Slashdot Mirror


Australian Net Filter Protest Site Returns

An anonymous reader writes "The Stephen Conroy 'Minister for Fascism' website, whose stephenconroy.com.au domain was forced offline by the Australian Domain Name Administrator, has now reclaimed the name after the initial 14-day injunction expired. During those 14 days, the protesters managed to comply with the Australian domain name registration criteria. However, contrary to auDA's own rules and contrary to public quotes by the auDA CEO, the protesters were continually refused the domain. Now, however, it seems that they have unequivocally shown that they have the right to the domain and have re-registered it."

12 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. well, Conroy clearly has a good case by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Funny

    The parody/satire defense doesn't work in this case, because a reasonable person familiar with his politics might well believe that Stephen Conroy is currently serving as the Minister for Fascism in Australia's government!

  2. AuDA is run by evil people bent on evil methods by gavron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I was once an expert witness in a court case in Australian Federal District Court where AuDA stole the domain names of my client and tried to keep them.

    AuDA is the epitome of an organization that is operating outside its moral guidelines.

    AuDA should be removed and a responsible organization put in its place,

    Sorry, Australia. You allow this crap to control your access to DNS. You hurt yourself only, not the real world.

    E

    1. Re:AuDA is run by evil people bent on evil methods by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AuDA is the epitome of an organization that is operating outside its moral guidelines.

      Governments and government departments around the world have no concept of morals, so don't expect anything like that from them. Money talks! You can just sit there and be a good person and pay the taxes they take from you for their bent pet projects and backhanders.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
  3. I thought Conroy was the Minister for Fascism? by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given his stonewalling of public questions, his inability to answer parliament questions in question time, his personal time spent with the Australian Christian Lobby, and his departments attempt to get the IIA to shut Mark Newton up, I'd say he's well and truly doing that role.

  4. Outcome by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kevin Rudd isn't sitting up in The Lodge scanning the opinions of contributors to this site. OTH he is surely paying close attention to public opinion and the opinions of certain members of parliament who hold the balance of power.

    I think it is important to avoid giving Rudd and Conroy ammunition at this point. Do not behave like a bunch of idiots. Public opinion is fragile. I am reminded of the pilots dispute of almost 20 years ago. The Government swung public opinion their way early on and the pilots never had a chance.

  5. Good question... by Dilaudid · · Score: 4, Informative

    In 1944 George Orwell wrote: "It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

    Recently on Slashdot the term has become significantly less specific.

  6. Not about free speech at all. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The domain name is stephen-conroy.com. I'd say, that's trademark infringement. Like, you could own stephen-conroy-sucks.com, but, having a site that has the capacity to mislead people in order to get hits is as wrong as calling something Cheerios when it is not.
    The irony here is that they basically are saying that someone is a fascist in order to protect their right to lie. I wonder if, really, the rest of the their message is actually honest.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Not about free speech at all. by growse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only a lie if they're claiming to be something they're not. I don't think it follows that a domain name which is someone's name is therefore a site created by that person and/or speaks for that person. Given that names->people aren't 1:1, I think it takes a particularly non-logical step to assume that's true.

      There's nothing stopping me creating "bob-smith.com" and putting a page there which says "I think people called bob smith are stupid". Nor should there be.

      And on your last point, I believe every individual should have the right to lie whenever they want.

      --
      There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:These guys are not helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the business name was granted to them before auDA took their domain away.

    It appears that they always did have a valid reason to have that domain and auDA's actions were taken hastily and in a manner that could have denied them the domain. The fact that they did not clearly state their valid reasons is in fact a very good argument AGAINST hasty action. Had auDA acted in a fair and reasonable manner the dispute could have been dealt with and resolved without needing all this hullabaloo.

    auDA behaved like a bunch of pricks rather than like a responsible authority.

  9. Re:These guys are not helping by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mod parent up. AuDA are in fact a bunch of retards for many reasons, but this is not one of them. Simply, the domain as registered did not originally meet the criteria for a .com.au domain (a valid, registered Australian business).

    Didn't know they got around this by actually registering a business called STEPHENCONROY. That is pretty funny :)

  10. Re:These guys are not helping by sinyk · · Score: 5, Informative

    DISCLAIMER: I have a direct relationship to stephenconroy.com.au.

    The real issue here is that the domain administrator chose to give us less than three hours to explain our eligibility for the site before closing it down. This is contrary to their published policy as well as other documented instances of this arbitration process, which all seem to indicate that generally ~ 1 week is provided for the respondent to make representations regarding their eligibility. We became aware of another policy complaint lodged with auDA on 21-12-2009 where they responded to the complainant stating that their investigation would take up to 30 days. To this date we are still unaware of any reply form auDA regarding this, which seems to indicate a direct contrast between the way this and our complaint was handled. We specifically asked auDA about how this complaint was different a number of times and these questions were all flatly ignored in return correspondence.

    Further to this, auDA flatly refused to rationally consider to any statements regarding our eligibility following the initial three hour period. This seems to indicate that the 14 day 'pending-delete' period the domain was placed in is superfluous, as all arguments following the initial 3 hour period were ignored. Again, we questioned this, as well as the extremely short 3 hour takedown window, a number of times and again all questions were flatly ignored in return correspondence.

    Your comment regarding laws seems a little ill-conceived: there are no 'laws' regarding domain registration criteria in Australia - this is handled solely by auDA as an independent body with absolutely no regulatory oversight whatsoever. They make the rules, enforce them how they see fit, and are accountable to nobody. As is quoted on our website:

    "This incident reflects worrying concerns about the power that private domain name regulators have to silence critical political speech without going through legitimate legal channels." -- EFA

    If nothing else this whole scenario (which, as we're been repeatedly saying, is ultimately a red-herring in the whole censorship debate/movement) has brought international attention to the Anti-Censorship cause. At times we've been taking tens of thousands of hits per day from all over the world, many of which it's rational to assume are from people who were previously unaware of the fight going on here. Love us or hate us, we want exactly the same thing as everyone else -- to see this whole filthy thing dropped. Our methods may have been to date somewhat more guerilla than others, but we're getting the word our en masse.