Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
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.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
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.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
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.
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.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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.
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.
"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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.