it had to do with empire building and power.

It is not me who is judging the "vast majority" of non-religious or religious leaders. I'm judging our leaders, full stop, and the vast majority rule nation states in an anarchic world of no rules or laws that dictates they must achieve power at all costs.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Our entire legal system is based upon Christian morality.

Pull your head from your ass.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[chthon]

There is a Dutch translation of Machiavelli, which has as title "The Ruler" (De heerser), instead of "The Prince", where the translator based his choice of wording that the original title "Il Principe" originally means more than someone of noble blood who is the son of a king. Lorenzo de Medici was a nobleman, but not of royal blood. This is in this meaning even closer to the concept of a politician than that of a prince.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[jabithew]

The point is that for Mao, Stalin, etc. their religious preferences were incidental to their communism-inspired mass-murder. They didn't kill people because they were atheist, but because they disliked opposition or genuinely believed that planting rice more densely would increase production, instead of causing starvation.

Equally, Mussolini and Franco were Catholics, but they didn't murder in the name of Christ, but in the name of political expedience. I'm just so fed up of this "Hitler* and Stalin were atheist, therefore atheism is evil" meme that I need to stamp it out before it even gets the chance to flourish in a conversation.

For what it's worth, I don't think atheists make better or worse leaders than secularists of any faith. I do think that religious rule of any stripe can only be a bad thing though.

*Hitler wasn't even remotely atheist.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Ihlosi]

There is a Dutch translation of Machiavelli, which has as title "The Ruler" (De heerser), instead of "The Prince", where the translator based his choice of wording that the original title "Il Principe" originally means more than someone of noble blood who is the son of a king.

The word "prince" can mean both in English - son of a king, or ruler (of a principality).

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Cyberax]

It's funny, but Stalin studied at a seminary. And he also supported the church during the WWII.

I know only ONE truly atheist state. And it's not the USSR, it's Albania.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Cyberax]

Also, there's another logical flaw in your argument.

Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism. He killed people to keep his power.

On the other hand, I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[drinkypoo]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with actually protecting anyone or stopping anyone from seeing things that perhaps they really ought not to see - we could argue about that one all day and I'm not even sure I'd know how I really feel about it, which is why I'm against the idea of blacklists even if I thought you could keep them ideologically pure. That's not what they're for, however; the idea is that they can "accidentally" slip sites which promote political speech of which they do not approve, sites that criticize their constituents (the real ones - the corporations) and other sources of information that "they" don't want you to have access to. It has already happened time and again and it will continue to happen so long as such blacklists are permitted to exist. You can examine the great firewall of China as your inspiration. While it is largely ineffective against interested parties, its purpose is to keep the masses largely ignorant so that they don't become interested parties.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[krou]

Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism.

That's an easy claim to make, considering that atheism itself is not a religion. Besides, Tony Blair (used as an example by the parent) didn't come out and say, "Hey, I'm invading Iraq in the name of Christianity!"

I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.

I'd be curious to hear your examples. Not saying that there are none, but I'll bet you anything you like that a majority are going to be cases where the actual aims and purpose were to keep power, and expand empire - just like Stalin.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..."
--Article 10, Treaty of Tripoli

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

*Hitler wasn't even remotely atheist.

Hitler's Religion was Karl Marx but he certainly wasn't religious in the Christian sense. He admired the Japanese for their Mikado worship - because the Emperor had unlimited power, he admired and followed Norse mythology and he saw Christianity as being weak - The Turn the Other Cheek aspect of Christianity at least. He certainly didn't believe that the "Meek would inherit the world."

Hitler didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God either.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[jabithew]

He still wasn't an atheist.

Also, not Christian != not religious. Not monotheist != not religious either.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[anonymous cowshed]

Reminds me of Hanse Cronje too, another fine upstanding religious type.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Full Metal Jackass]

Our entire legal system is based upon Christian morality.

Yeah, from memory Christ was particular down on pirating MP3s but came out strongly in favor of software patents.

Pull your head from your ass.

I think you mean pull thy head from thy neighbor's ass.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Yeah, from memory Christ was particular down on pirating MP3s but came out strongly in favor of software patents.

I did say "based upon" I do recognise that there are modern ammendments, but you might remember "Thou shalt not commit murder" "Thou shalt not commit adultery (unless thou art Mormon)" "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"... Actually, come to think of it, our laws are based more upon American soap operas from the 80's.

I think you mean pull thy head from thy neighbor's ass.

Laws against sodomy are definately based on Christian morality.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[mdwh2]

You are reversing his logic. The OP said that we shouldn't vote for people who "advertise their religiousity". This doesn't mean that therefore a less religious person is necessarily always better, as some might be bad in other ways. Saying "Advertising religion => bad leader" doesn't mean "Not advertising religion => Good leader".

As for Stalin:

The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

- Sam Harris.

The problem is not that some bad leaders happen to be theists, nor is it that some happen to be atheists. Yes, both of those are unfair arguments.

What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence - whether that's theism, or fascism, or whatever else. This isn't all theists, but it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God.

Atheists might happen to be like this in other ways but this behaviour is not due to their atheism. There is no society that suffered as a result of people turning to reason and evidence, rather than faith.

I'm sure you can name a few.

Who else, OOI? (Please, don't say Hitler.)

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[mdwh2]

The question is, are they basing their decisions on things such as faith, religion, "communication" with their God?

There's no way you can make an analogous situation for atheists - yes, they might happen to make bad decisions in other ways, just as theists can too, but there is no "atheism" equivalent for any of these. I mean, what, are you suggesting concern over someone basing their decision on not-faith, no-religion, or not-communicating with a God they don't believe in?

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[dbIII]

Christian morality? This sort of person has never made it to the bit in the book where Christ comes in. He wouldn't think much of Jesus anyway for throwing the merchants out of the temple, because his backers ARE merchants in the temple that think God hates poor people.

His bit on school funding was an eye opener that he just wanted to deliver unconditional public cash to some of these weird cults. His bit in favour of binge drinking showed how he's more inspired by dollars than morality.

BTW - our legal system comes directly from Rome.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Full Metal Jackass]

Ok, in all seriousness. What evidence do you have for making the claim that your laws are based on Christian morality?

It makes no more sense than saying that the rules on the school bus are based on Christian Morality.

• No sticking your arms out the window
  Because God doesn't like it
• No sticking chewing gum under the seats
  Because Jesus died for your sins

but you might remember "Thou shalt not commit murder"

The reason that there's a law against killing people is because people don't like being killed. They don't need a deity to tell them that if they don't discourage killing people that they're more likely to be killed themselves.

Laws against sodomy are definately based on Christian morality.

Any laws against sodomy your country has almost certainly stem from religious bigotry. Unsurprisingly, they're among the most useless and harmful.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'll remember the sarcasm tag next time.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Dog-Cow]

Christianity has morals?

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Dog-Cow]

You are unable to distinguish between morals and laws. It's no wonder you come across as a complete idiot.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Actually, not incidental whatsoever - communism is inherently atheist, and violently so. The reason makes a lot of sense: the State doesn't want any competition in the morals department. The government will tell you what's right and wrong, we don't need any outsiders interfering with their crazy ideas about forgiveness and understanding.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[krou]

I'm not attributing behaviour to someone being an atheist, I'm stating that being an atheist does not somehow make a leader any less dangerous than a someone who is religious.

I also remain entirely unconvinced by the argument that "it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God". You will often find that religion was secondary to their central aims of whatever atrocity they carried out, and is a method of justification, just in the same way that a claim to scientific principles or knowledge could be used to justify atrocities (eugenics, for example). Religion was secondary to Blair and Bush's aims when they invaded Iraq for geopolitical goals, for example. The Spanish Inquisition was created and directed by the Spanish Crown, not the Church, and was used for power.

What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence

Atheism does not bestow reason on people. If you think it does, then we're in serious trouble, because people will then blindly follow the atheist leader who claims to have reason on his side.

I'm more concerned with anyone who has a claim to some absolute knowledge, or absolute conviction, whether based on religion, or science.

For a list of atheists, from The Irrational Atheist:

Afghanistan: Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal

Albania : Enver Hoxha

Angola : Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos

Bulgaria: Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov

Cambodia: Pol Pot, Heng Samrin

China: Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau

Cuba: Fidel Castro

Czechoslovakia: Klement Gottwald, AntonÃn ZÃpotocký, AntonÃn Novotný, GustÃv HusÃk

East Germany: Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker

Ethiopia: Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam

French Republic: Jean-Marie Collot dâ(TM)Herbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne

Greece: Nikolaos Zachariadis

Hungary: MÃtyÃs RÃkosi

Laos: Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone

Mongolia: Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal

Mozambique: Samora Machel

North Korea: Kim il-Sung, Kim Jong-il

Poland: WÅadysÅaw GomuÅka, Boleslaw Bierut

Romania: Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu

Soviet Union: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev

Spain: Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero

Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh

Yugoslavia: Josip Broz Tito

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[macraig]

That's subjective. You're just guessing, unless they actually TELL you that is their motivation... which they never will.

I do confess that from my distant perspective, there certainly does seem to be something generally dysfunctional about many of the elected people in Australia. Is it something in the water down under? Did the Bush administration send them a gift basket with spiked Kool-Aid in it?

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[JesseMcDonald]

The real division isn't atheist vs. religious. As you say, there are plenty of renowned and despised figures on both sides of that particular debate. The real division is authoritarian vs. free-thinker.

Organized religion is almost always authoritarian by nature, and tends to attract authoritarian followers, but the reverse is not always true. Plenty of atheists and agnostics tend toward authoritarianism just as much as their religious counterparts.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[lessthan]

Linky linky

Adolf was a Christian.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Dracophile]

How long is it going to take people to learn. Blair, Bush, Rudd and Conroy... Four politicians I can name in recent times who advertise their religiousity, four politicians who have backed terrible plans and ignored criticism.

When will people learn to vote for the less religious politicians, or even the agnostic/atheist politicians?

1. When there are fewer people who think that religion and politics are inseparable. So long as there are enough people who are essentially religious, there will always be more than enough politicians there to exploit that.
2. When more atheists stand for election. When you get to choose between Atheist A and Atheist B, their atheism stops being a factor and you can concentrate on their politics.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[shutdown -p now]

Ok, in all seriousness. What evidence do you have for making the claim that your laws are based on Christian morality?

Well, he has a point. I hope no-one would deny that the original American laws are in large part based on the UK laws of that era, and those, in turn, are pretty obviously in large part based on Christian morality, as that was the kind that was pervasive in the society that codified them.

Of course, by itself, it really doesn't mean much. Laws can be based on all kinds of weird things when they're originally written; what really matters is how we interpret them today.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[shutdown -p now]

Hitler's Religion was Karl Marx

Gosh... do you actually know anything about Hitler apart from the fact that he was a bad guy because he killed Jews and started WW2, and that he was a "Socialist"?

I guess not. Well, let's try to rectify that. Word given to the man himself:

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"And international Marxism is nothing but the application effected by the Jew, Karl Marx ..."

"Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews."

"Marxism acts as a disintegrating solvent"

"Thus the Jew, Karl Marx, was able to draw the final conclusions from these false concepts and ideas on the nature and purpose of the State. "

"In this period my eyes were opened to two menaces of which I had previously scarcely known the names, and whose terrible importance for the existence of the German people I certainly did not understand: Marxism and Jewry."

"The erroneous conceptions of the aim and meaning of this party fall from our eyes like veils, once we come to know this people, and from the fog and mist of social phrases rises the leering grimace of Marxism."

"... in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat hoarse, thinking I would inevitably succeed in convincing them how ruinous their Marxist madness was"

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of ail recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands l of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men."

"Now, since we had thrown ourselves into a policy of commerce and industry, there was no longer the slightest ground for war against Russia either. Only the enemies of both nations could still have an active interest in it. And actually these were primarily the Jews and the Marxists, who, with every means, incited and agitated for war between the two states."

"I was filled with wrath at German foreign policy and likewise with what seemed to me the incredibly frivolous way in which the most important problem then existing for Germany, Marxism, was treated"

This is all from "Mein Kampf", and there's much more of that there. There's not a single chapter in the book in which Marx or Marxism weren't mentioned in extremely negative light. Hitler was as rabidly anti-Marxist as he was anti-Semitic (for him, one followed logically from another).

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Tazor]

Just because Hitler was a formal member of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean he was a Christian.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." Wiki

One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.. are you really saying that Hitler was following the teachings of Jesus... you cant even say that about most of the Catholic priests (or many of the so-called Christians around the world)

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Alsee]

Christianity has morals?

Yep... and that is go ahead and do any and sorts of evil shit and either confess to your priest or pray to God, and you get eternal reward for it.

-

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Alsee]

Just because Hitler was a formal member of the Catholic Church, doesn't mean he was a Christian.

Hitler was far more than merely formally Christian. It is all well documented. He was actively Christian, both in his public speeches and in his private speech and private writings. He deeply infused Nazism with Christianity, and declared that all public schools must teach Evangelical Christianity. He was of course an evil megalomaniac on an insane power trip, but he did believe what he was doing was in service of Christianity.

One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.
Hitler was a Christian.

bin Laden is not typical of Muslims, and Hitler was not a typical of Christians, but just because you (and I) think he was a BAD Christian, just because you (and I) think his focus and interpretations were bad, just because you (and I) think he did a very BAD job of following Christ's intent, does not change the fact that he was a Christian and that he was follower of Christ as he understood it. Hitler was sincere in his attempt to follow Christianity just as bin Laden is sincere in his attempt to follow Islam.

Hitler and Nazism were deeply Christan and their motivations were in significant part to spread and impose Evangelical Christianity. The official Nazi belt buckle read in "God is with us" (in German of course), and as I said imposing Evangelical Christianity in all of the schools was one of their priorities. A Christian society was one of their priorities.

-

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a HOLOCAUST of a statement you dirty ANTI-SEMITE BASTARD!

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh... do you actually know anything about Hitler apart from the fact that he was a bad guy because he killed Jews and started WW2, and that he was a "Socialist"?

Wow, thank you. I'm under the impression that US schools teach that Hitler was a "socialist" since he was (or eventually became) the head honcho of the "national-socialist" party.

Apparently, no one ever mentions that about every party in Germany back then called itself "socialist". And most "socialist" policies of the Nazi party were thinly-veiled anti-jewish measures (like the seizure of department stores, most of which were owned by Jews at that time. Of course, those that belonged to Germans weren't seized.)

Captcha: sinister. Ha ha.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[shutdown -p now]

Oh, the original NSDAP programme was quite socialist in its demands (not internationalist definitely, and not Marxist - but these aren't necessary prerequisites). In its implementation, however, Nazi Germany turned out to be a state much less socialist in practice than many who voted for Hitler expected it to become (hence Strasser's dissent). And even then they had some marks of socially oriented / welfare state, and sometimes outright socialist measures - most notably Kraft durch Freude, but also Autobahn, and Volkswagen (the latter in idea if not in implementation).

Of course, it doesn't mean that it makes any sense to call Hitler a socialist out of context without further qualification, or that GGP was totally clueless when he mentioned Marx...

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Ihlosi]

And even then they had some marks of socially oriented / welfare state

I supposed you could call "killing everyone who can't pull his own weight" "socially oriented" (in a twisted, sick, fscked-up kind of way), but it's definitely not part of a welfare state.

most notably Kraft durch Freude, but also Autobahn, and Volkswagen (the latter in idea if not in implementation).

The latter two were more or less preparations for the war, while giving the NSDAP a nice "socialist" facade. VW never delivered any of the planned KdF cars before switching to wartime production.

Of course, it doesn't mean that it makes any sense to call Hitler a socialist out of context without further qualification, or that GGP was totally clueless when he mentioned Marx...

Marx is about making the means for production (the capital) owned by the public, not about leisure activities for workers.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[Cyberax]

For example, banishment of Jews from Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada) and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre). Not strictly wars, but still genocides/etnocides.

Another prominent example is Aztec Empire which artificially created conflicts with its neighbors to capture victims for sacrifices (for religious purposes).

Crusades are a good example of Christian religious wars. Or maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion which left 20-30 _millions_ dead.

From the history of my native country, christianization of Russia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus' ) left several millions dead. Later a conflict between two branches of Orthodox Church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers ) resulted in a few nice little massacres.

You can find a lot more examples, these are just the ones off the top of my head.

Re:How long will it take people to learn?

[lessthan]

You are confusing Christian with your personal beliefs. Christianity is a group of religions that profess to follow the teachings of Jesus. Even a cursory glance at the various flavors would show that Jesus, apparently, left a lot to interpretation. Hitler didn't adhere to your brand of Jesus, that didn't make him non-Christian. A lot of people do terrible things and are able to rationalize it with their belief system, whatever that system is.

Also, I dislike your swipe at Catholic priests. Shame on you for going for low hanging fruit.

Yes Minister

[TapeCutter]

It's a simple mythbusting excercise. I have been posting it to all these Conroy stories these stories but not one slashdotter has been able to point to a quote from Conroy saying he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut & paste my theory from the last story in this predictable political theater...

Labor is playing the same game with Fielding [wikipedia.org] as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.

Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.

The two independents holding the balance of power are Xenophon (anti-gambling platform), and Fielding (anti-abortion platform), both wanted a mandatory filter. Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon gave up on the balcklist (perhaps smelling a rat), Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists). An independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Everyone except Fielding is happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, KRuddy is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard, Libs are happy because Labor can be tarred as censors, Labor is happy because Libs can be tarred with the same hypocricy....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.

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

Re:Yes Minister

[Techman83]

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

**shudder** I was talking to the GF and said I didn't understand why Pauline Hanson was making a big deal out of it, who the fuck in their right mind would ever want to see her naked!

Back OT, maybe that is the case, but we still have to fight it. If no one says anything, it might just go through silently. On the other hand it could explain why it was kept pretty silent pre-election.

Re:Yes Minister

[TapeCutter]

"we still have to fight it"

I agree, evil prospers and all that. But we don't have to fight on their terms, I'm proposing this is SOE in the Westminster and Republic style democracys, this grain of 'truth' is why the TV show was funny, OTOH if someone convincingly debunks me then I will learn something.

Re:Yes Minister

[Psychotria]

I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.

Re:Yes Minister

[Psychotria]

I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.

I saw the preview option and ignored it. Coherence is for wimps.

Re:Yes Minister

[Dracophile]

The Telecommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy, pointed to European examples of successful restrictions to quell fears the move could slow connection speeds.

"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

-- Labor warned on porn filters, Sydney Morning Herald report, 2 January 2008.

That at least sort of looks like he's for it.

Re:Yes Minister

[Techman83]

I did the same and all the letters I received in return just made me angry.

Re:Yes Minister

[indiechild]

Those definitely aren't pics of Hanson... they look nothing like her.

Re:Yes Minister

[syousef]

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

Whether it was Hanson or a Hanson look alike I almost lost my lunch a few times.

Re:Yes Minister

[TapeCutter]

I'm glad you empasised "looks". Politicians are experts at juggling contradictory ideas. I can agree with both those statements but I sure as hell don't want a mandatory blacklist.

The one about the connection speed falls under the "I fully support the trial" type quotes. If all other options were worse I could see the political rationality of "managing" a trial I believe is going to backfire on it's few genuine supporters. Note I think both sides take turns at good cop / bad cop.

Disclaimer: I grew up when the arm flapping and turd flinging was about things like the "little red school book", statues of David appearing in gift shops, missing pages from the schools national geographic collection. Like most familys we had one set of encyclopedia that lasted our entire childhood, their most redeeming feature today is that they smell better than the internet.

Re:Yes Minister

[lucas teh geek]

same here. the responses I got actually killed any motivation to write more. it was patently obvious they werent being read, probably put straight through a shredder, and I was just being sent a generic form letter. no specific points I mentioned addressed, just generic bullshit you could probably find on their website

Re:Yes Minister

[Kryptic Knight]

With apologies to the original TV Series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

Minster's office, Civil Servant and Minister.
CS : Why on earth would the people be worried about not having access to information?
Mi : Well they want to be able to access it!
CS : But Minster, if they don't know about it they can't access it!
Mi : Don't know about it ! The Entire List has been leaked.
CS : Oh no Minister, what we want the public to THINK is the entire list has been leaked.
Mi : Then whats the entire list?
CS : Oh you don't want to know that Minister.
Mi : Why not .. I'm the Minister I have to be able to know what the public can't see in case I'm asked about it!
CS : Exactly Minster, if you don't know then you don't have to dissemble to the public.
Mi : Dissemble ?
CS : Discourse with knowledge in error, converse in a manner likely to perjure yourself, .... LIE!
Mi : So you're saying that nobody knows the full list, including me, just so I don't have to lie about it?
CS : YES MINISTER!

Re:Yes Minister

[TapeCutter]

It just gets better doesn't it...

Re:Yes Minister

[L4t3r4lu5]

So, "Plausible deniability" then?

Re:Yes Minister

[Anonymous Coward]

The libs only had to stall Fielding for a while, so they commissioned a report to make it look like they were doing something. They only needed Fielding's support for preferences, and as a buffer for the senate seats they knew they would lose over IR Reform, and thus the report was scheduled to be presented after the election. The report was anti-filter, but wasn't presented until the new Government was formed, and so was presented to Sen. Conroy instead of Sen. Minchin. Conroy sat on it, because it would have undermined his case for supporting the filter, and he needed Fielding, until Minchin managed to get hold of it under FOI laws.

Re:Yes Minister

[drinkypoo]

Just put "Cc: The Internet" at the bottom of each one, and post them somewhere they will be read. Then at least your writing isn't a waste. Add citations to the online version, please.

Re:Yes Minister

[h4rm0ny]

Call them on it. Put your letter and their reply side by side on a website. Show the complete disconnect. Laugh at them. True, you wont get the entire population of the country looking at that site, but if you posted a link in a few places where it's on topic (here and now as example), then you could have a fair bit of attention. And perhaps enough to force a better reply from them.

Re:Yes Minister

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Thank you, TapeCutter. Absolutely spot on. I am surprised that this wasn't raised during the SBS Insight show by one (any) of the opponents. Cheers

Ha!

[commlinx]

I knew it, they couldn't spell it let alone implement it.

Missing link

[TapeCutter]

Steve Fielding

Re:Missing link

[krou]

Steve Fielding is the missing link? Holy shit, to think that after all this time it was right under our nose!

Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[lamapper]

Politicians can be so short sighted and stupid.

They scream, porn, rape, child molestation, crime, etc, etc, etc, this moral issue, that moral issue.

Of course you CAN legislate morality, the better question to ask is SHOULD YOU?

To have freedom of religion, no one religion can dominate, otherwise we all lose religious freedom. THIS IS BAD.

Now ask yourself, is your religion the dominant religion right now? (Answer is probably No)

Are members of your religion having more babies than all other religions? (Answer is NO, unless you are Muslim)

If you are Muslim, do NOT get too excited as ultimately you too will lose because the fanatic Islamist, also claiming to be Muslims are going to start nuking as soon as they get the capability, the money to purchase, to do so. So while from a population perspective you will dominant, after the first dirty nuke, those numbers will change, like it or not. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Nothing anyone does can stop this fact...either Islamist become tolerant or the Muslim religion is ultimately doomed.)

Good luck with that one...you will need it.

The only point, any law passed with Religious intent or perspective, allows your law to be replaced by a religion with more population.

This is why you MUST NOT pass any law of a religious nature and why government and religion should NEVER mix.

To do so risks the loss of freedom of religion for you and your posterity.

Obviously any law of censorship, ultimately threatens your freedom of religion, no matter how that law is worded. Do you really want to do that to your kids? To their kids?

In America, our founding fathers understood religious persecution, sadly we have forgotten those lessons.

Net Neutrality is in YOUR religions best interest. Net Neutrality is what god wants you to have. Now go, worship freely, get out of government and sin no more!

Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[Psychotria]

I agree with many of your points. But, I'm not sure why you're bringing religion into the argument. I've read a lot about the censorship issue and religion is rarely put forward as a pro-censorship argument. I personally think it'd be silly to mix up two very different and, often, volatile subjects. It's asking for trouble. Conflating "morality" and "religion" (as your post seems to suggest) is a very rocky path to head down...

Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[lamapper]

But, I'm not sure why you're bringing religion into the argument

Basically because after reading the posts that were already there, I realized there were many posts referencing religion and censorship based on religion. So I am definitely not the first nor the only one pointing out that censorship often occurs first from a religious perspective.

I also disagree with you that the two are not related. I would suggest to you that most censorship is based on moral issues. Never mind that you can choose not to watch, not to hear, not to partake by turning off, personally blocking a site, etc....

For most, it is not enough to censor themselves, they want to censor you, me and everyone else, as they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. It is not enough for them to live their lives, they want to control how you live yours.

As most of us have learned, too many politicians, at least here in the US, hope that most people will NOT show up to vote. When that happens, groups, especially religious groups, that historically are whipped into a frenzy with anti-religious propaganda will show up and vote. Often voting based on a card handed out in their church or group, rather than using the brain that the god they believe in gave them (I would suggest to NOT use that brain is SIN...but that is just me.)

When they vote from a religious perspective on anything, they open the doors, setting precedents, for other religious groups with higher popluation (i.e. more voters) to change laws that ultimately can result in all of us losing religious freedom.

I am not anti religoius...I am pro freedom, which MUST include religious freedom.

I just wish other religious people would realize, its not that they can NOT pass laws...they can and have....

Rather they need to ask themselves, SHOULD WE? Most of the time they SHOULD NOT.

And for the reasons that I stated above.

Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[Psychotria]

For most, it is not enough to censor themselves, they want to censor you, me and everyone else, as they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. It is not enough for them to live their lives, they want to control how you live yours.

[me] waves hand. You don't need to see my religion. These aren't the morals you're looking for.

[lamapper] These aren't the morals I'm looking for.

[me] Psychotria can go about his business.

[lamapper] Psychotria can go about his business. He is right.

[me] Move along

[lamapper] Move along... Move along... nothing to see here.

Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[Dorinda]

As most of us have learned, too many politicians, at least here in the US, hope that most people will NOT show up to vote.

Voting in Australia is compulsory. Those that do not show up to vote get hit with a fine.

Re:Laws you Can pass, but SHOULD NOT?

[lamapper]

As most of us have learned, too many politicians, at least here in the US, hope that most people will NOT show up to vote.

Voting in Australia is compulsory. Those that do not show up to vote get hit with a fine.

I had never heard that before, amazing.... how is that working for Australia?

Bugger all backdown

[femto]

In fact there has been virtually no backdown. The list will still contain "refused classification" material and be mandatory. Keep in mind that Australia has no "R" rating (18yrs +) for games and the states of Australia have no "X" rating for pornography. These things are "refused classification".

Thus any computer game deemed unsuitable for a 15 year old (highest rating for a game is M) will be censored for all. Pornography, pictures of abortions, information on euthanasia or drugs and anything that is deemed illegal or "too gross" for an R rating gets censored. Too bad if it has a political angle (such as abortions, euthanasia or drugs). If the politics is deemed offensive, it will be refused classification and banned.

Relentless

[Anonymous Coward]

So no one notice the CENSOSHIP

But

[MichaelSmith]

KRuddy is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard

Conroy is in the Senate so I don't think this is likely to happen. In any event I think Labour are pretty happy with Kevin07. I am sure he will ride it out for a couple of terms.

Re:But

[Techman83]

Maybe, but I wonder if he gets voted in again...

Q and A last week

[Techman83]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/video.htm?pres=20081002&story=1

Conroy also Featured on Q and A last week. I also spent a great deal of Yelling at the TV watching this. He makes so many conflicting statements, it's hard to know what's really going on.

Re:Q and A last week

[Dorinda]

This is actually the Q&A episode with Conroy: http://abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm

Re:Q and A last week

[Techman83]

Bugger, that's what you get for posting whilst running out the door to beat traffic!

BlackList

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah, make a blacklist so that it's even easier to find child-porn !

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Techman83]

Maybe, but his incompetence isn't helping his cause, so the cloud may just have a silver lining.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Psychotria]

but just hypothetically: might it be possible for somebody to just shoot this idiot and have done with it? Seems he is the only one who wants it.

Oh, yeah. Right. Forgot. They took away a bunch of the guns, too.

Well, of course someone could just shoot him. But what would that achieve? What a stupid suggestion. And, for the record, "they" didn't take away a bunch of guns; only extremists assert that they enforced it. If you want a gun in Australia you can buy one just about as easily as anywhere else in the world.

PS

[TapeCutter]

"On the other hand it could explain why it was kept pretty silent pre-election."

It "kinda" didn't exist before the election, check how Mr 2% got elected in the WP link. I say "kinda" because it's a cyclical thing...

1. Pre election - no censorship.
2. Post election - New government and a few independent censorship nuts are suddenly sitting members. Their heads swell with the phrase "balance of power" and believing their own bullshit they try and play the big boys against each other.
3. Government sets up an inquiry and wins the support of nut jobs.
4. Government sends draconian bill to the senate, opposition and public don their tinfoil and go into a turd flinging, arm flapping frenzy.
5. The trial drags on until mid-late term when the list is suddenly broad enough to include the nut jobs own supporters.
6. Trail ends, bill is voted down and considered by all not to be worth risking a double dissolution.
7. Goto 1.
8. ????
9. Profit.

Re:PS

[thogard]

But Conroy played the part and he must be punished. I for one will donate over a thousand dollars to anyone who opposes him in the next election unless I find a bigger threat. I don't want this crud getting this far again.

And I don't think its over yet.

Re:PS

[MichaelSmith]

But Conroy played the part and he must be punished.

He's a Victorian Senator so I will put him last on the senate ballot next time around.

Re:PS

[Techman83]

It kinda did.. LMGTFY First hit is the pre-election pdf of Conroy outlining his plans. Quite different to what is being proposed now.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Anonymous Coward]

When I saw this picture I had an overwhelming urge to take the golf club and bludgeon Conroy about the head with it. Am I alone?

Re:I am not an Aussie

[MichaelSmith]

Its not Conroy doing this. As the minister for communications it is his job to implement Government policy within his portfolio. If he fell under a bus the new minister would just carry on with the job.

Looking up and down the page there are a few fairly valid sounding interpretations of what is actually going on.

Many years ago during the last Labour Government we had the Australia Card. This was an ID card proposal which the Government pushed for a long time. Then one day they decided it wasn't worth the votes they were losing. They held a press conferece. Said that because senator X was opposing the idea they were dropping the idea. The build up took years. The wind down took an hour. The same could happen here.

Today, April 2nd

[this great guy]

Hello fellow slashdoters. I was offline yesterday (power outage). Did I miss any particularly interesting /. stories posted yesterday ? Hope not.

Re:Today, April 2nd

[meist3r]

Everyone who's got "great" in their nickname received a million dollars and a complementary holodeck ... but nevermind.

Re:Today, April 2nd

[MichaelSmith]

Hello fellow slashdoters. I was offline yesterday (power outage).

You live in Sydney?

April Fools jobe anyone

[pirateRob]

can I possibly be the first to say Aussie April Fools joke?

If you check the date on theage article it is from 1/4

could be for real but aussie media are no better at reporting IT stuff that anywhere else in the world.

maybe Warner Bros will buy the blacklist for 13Billion dollars?

Re:April Fools jobe anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

can I possibly be the first to say Aussie April Fools joke?

No, this was actually on a Television program and the newspaper just commented about it

Re:I am not an Aussie

[twostix]

And, for the record, "they" didn't take away a bunch of guns; only extremists assert that they enforced it. If you want a gun in Australia you can buy one just about
as easily as anywhere else in the world.

Please don't lie it makes us all look bad.

You can't legally buy *any* semi-automatic or automatic firearm in Australia. Many bolt action long arms are banned as are most side arms. To purchase and own a gun you have to have a signed letter from a rural landholder saying you can shoot on their property, or be an accredited sports shooter (where the guns you are allowed to buy are a heavily restricted subset of the above).

Finally the agreement to getting a gun license gives the police the power to access your home at any time without a warrant.

The fact that they tried to enforce the gun ban (which it effectively is) and failed miserably as can be seen by the ridiculous amount of gun violence in the country for the last few years doesn't mean they didn't try their hardest. Just that they're incompetent.

Oh but at least people don't use a gun when they commit suicide now...they're just hanging themselves instead - Trends in hanging and firearm suicide rates in Australia: substitution of method?.

So long as they kill themselves with rope and not a gun makes the anti-gun nuts all warm and fuzzy I 'spose.

Media footage exposing this mans lies...

[overbaud]

http://ozsoapbox.com/rest-of-australia/internet-filtering-why-stephen-conroy-cannot-be-trusted/

Good thing the list leaked on Wikileaks

[meist3r]

Without incidents like these it's getting really tough to argue against those who have all the information and therefore power.

Kangaroos!!

[stonedcat]

Kangaroos jumped with joy at this fabulous news. The dingos however seemed unaffected and went about their business.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Psychotria]

Please don't lie it makes us all look bad.

twostix, I did not lie. I am sorry if I offended you, or any other Australians; that was not my intention. Your point is correct. But, so is mine. It is not hard to buy a gun here. It is hard to legally buy a gun, but not as hard as it's made out to be. However, my point was: if you want a gun to shoot someone then it's not any harder to obtain one (legally or otherwise) than most other places in the world. Your statement: "as can be seen by the ridiculous amount of gun violence in the country for the last few years" kind of supports my statement. My statement is not making judgement by the way. I don't support either stance (gun ownership or non/ownership)--my stance is neutral. If someone wants to shoot me, they probably will anyway, despite any silly law.

What I *did* mean, though, is that Jane Q Public's suggestion about shooting people is absurd. Violence does not solve anything. I also stand by my assessment that Jane throwing in a frivolous comment regarding gun laws in Australia--as if it proved some kind of point--was ridiculous. The gun laws do not stop a person intent on shooting another person obtaining a gun. I understand that Jane Q was trying to make a joke. I just didn't find it funny, nor accurate in any way.

Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

The monkeys are running the zoo!

Re:Bugger all backdown

[srjh]

There's also the fact that one of the biggest problems with the concept remains - it is still a top-secret blacklist that we aren't allowed to see. We're not allowed to know, or talk about, what exactly is being censored. We were assured by Conroy that no political content would be blocked, but we have no way of confirming that if the list is a secret (unless it leaks... which it did, clearly showing that political content was being blocked).

Time and time again, experience has shown that these lists WILL leak, and they WILL be trivial to defeat (particularly for those with the greatest interest in defeating them). And these people want to keep adding child porn to some of the most widely released documents on the internet?

Fucking imbeciles, I tell you. You're not helping the children, you're harming them, and you're pandering to fundamentalist wowsers who have about 1% of a clue about what they're talking about between them.

Hypocrite much?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It seems to me that you have more of an axe to grind if you're trying to say that Stalin, Mao or others are somehow reflective of what the vast majority of non-religious leaders are like.

How can you say that when your original premise we need more atheist leaders because four specific religious ones 'backed terrible plans and ignored criticism'? It seems to me that you're trying to say that those four are 'somehow reflective of what the vast majority of [religious] leaders are like', while denying the same claim for atheist leaders, even though we have at least four who were atheists and mass murderers by using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. As fanatical as people may be about politics, it's still not a religion under any widely known definition of the term.

Per your own logic, you seem to have an "axe to grind." Hypocrisy, thy name is Daemonax.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay but you are arguing a different thing here. I was (and I thought it obvious) referring to legal ownership of guns. You are referring to illegal ownership of guns. That is a very different matter.

But I will thank you to not go around writing things like "Jane Q. Public's suggestion about shooting people". I suggested nothing of the sort. It was very clearly labeled as a hypothetical question and was not to be taken seriously, as other readers seem to have understood.

If you did not find it funny, fine. But that does not give you call to go around stating that I was advocating the shooting of someone. That is out of line.

I concede that you do make one good point, as out of context as it may have been: laws prohibiting the possession of guns do not actually prohibit the possession of guns. Instead the people who are going to own guns anyway are turned into criminals. And a number of innocent people, who might have owned guns had it been legal, will be deprived of the privilege of defending themselves from others who never cared about the laws anyway.

How about this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Those wanting this banned automatically are hindering the efforts to find the producers of this material (if you can't find it, how can you track it back to source?).

Making the job of law enforcement in tracking down legitimately evil produce can only be considered as good by those who wish to have their prediliction for this sort of thing hidden from view.

See the US Judge who had some CP-like stuff on his computer. If the ISP had banned images like this faultlessly, the whistle-blower could not have given out evidence of this issue.

I'm sure the judge would have looked favourably on this reduction in their personal embarrassment.

Are those proposing to hide the evidence also looking to hide evidence of their actions?

Re:How about this:

[fractoid]

...you fool, this isn't about preventing child abuse! It's about cleaning up the internet!

...Oops.

Hitler was HIGHLY religious

[Anonymous Coward]

His hate for jews sprang from religious dogma. They Killed Jesus! You Bastards!!!

He also held to a lot of the older religion and occult fantasies (religion still, just not one we have as mainstream any more) and this helped Germany lose the war: he was a nutter and concentrated on the irrelevant when things went bad. Why? Because he figured that the reason why Germany wasn't winning any more was the Evil Forces arrayed against the Virtuous Aryan on the spiritual plane.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[drinkypoo]

You pretty much have it. It's interesting that in the USA the per capita rate of gun violence is staying about the same - but the rate of gun violence against others is falling. Gun suicides are on the rise, but in this country we don't care how you off yourself, only how you off others. We could trim a bit more fat...

Well

[ledow]

If we have indeed finally passed the stage where every single story on every website is an un-funny April Fool's "joke"...

What worries me more about stories like this (in any country) is not that anyone thought they could filter a country, or indeed DO (there are countries where this sort of thing is already in place, don't forget) but that no-one questioned HOW it got so far so quickly. Someone, somewhere made a decision to affect every Internet-using citizen in a country and nobody batted an eyelid. You can bet your life if they'd added 1% to Internet connection costs, there would have been uproar. But it took until the lists were ballsed up, leaked (illegally?), those lists were banned in several countries, the news of this all hit the web and from there the mass media, etc. before anyone really decided that, actually, this might not have been the best course of action to embark on.

I don't expect politicians to have morals - they are given to them by their voters and their fundraisers - but I would have at least expected some sort of two-way consultation on this beforehand. The users said no, the ISP's said no, so who exactly did they ask and who pushed it through anyway? Someone, somewhere must have asked "is this even possible, is it going to cause trouble?" before it got near a trial phase.

I could also understand it if it came the other way - an ISP decides to implement it for its customers and it gains traction... a bit like Phorm in the UK (targetted advertising delivered by proxying all web traffic at the ISP side).

There's nothing I hate more than a "decision"/"vote" that has already been decided and even if it hits vast opposition STILL gets implemented. It just makes me detest the person/entity that tried to make me think there was a decision to be made and never trust them ever again. It's like redundancy negotiations - by the time it's GOT to the point where you're announcing that there MAY be redundancies, you already know who, what and how many and everything else is a pointless paperwork exercise to pretend you don't and to fiddle the numbers to come to the same conclusion as you want. The second you reach that point of announcement, you KNOW that you're either in or out and there's no way back. (I've never been made redundant, but I've seen several of these pointless exercises first-hand).

Here's a clue - before you go affecting more than 10,000 people's lives, ask around and see how people feel (those affected and those not) by telling them every consequence that YOU know of. It'll prevent a lot of stupidly embarassing political mistakes.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone, somewhere made a decision to affect every Internet-using citizen in a country and nobody batted an eyelid.

in all honesty, FUCK YOU. Australians have been kicking and screaming about this since it was first announced but the stubborn cunt pushing it doesn't pay any attention.

did you even watch the videos? the man is clearly in a very tiny minority of people who support the stupid idea yet refuses to back down. the headline is totally misleading. admitting that the current trials and what he wants to implement are not the same thing is not backing down. it's more evidence that the whole thing is a sham, but it's not backing down

Re:Well

[ledow]

Whoa... ease back there. *Australians* (as in citizens) can do what they like (but to be honest, I've read ten times more on this on non-AU websites than AU ones, and the AU coverage was very late to the mix - and my Aus friends knew nothing about it before I pointed it out), what I'm questioning is how such a decision got so far (i.e. to a national trial stage) with little-to-no-questioning, not from the citizenry but from rival politicians, internal watchdogs, legal groups within the government etc. It doesn't matter what *YOU* do, you have 1/20,000,000th of a vote as to what actually happens, the same as I have a similar amount of impetus in my own country. What I'm questioning is the lack of hindrances up until this point. It shouldn't take the common citizenry to protest to stop something, there should have been someone in government crying wolf about this YEARS ago, and internal squabbling should have killed it before it got out of the door. By the time Joe on the street hears it, it's almost certain to happen even if only in cut-down form.

Sorry pal, but your (and your fellow citizens) efforts mean very, very little unless it's election time (and then they don't mean much either). What I'm pointing out is the lack of opposition to it BEFORE it got on the news.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read ten times more on this on non-AU websites than AU ones, and the AU coverage was very late to the mix

let me guess, you read more non-au websites than au websites. December 2007, one month after the current government was elected. that is when it was announced, that is when it first appeared in the news. that is when people first started complaining. late to the mix my ass, you're being modded up when you're just talking out your arse

my Aus friends knew nothing about it before I pointed it out

if your friends fail to read the news, they dont fucking count. you could probably ask them again in a month and they'll look at you blankly and not know what they're talking about. sounds like the problem is you're friends with morons

What I'm questioning is the lack of hindrances up until this point.

politicians dont know jack about technology and refuse to take advice from those who do

What I'm pointing out is the lack of opposition to it BEFORE it got on the news.

this isnt america, we dont rely on fox for our political news. the day it was announced in parliament, it was on the news. it's hard to oppose something that hasnt been announced.

Re:Well

[TheDugong]

So you accept that killed Iraqi and Afghan children by proxy then?

I have never voted for either of the main parties, in fact I voted for the only party that is genuinely for an open and grass roots democratic society in Australia. The facts are:

1) The more pressing issue of Work(lack of)choices legislation decided the vote

2) Net censorship was not even on the radar until after the election

There is due to be a cabinet restructure this or next month, hopefully Kev will see the light and give Conroy the boot.

Re:Well

[gfim]

I suggest that you have a look at Electronic Frontiers Australia, Get Up!, or Whirlpool. They have been covering this for months.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[MozzleyOne]

Yet, despite being an Australian university student, if I for some reason wanted to go on a mad shooting spree through my campus ... I wouldn't have the first idea how to go about getting a gun.

In Australia, gun control laws have been effective. I'd argue the vast majority of the Australian population has no access at all to weapons unless they go through legal channels, which is kind of the point.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Jane Q. Public]

Have they been effective? Effective at what?

Your statement proves only that the current policies leave law-abiding people with no clue how to obtain a gun. Are you saying that is the same thing as reducing crimes committed with firearms? But, see, they aren't the same things, at all.

Just as one of your fellow Australians has pointed out, the number of crimes being committed with firearms has not necessarily gone down. But isn't that what was to be accomplished? I do not know the actual figures, but I did read somewhere that violent crime was actually up, not down.

I do not have all the answers, I am simply asking the questions.

Re:Bugger all backdown

[twostix]

The absolute insanity of the situation is this:

They say they're going to create a blacklist and nobody in Australia will be able to view any of the sites that have been put on the list as the internet is filtered at the borders with hundreds of millions of dollars of labour, hardware and software funded by taxes to the Federal Government. So if we can't access any of it, thanks to the 100 million dollar filters, we can see the list then right? We can view the list and nobody can access anything on it! Perfect transparency and all is well.

Well no, see the filters are going to be easily by-passable, they're only there to stop *kids* from accessing unwanted material...but they'll stop also paedophiles from accessing child porn to be sure!

To Paraph Steven Conroy on Insight the other night:

And it's ONLY about stopping childporn...hear me just child pornography...

And anti abortion sites...and Pro Euthenasia sites...and Anorexia sites...and any site that advocates self harm...and any site that promotes terrorism.

But it's *just* about child pornography, ....(and rape sites and incest sites).

See, just...child porn, protecting the kiddies nothing else.

Weasle words...

[TapeCutter]

Yep, I've seen it. It's a masterpiece, example quote...

"A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a 'clean feed' internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries".

The government already provides several "mandatory clean feed" broadcast channels and media sites similar to the BBC, it's like our telcos having mandatory universal service obligations to provide phones. Nowhere does it say ISP's can't continue to offer a "dirty feed" to adults.

Re:Weasle words...

[TapeCutter]

...but yeah you bent my cyclical idea outta shape...

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, yeah, it's not legal so clearly nobody is going to own a gun illegally!

Re:I am not an Aussie

[dbIII]

Yes, over the time that the population has doubled the amount of violent crime has increased as well. It's a fairly pointless argument unless extreme trends stand out.

Australians see guns differently to those in the USA anyway. They are a tool or sometimes a sporting implement and not some big unweildy badge of freedom. I learned to shoot at the age of eight just like many other Australians, but don't own a gun or desire to have one just like many other Australians. We don't have the mythology of some freezing guys in the woods with muskets winning a country (ssh! Don't mention the French or the rebel professional soldiers) to make us want to have military weapons in out homes to salute. As for concealed carry of handguns - I just do not understand the mindset.

Stranger In a Strange Land

[aceofspades1217]

Just like in the amazing Heinlein book "Stranger In a Strange Land" morality is the root of all evil.

If we didn't have morality than a lot of the heartache and conflicts in this world will be diminished.

Re:Stranger In a Strange Land

[GrahamCox]

Don't forget however that Heinlein was a right-wing whack-job.

Fight back!

[alexo]

we come across a fair old chunk of CP. Most of it, in fact the absolute vast majority of it is completely non sexual shots of single children, no toys, not an adult in sight, just a naked kid between probably about 10 and 15 years old, most of them on the beach, many of them oblivious to the camera.

I am sick and tired of the lowlifes in power trying to capitalize on "child porn" by using lies and intimidation in order to get even more control over everybody.

It is time we fight back using the same tactics. Make them feel the heat. Get them on the defensive.

Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile.
Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.

- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you???
- No, I just want to protect the children from the predators...
- Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.

Make it dirty. Make it personal. Make it hurt.

Re:Fight back!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile.
Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.

- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you???
- No, I just want to protect the children from the predators...
- Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.

Your logic is as impregnable as a 12-year-old boy.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Jane Q. Public]

As you say, the cultures are a bit different. But your view of Americans as having a "musket-carrying rebel" mindset is a little bit distorted. Keep in mind that a good bit of the Western U.S. is still as wild as a lot of Australia, and to many people who live there a rifle or shotgun is as much of an everyday tool as it may be to you. I don't live in New York City; I too learned to shoot and hunt as a child. As for defense, you may have snakes and crocs but we have bears and wolves (by choice) and other large wildlife. A charging moose can be more dangerous than a bear.

I believe it was pretty obvious that I was referring to the rate of crime per capita. Bringing population size into the conversation is something of a red herring. If the crime rate (per capita) did not go up, just say so.

You're arguing against something never claimed...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The point is that for Mao, Stalin, etc. their religious preferences were incidental to their communism-inspired mass-murder.

> Equally, Mussolini and Franco were Catholics, but they didn't murder in the name of Christ, but in the name of political expedience.

That's all anyone wanted here. We're countering the "only religious leaders are bad!" meme, not claiming that all atheists are like Mao (though we reserve the right to use that example whenever someone claims that all religious leaders are like some particular person, as was done here).

And yes, you're correct that Hitler is a complex case. He actually appeared to want to build his own Aryan mythos and eliminate the competition.

> I'm just so fed up of this "Hitler* and Stalin were atheist, therefore atheism is evil" meme that I need to stamp it out before it even gets the chance to flourish in a conversation.

Did you even read GP post? They made no such claim. They simply countered the claim made by an atheist which you have just admitted as invalid.

If you're going to counter someone's argument, please understand what they're arguing first. It looks like you jumped into the middle of the thread and didn't even read the other posts.

No one was claiming that. They were using Mao & co. as examples of Daemonax using a double-standard after judging religious leaders based on four examples (thus, the canonical list of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler; even though Hitler is a bad example on every level).

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Jane Q. Public]

It may be staying the same at the moment, but according to the Department of Justice's own figures (and it would be in their own interest to exaggerate, not understate), the rate of violent crime saw a sharp decline for a period of 20 years. So violent crime in the U.S. right now is still quite a bit lower than it was 20 years ago, while the gun laws, on average, have scarcely changed, and legal gun ownership is significantly higher.

In fact, here in the U.S. (I am not trying to imply that this applies to others) there has generally been a negative correlation between legal gun ownership and violent crime.

Re:I am not an Aussie

[dbIII]

The trend has been going down for decades. It's been fairly flat over the last few years if you want to look at it that way. Over the last two weeks there has been a lot, but averaged over a year it won't be much. For a variety of reasons it's a tiny fraction of that of the USA as a whole and IMHO the lack of easy gun access means that a lot of domestic disputes don't end in death.

As for the comment above, was I really misrepresenting the NRA and even weirder groups?

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is redundant at best. Guns are still basically made illegal, for the public, by the government. It makes no difference whether or not some crafty individuals can still find low quality ones floating around in the underground market, which if discovered will lead to lengthy prison sentences and such.

Titles like this need to stop...

[jasonm23]

It's pretty annoying when scanning an article list and finding "It's all over we won" suggested by a title, and reading on to find that the issue is merely being re-positioned. This issue requires a lot of grass roots activity and confusion over the status of the issue is detrimental to that activity. Please don't post titles to political issues that are misleading.

We Found Them

[aoheno]

General, we found them commies in the Aussie government. Permission requested to wash them on the board.

Re:Bugger all backdown

[mibus]

There's also the fact that one of the biggest problems with the concept remains - it is still a top-secret blacklist that we aren't allowed to see. We're not allowed to know, or talk about, what exactly is being censored. We were assured by Conroy that no political content would be blocked, but we have no way of confirming that if the list is a secret (unless it leaks... which it did, clearly showing that political content was being blocked).

Also, nobody seems to have noticed that despite multiple assurances that Australian sites get sent a 'take down notice', rather than being blocked, numerous Australian sites were on the blacklist?

ACMA can't even stick vaguely close to the rules they're supposed to abide by...

Re:I am not an Aussie

[Jane Q. Public]

In short, yes. I agree that the NRA can be weird at times. But keep in mind that the NRA exists to counterbalance even weirder groups at the opposite end of the political spectrum. If they did not exist, there would be no need for the NRA.

But if you were referring to the NRA, you should have said so. You gave the impression that you were judging the general populace of the USA.

Keep in mind that below I am referring only to the USA, and I make no claim that it is true of anywhere else. But as counterintuitive as it may seem, it is indeed true of the United States. Given the following facts, maybe the NRA's position is as not as strange as you seem to think. And pardon me if at times I characterize this as a left-wing vs. right-wing issue; historically the left wing here has been anti-gun-ownership while the right wing has been pro. But there certainly are exceptions.

There have been few studies of the subject of crime and gun ownership that could even remotely be called unbiased, comprehensive, or reviewed. However, then have been a couple that have been very well done. And the results are very surprising to some people. For example:

"[in a] study by Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR). Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year."

Many years ago, this same Dr. Kleck, a self-described liberal Democrat, and his research partner undertook a study intended to prove that gun control laws were effective. It was by far the most comprehensive study done up to that time, and made extensive use official Government figures compiled by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other agencies that kept statistics on crime. The results were so surprising to him that he "switched sides", as it were, and joined the NRA (even though he is still a liberal Democrat). The fact that his own study caused him to change philosophy is a good indication that it lacked bias.

To date, there has not been one serious, legitimate research study in the United States that has concluded that gun control laws have been effective in reducing crime. In fact, the political left has not even tried to undertake any such study, for the simple reason that if it is honest, they already know what it will show, and if it is not, they know will be caught. There have been a number of thin excuses for "studies" by smaller groups that purported to demonstrate that gun control laws in the United States are effective, but without exception they were found to be seriously flawed or downright frauds. However, there has been little criticism of the studies by Kleck et al. that have turned out to be valid.

So I admit that the sarcastic remark I made in my original post here was based on my own experience and cultural context, and may have been unjustified. But you have been guilty of the same. The facts do not support your opinion of the people of the U.S., nor even of the NRA in particular.

Addendum

[Jane Q. Public]

I should add that both partners in the study were liberal Democrats, and after the study, BOTH partners joined the NRA. It's a matter of public record.

Aust Christian Lobby "Lies for Jesus" TM

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the irony meter just blew a fuse as I heard Lyle say this - in a public forum with transcripts. The support for completely open and free access to child pron just leapt from the mouths of the majority of participants, NOT! The Australian Christian Lobby must be especially pleased their representative lying so blantantly in a live recording. But it was for Jesus. But especially for the baby Jesus who was just lucky enough not to be a victim of child pron.