Slashdot Mirror
Operation Titstorm Hits the Streets
schliz writes "Hacker group 'Anonymous' is organising international, real-life protests of the Australian mandatory internet filter this coming Saturday. Protests will take place in major Australian cities as well as at Australian embassies around the world. The protests are said to be the second stage of 'Operation Titstorm,' which unleashed a prolonged DDoS attack on Australian government websites last week. Organisers of the so-called Project Freeweb said: 'If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level. The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.'"
Sorry, didnt read TFA, it would spoil my imagination
God's gift to chicks
Fuck 'em. Here's where to hit them, from some scumsucking possibly bunk website:
Australian General Consulate Atlanta, GA -
Suite 970, One Buckhead Plaza 3060 Peachtree Road, NW Atlanta 30305 United States of America Tel:(+1 404) 760 3400 Fax: (+1 404) 760 3401
Australian General Consulate in Chicago, IL -
123 North Wacker Drive Suite 1330 Chicago IL 60606 United States of America Tel: 1 312 419 1480 Fax: 1 312 419 1499
Australian Consulate in Detroit, MI -
860 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Bloomfield Hills Detroit MI 48302-2086 United States of America Tel: +1 248 593 9000 Fax: +1 248 593 9001
Australian Consulate in Denver, CO -
9200 West Cross Drive, Suite #110 Littleton Denver CO 80209 United States of America Tel: 1 303 321 2234 Fax: 1 303 973 9938
Australian General Consulate in Honolulu, HI
- Penthouse, 1000 Bishop Street Honolulu 96813 United States of America Tel: 1 808 524 5050 Fax: 1 808 531 5142
Australian Consulate in Houston, TX -
5757 Woodway Drive #175 Houston TX 77057 United States of America Tel:1 713 782 6009 Fax: 1 713 782 7509
Australian Consulate in Miami, FL -
Suite 208 2525 SW Third Avenue Miami FL 33129 United States of America Tel:1 305 858 7633 Fax:1 305 857 0044
Australian General Consulate New York , NY -
150 East 42nd Street, 34th fl, New York NY 10017, USA Tel; (212) 351-6500 Fax: (212)351-6501
Australian Mission to The United Nations in New York, NY -
150 East 42 Street, Level 33 New York NY 10017 United States of America Tel: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6600 Fax: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6610
Australian General Consulate San Francisco, CA -
625 Market Street, Suite 200 (Cnr Market and New Montgomery Streets) San Francisco CA 94105-3304 United States of America Tel: 1 415 536 1970 Fax: 1 415 536 1982
Australian Embassy in Washington, DC -
11601 Massachusetts Ave Washington DC NW 20036-2273 United States of America Tel:1 202 797 3000 Fax:1 202 797 3331 E-mai:General enquiries: library.washington@dfat.gov.au
Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization. There are far better ways to undermine censorship. You have to attack the authority of the censors. Make them appear weak, useless, and strip their credibility. Expose them at every corner as being partial, biased, and at the same time abjectly failing to do their jobs. They are government so this shouldn't be any real kind of challenge now should it?
I look forward to seeing pictures of these censorship advocates having sex with their mistresses, getting wasted in public, allegations of bribery, and all other unseemly manner of behavior. Because if there's one thing the public can't stand for, it's being prohibited from doing the very things these authority types reserve for themselves. They already believe themselves to be morally superior to you so I ask again -- what real challenge is there here?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What is universal that should be banned (e.g., child porn) as opposed to filtered out by parents? I don't agree with how they're going about it Down Under, but I am wondering about this question.
How can you say that somethings are so taboo that they can't ever be viewed?
Down Under even Hentai counts as child porn.
They thought breasts would be here and were mislead by the topic! Shame on you slashdot
I assume you are American.
When protesters in the Middle East rant and rave outside the gates of the US Embassy in their country, do you think our government's policy is changed as a result?
By protesting outside Australian consulates (!) what do you hope to gain? Is this an effective form of redress?
will take whatever they are selling
God's gift to chicks
it is one step better then to do nothing
God's gift to chicks
Many people drown because they thought they should "do something" rather than lie still and float.
"Hacker group"
Nope.
No, I think he knows who Anon is. It's just that he doesn't think that threatening the things they feed upon will get them riled up enough to leave the basement.
wow, you managed to depict members of an internet-based group as "losers". how incredibly imaginative of you. now how about you shut the fuck up until you have some real criticism against them?
weinersmith
IMHO it would be an extremely traumatic experience, one that would scar me (and many others, particularly teenagers and children) for life.
weinersmith
trips to the minifridge to get more Cheetos.
Introducing new, Cheetos Pops®! An icy, cheesy taste explosion that will be stuck to your fingers, faces, and family members for days! Find them in the freezer aisle at your local grocery store today!
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause awesome, birth superpowers, or other reproductive boons. Never wash hands after handling.
Many people drown because they thought they should "do something" rather than lie still and float.
What? Like... swim??
"Many of our number (Anonymous) are productive, intelligent members of society," said Infinite, who is a Web designer.
But most of them are college-age basement dwellers who type out their screeds in between trips to the minifridge to get more Cheetos.
Who the hell keeps Cheetos in a minifridge?
If censorship is what our government overlords have decided is best for us, clearly we are in need of a new democracy. Too bad our new democracy is run by Anonymous.
Well I think it's the protestors who are taking on the mantle of "Anonymous", not the press who are attributing it to them. The press largely doesn't understand what the deal is with "Anonymous", but then a lot of the press is never really digs into these things.
Also, it's true that "the people" don't do anything as a whole. You get some subset working on something, and even if they're very poorly organized, it helps you have a term for them so you can reference them easily.
I thought part of the reason people liked claiming to be part of "Anonymous" was that the press didn't understand what the hell was going on. Basically anyone can validly claim to be "Anonymous" so long as they're... you know... anonymous... and the press will suddenly act like that person is the head of a powerful hacker terrorist crime syndicate.
In the US as well
You gotta love the weasley quote from "Frenchy" Lunning, "Handley is not a pedophile. He had no photographs of child pornography."
I suppose it would be a waste of time to photograph child porn. Scanning seems like a much better way to retain all the juicy details.
Their ad brings even more negative attention to poor ol' IRC...
Being college-aged is a negative quality, now? Historically, students have been some of the most vocal in protecting our rights. If your point is that people of this age have less influence on society than older people, well I'd say that young people today are the adults of tomorrow and I'd sooner see college-age people protesting and hopefully retaining those attitudes and sympathies as they get older, than not see them protesting.
As regards basement-dwelling and eating cheetos, well you have no idea where they're living or what they're eating. Neither, by the way, did I realise affects your political activism.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia. As a nation we generally like and expect some censorship. What is that to you? What is it to Anonymous? It's our nation and we can do as we like with it.
We elected this government and the previous one which planned the censorship originally. Unlike the USA we actually do have a pretty democratic system here. Let us run our country as we like!
sudo mount --milk --sugar
So, I became curious when I read about this DDOS on the Australian websites. I wondered: how hard would it be to write a simple, DDOS tool? Something that didn't require anything fancy, that anybody could do without installing anything special?
So, I wrote something, and tested it on my own local webserver. Surprisingly, it took me less than 10 minutes to write a simple javascript webpage with iframes that generated in excess of a million hits an hour in about 20 lines of HTML + javascript, armed with nothing more than a browser and notepad. I didn't even have to host it; the file was saved locally on my HDD!
The method was simple: a webpage with a bunch of iframes that sourced the target, and a javascript onload that refreshed the page. How could it get any simpler? My conclusion? A DDOS attack is the digital equivalent of peasants throwing rocks. Anybody can do it. It requires nothing. It's still a rather effective form of attack!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Consulates are often small parts of much larger buildings. Who's going to even know what they're protesting about?
Why do I keep seeing this word "member". Anonymous has no "members", it's not some organization you join. The fact that I'm posting AC means I'm a "member" of anonymous.
It is kind of interesting that they're managing to get media attention for it, which is one of the major goals of protests. Even when it's a repackaging of traditional protest techniques, they seem to be relatively good at PR-managing it, in comparison to more traditional protest groups. Partly, this seems to be because they're: 1) somewhat more theatrical; and 2) more single-issue, so the anti-Scientology or anti-censorship protest isn't diluted by a parade of the usual suspects with off-topic preaching of veganism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, antiglobalization, and such.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Being an Australian I can tell you most Australians are apathetic to this issue and there likely won't be a huge turn-out. There probably won't be anything but fleeting mass media coverage, and that means politicians will ignore it and side with the "think of the children" majority who have no idea of the underlying implications.
If there was an upcoming election the issue *might* hit the media if the opposition declared a policy of no filtering and hightlighted all the negative aspects. But given the previous liberal government floated around similar ideas I wouldn't hold my breath on that, I think the position of both the major political parties is unfortunately much the same.
But most of them are college-age basement dwellers who type out their screeds in between trips to the minifridge to get more Cheetos.
[Asked very sl-o-wly] Are you American??
Tits or not, no one listens to protestors
Perhaps you should have read the linked article... the bit you're looking for is silent protest. I'll summarize the rest of the info for you STFU.
I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word?? In this particular instance I think (hope) that you are wrong. The general public, and most of the politicians believe that it is only a small section of society that is against censorship. The protest will allow them to see that those against censorship are not a bunch of socialmisfits in search of lolz and animal sex.
I, for one, welcome the chance to put the agenda to the politicians.
I'd love to hear that someone was organizing a protest next week - at the American Embassy against the imposition of ACTA, and the lobbying (read bribing) of Australian politicians to support/allow *IAA. Maybe iinet could put on some buses?
Welcome to Pax Americana. You'll find things will be just fine. At least better than if it were Pax Russo, eh Comrade?
I wonder how they plan to stay anonymous in those protests...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American and 2) Every Australian feels as you do? How is there going to be "real-life protests" if everyone who cares is just American? Now I'm no genius or anything, but it seems to be that you'd have to live in Australia, or at least be IN Australia, in order to participate in a "real-life protest" in Australia.
Finally! The Australians are on their way to a "happy harmonious society".
Let us know in a few years how that works out for ya.
Wow! The first actual Australian ever to back the filter besides someone inside the government... or are you....
It is named Operation Titstorm due to the Government adding liking small breasted women = pedophile like activity and therefore illegal to the filter plans. They also added nylon fetishes because of it being a fetish and female ejaculation "because it is a myth". These are the type people in control of the filter.
Yeah well, before you start a revolution make sure it's something you're really willing to sacrifice your life for, because you might. In this case, I would be willing to wait it out until I could vote some sane people into office. But this is Australia's issue, not mine, so I'll let them do what they want.
Qxe4
I'd rather they didn't make the decision either.
sorry, my bad, spur of the moment commenting... slashdot has no delete comment option!
buddies?
weinersmith
Looking forward to the Pax China soon! Haha!
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Yeah, like, swim. In the city of San diego, .....blah, blah..
..rant....troll, troll, troll
WTF!!
Me thinks you take your posting name way too seriously...
Try reading my post again - arseclown!
Look at all the members of Anonymous posting replies here!
But really, there does seem to be a bias to cover stories about "Anonymous" here on Slashdot. I mean, the mainstream tech news takes far less heed to the activities of this loosely knit group of hacktivists.
"Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American'
Because it is demonstrably true. And no, I will not give sources, this is common knowledge. I know that Taco periodically gives a bunch of random statistics on site usage, and at least once he broke it down by country: it was something like 75% American, 10% Canadian and 15% everyone else when I last saw it. Granted, a lot of /.ers are likely to be using proxies/TOR/other connections that will obfuscate their true location, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority probably don't.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Dear BadGrammarNaziKid,
Many people drown because they thought they should "do something" rather than lie still and float.
What? Like... swim??
His point exactly, genius.
So - which livesaving club did you learn that at??
Q. When caught in rip you should:-
(b) Swim, but not against it...
So by giving the Australian government more ammunition to pass this piece of legislation, how does this help?
They were trying, don't know if they succeeded, in declaring porn small breasted women as forbidden because they might be mistaken for children or turn on a pedobear.
Like the fact that they constantly run unfunny memes into the ground because none of them have a shred of originality, or that they think child porn is funny? Is that criticism enough?
Don't make us come over there and liberate the shit out of you.
You have a very fitting username. Protesting an embassy is equivalent to floundering and filling your lungs with water? I'd propose a better analogy, but unlike you, I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to require an analogy in order to understand what protesting an embassy is.
But you be a floater as long as you like. Hmmmm. There's a bad analogy in there.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
child porn is funny. isn't it? hello?? why isn't anyone an***** NO CARRIER *****
weinersmith
I keep my chips, crackers and cereal in the freezer after I open them. Low humidity keeps them fresh and crisp longer.
It's okay. I'm sorry you're a web designer.
Granted, a lot of /.ers are likely to be using proxies/TOR/other connections
I would be shocked if that number was more than 2.5-3% of visitors.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
fyi they're hackers on steroids. The KKK of the internet, O'reily said so himself and they're very srs business.
o hai
Yeah, those darn leftist professors. Like how the students in Iran that protest their government are doing so because they're incited by "leftist professors". Or students protesting against the communists in Soviet Russia or during Ukraine's "Orange Revolution". How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA and the UK? Was that a "left-right" issue. What about the university-based protests in Greece last year against police who beat a young man to death. Did they have a leftist agenda? Or could it be that you just see the world in your own terms, ignoring that students have historically protested against tyranny, regardless of how it dresses itself up.
Don't be so quick to dismiss or condemn or suggest that students are simple cattle that do something "impressively stupid" without right information. What exactly is "impressively stupid" about protesting any of the examples I gave? Or indeed protesting censorship laws that have been mis-represented to the public which is what the GP was talking about?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Come on now! I may be college age and live in a basement, but I don't keep my Cheetos in the fridge!
"Perl is my favorite... It's like wiping your ass with unix." - Lord Ender
Ok I know I may just be feeding the troll but I am going to have a go at this.
I live in a small pro-western European nation that is pretty middle of the road in terms of politics and liberal/conservative agendas. While I entirely respect the Australian peoples right to choose their own laws it never the less worries me when I see the Australian government do something that I don't want my own government to do.
The problem is that Australia is seen as "one of us" an English speaking westernised liberal democracy. If a policy is successfully implemented in Australia it gains a certain credibility that the same policy implemented in North Korea or Iran or even China would lack. Those of a certain frame of mind in my own country could point to Australia and push for similar legislation here.
Don't make us come over there and liberate the shit out of you.
In this case, I for one will welcome our new Predator UAV overlords
My belief is that NO content is so bad that it justifies censorship of this kind.
Even if it is Osama Bin Laden brutally raping and murdering little kids (to think of the most extreme example its possible to think of), those who host, share, create, post, publish and spread the content should be targeted. Censorship of the kind the government wants to introduce is NOT the answer.
As for those who say "I support the filtering system because it keeps my kids from getting at this kind of content" (or similar such statements), an opt-in filtering system will do exactly the same thing without subjecting everyone to censorship.
Not only that, but revolutions have a tendency to result in a society that falls apart in 10 - 15 years.
It took the french well over 100 years to actually get rid of their monarchy in the end - and what they got nearly immediately after the revolution was arguably worse than what they were revolting against.
It's probably worth asking your average soviet era Russian how happy they were with the whole revolution idea too...
The trouble with revolutions is the winner is the side best at killing their own people.
FYI, I'm headed for a Ph.D.!
... in web design...
weinersmith
"As a nation we generally like and expect some censorship."
Yes, you did...
It does depend a bit on time of day. There definitely seem to be peak times for the Australian contingent when the US is asleep.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Think of the theoretical, non-human, imaginary beings!
How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA...? Was that a "left-right" issue.
Yeah. No duh?
I can't speak to your other examples, but I'm guessing you can't either.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Yes, indeed! Let's dry out any kind of outlet for those freaks! Once they wont be able to get off from something besides the real deal, they are bound to stop and suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings.
Right? Right?!
Exactly. While it's the individual's right to be protected it should also be the individual's right to decline said protection.
I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word?
Random House seems to think that it is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protestor. (as an alternate spelling; yeah, caught me offguard too.)
The general public, and most of the politicians believe that it is only a small section of society that is against censorship.
Are you talking about this censorship or about censorship in general? If in general, I think you'll find feelings opposing censorship to vary widely by local and be proportional to functioning democracy (In general).
Besides, you seem to be talking in circular logic here. The general public believes that only a small fraction of itself is against censorship? What kind of argument is that? Was there some weird meta-poll? (pollsters sometimes use weird circular questions like this...) It still says nothing about what the general public thinks about censorship, only what members of the general public believe that others think about censorship. (a very important distinction.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia. As a nation we generally like and expect some censorship. What is that to you? What is it to Anonymous? It's our nation and we can do as we like with it.
We elected this government and the previous one which planned the censorship originally. Unlike the USA we actually do have a pretty democratic system here. Let us run our country as we like!
What's this crap about "as a nation" What gives you the right to speak for Australia? As an Australian I *hate* the idea of any censorship and I don't bloody want it and I don't bloody expect it. But what pisses me off almost as much is the fact that it won't bloody work and it'll only slow down my already bloody pitiful excuse for broadband.
That's a really nice kid you got there. It'd be a shame if they were exposed to something...unseemly.
The fact that the only people standing up for Australians' rights are these same "script kiddies and shy exhibitionists" is notable in and of itself.
Where is the Amnesty protest? Where is the EFA protest? This is news because everyone else is conspicuously silent.
Also, you may have missed the fact that THIS ENTIRE CATEGORY is entitled "Your Rights Online", and solely devoted to posts on this subject. Are you lost?
This is a story about Australians' rights online, and what Anonymous (of all groups) is doing to try safeguard them. That's about as on-topic as you get.
well, it makes them look more powerful, so... i say go for it! life is more fun with omnipresent vigilantes/supervillains (exactly which description fits them best depends on the beholder, or course).
weinersmith
Quick, which movie is this line from?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
What's even more funny about it is that SCOTUS has already thrown out the "simulated child porn" provision out of the previous similar law as unconstitutional. Of course, they just signed a new law in effect, which amounts to pretty much the same thing (which is what the person you mentioned was convicted under).
And I assure you, the majority of Australians oppose the filter. Even most of the usual pro-censorship 'decency' or religious organisations oppose it. It's very hard to find people who support it. The Government is being incredibly anti-democratic to push this through. There's certainly a background motive to it, of why they're so determined against all reason and support - I wonder if Australia is being used as a testbed for this type of filtering?
What's more you are incorrect, most of the people I know are opposed to this invasion of our rights and I live it Australia. The rest do not actually understand what it is.
null
The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia.
Well, you don't seem to mind choosing for at least some of your fellow Australians...
Seriously, though, just because some action or policy is backed by a democratic vote, or popular support in general, doesn't make it right. Slavery in U.S. was backed by the majority early on, for example. Today, most people in China and Russia support their regimes, including oppression of dissenters. Iranian death penalty for homosexuals law has widespread popular support. And so on, and so forth.
There are some rights and freedoms which cannot morally be subject to a vote. Freedom of speech is one of them.
Well, partly, there is mere altruism. We sincerely pity you Australians because your Government is wrapping your entire country inside a parental filter.
But we're also protesting the general principle of centralized censorship. Not exactly the mere fact that your own country is implementing these things to affect YOU. That won't impact us directly; everybody knows that. But it is still alarming that someone is making these decisions. Your adoption of this official list will lend the entire concept credibility that it wouldn't otherwise have, around the world, including here. And it's going to be difficult to explain to people the subtle problems behind state-maintained lists of censored sites- as any country might implement them.
Anonymous is trying to cause idiocy and aggravation "for the lolz", not to actually benefit anyone other than their own immature hordes of circle-jerking failures.
The same as they always do.
Anonymous is not about rights, or justice, or indeed anything at all except causing aggravation and unpleasantness for their own sake.
The only members of Anonymous actually interested in the topic itself as a genuine cause are those that reside in Oz and understand that the random child-porn distribution through /b/ will require them to actually learn how to use proxies to access, rather than merely claiming to be "behind [over 9000] proxies!"
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
And a happy Xenu-luvin' day to you too.
Have you perchance noticed that your "fearless leaders" have gone very quiet and abandoned all efforts to crush the scientiology cult since a mere 3 of them got fingered by various police departments for illegal attacks?
So much for "legion", "untouchable" and "unstoppable".
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
Don't make us come over there and liberate the tits out of you.
There, fixed that for you.
Some people like me are highlighting positions, you'll find some positions are quite duopolistic.
My site on the filtering scheme: http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme
Bonus: You can find out who's most against it in your electorate for Federal elections this year.
Yes, indeed! Let's dry out any kind of outlet for those freaks! Once they wont be able to get off from something besides the real deal, they are bound to stop and suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings.
Right? Right?!
[sarcasm]
See, you just don't understand the government's logic.
Once you've eliminated any other outlet for deviant desires other than damaging and traumatizing children they'll be forced to reveal themselves through said unspeakable acts, then all authorities need to do is just look for large groups of irreparably-damaged children to flag a pedo's existence & location so they may be locked up at taxpayers' expense!
It's a perfect plan other than some collateral damage to innocent children, but then the demand for large numbers of pediatric therapists and prison workers will help keep the unemployment numbers low and the politicians' "unlike my pedo-loving opponent, I thought of the children!!!1one" factor high for the upcoming elections as well as provide a convenient excuse for raising taxes to pay for more police, prisons, and pediatric emotional-trauma treatment centers.
Win-win!
[/sarcasm]
I tagged this sarcasm, but I'm afraid that it's frighteningly-close to the truth.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
What makes you think they're not heterosexuals already? Paedophilia exists regardless of sexual orientation.
Are you talking about this censorship or about censorship in general?
"this" censorship. (in the context of the original post and resulting thread).
In Australia there has been little public debate about the government Internet Filtering proposition. Media coverage has been predominately about people downloading files and what it costs the industry.
When the question of whether the proposed censorship is good/achievable/economical any intelligent debate has been drowned out by the "what about the children" chant (Family First Party). Operation Titstorm has put the debate back in the media - and further strengthened the fear campaign of the pro-censorship lobby - the hard work done by such groups as SAGE, EFA has been discredited by the attacks and the spamming of porn. The perception only pornographers and "pirates" are against pornography should be easier to discredit if a broader representation of the anti-censorship people is seen.
Personally, I'm in favour of censorship on the Internet, as we have it on TV and radio etc. I see no difference. I am not quite as happy with the current proposed implementation. As I run a PC repair business, I have received a lot of requests for home internet filtering etc. I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
*YOU* should have the right to deem what is appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
Protests outside an embassy are often reported in the news. That raises awareness of the issue. In this case, the protesters hope that it will embarrass Australians (or the Australian government) into changing their laws (or proposed laws).
What would you suggest doing instead?
Personally, I'm in favour of censorship on the Internet, as we have it on TV and radio etc. I see no difference. I am not quite as happy with the current proposed implementation. As I run a PC repair business, I have received a lot of requests for home internet filtering etc. I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
Consider this analogy:
Many Australians consider the water supply to be clean. Some people wish the water to be filtered, a minority. The government could implement a giant filter for the water supply at great cost, or, the minority could purchase personal filters to filter their own water, even with a government subsidy!
The Australian government already tried to give out filtering software for free, and there wasn't a large uptake. This leads be to believe, based on your comments, that it wasn't made well-known enough for computer repairpersons to recommend it to their customers, or that the repairpersons believed it to be inadequate, or an even greater chance, people just don't care about filtering their internet.
My point is: if you want it filtered, filter it yourself. Don't force your ethics on the rest of us.
Better still, educate your fucking kids to not do stupid shit on the internet. That works better than any filter.
Disagree != mod troll.
I don't want it. Period. Now if you want to live beneath a net-nanny filter, that's your issue, but don't be forcing your filtering views on me though. I'm a big boy, I can take care of my own.
My girlfriend is a theoretical, non-human imaginary being you insensitive clod! The government had better not dare try to deprive Nubiliana of her rights!
I hate printers.
Don't make us come over there and liberate the shit out of you.
Funnily enough, I've seen a porno clip which had this attitude. The guy was really pounding this girls ass, doggy style, saying things like "I'm gonna liberate you soooo hard!" She's crying and getting slapped and what not.
Then when he's done, he collapsed on her back and sighed "Mission Accomplished!" even though there was a second naked chick waiting in the sack beside them.
So I gotta wonder, when did porn get all liberal satirical and shit? Keep politics outta porn. (But not porn outta politics, cause that shit's hilarious.)
Conroy seems ideologically committed to this - it doesn't matter if it is effective or popular he has decided this is what Australia needs. Given that he is allowed to continue with this shit I assume that many in the cabinet they are as well. It seems we voted in some puritans into the government. Problem is the liberals are even bigger puritans so we are basically screwed.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
You are supposed to finish the bag before you get back out of the chair.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word??
Seems like it http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word.
Word -noun
a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. Words are composed of one or more morphemes and are either the smallest units susceptible of independent use or consist of two or three such units combined under certain linking conditions, as with the loss of primary accent that distinguishes blackbird from black bird. Words are usually separated by spaces in writing, and are distinguished phonologically, as by accent, in many languages.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Redundant perhaps, but I do know absolutely -no one- who agrees with this censorship crap. There have been a few "shrug-it-off, it's just pedos" types, but as soon as they're informed exactly what this is, they change their tune rather quickly.
I do have to admit though, rather nice troll from the GP.
"Once they wont be able to get off from something besides the real deal, they are bound to stop and suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings."
Given the billion-odd dollars (and counting) paid out by the Catholic Church in pedo damage control, I'd say repression drives people with such inclinations to jobs where they can exercise power in secret.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
My point is: if you want it filtered, filter it yourself. Don't force your ethics on the rest of us.
Better still, educate your fucking kids to not do stupid shit on the internet. That works better than any filter.
My kingdom for some mod points :\ +1 epic truth.
That actually made me laugh out loud... well done :D
Please don't claim to speak for Australia. I'm Australian, it's a controversial issue here, and to claim that Australians asked for censorship and expect it is misleading, if not an outright lie.
1) There are no leaders. That's kind of the whole point of Anonymous.
2) The only reason why they were attacking Scientology is because they, with their copyrights and takedowns, are the enemy of a free and open internet. If the Australian government is worse, why shouldn't they refocus their efforts?
How the heck does a file get loaded onto your computer without your express consent? Are you on Windows running IE?
Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American and 2) Every Australian feels as you do?
1) Citation please?
2) What does that have to do with anything? Too much emotional content...
Now I'm no genius or anything, but it seems to be that you'd have to live in Australia, or at least be IN Australia, in order to participate in a "real-life protest" in Australia.
Evidently. Try reading the referenced article/s and you'll appear less of an arseclown
Posting as "Anonymous Coward" is used when:-
A. The poster has to protect the confidentiality of a source
B. The poster has exceeded their daily post limit (easy to check - look at their history)
C. Their other hobby is visiting other peoples houses and crapping in the cistern.
Which one are you?
Depends... do you consider you still have a life if you're locked away in a dank dark hole, and your name is forever slandered with the title 'pedophile', simply because you disagree with thought-crime laws?
I'm Aussie, and I oppose the filter, but I don't think this protest is going to help. Despite being a westernised democracy, the direction the government has taken over Internet censorship has not shocked me. We may become the laughing stock of the Western world with this stance. But we are not alone in looking at censorship - Wikipedia has an interesting map of Internet Censorship around the world - and I think it's only going to get tougher in other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship We are also famous for appointing Richard Alston, who the Register dubbed 'the world's biggest Luddite', as Minister of the Digital Economy. While in office, Alston famously tried to outlaw any online gambling whatsoever for Australian citizens, opposed the rollout of broadband, and wanted to make people legally responsible for anything they put on the net that was deemed not suitable for children (as decided by the police). Anyway, I wrote about this last week - but it didn't make it past firehose. For those that are interested: http://slashdot.org/submission/1169966/Australias-net-censorship-and-Operation-Titstorm?art_pos=7 or direct to the blog: http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2784&blogid=10
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
Dilbert RSS feed
Look, Conroy et al are a bunch of hopeless wallies and their censorship plan is nuts, but suggesting we should shoot them is completely and totally over the top. I can almost understand the giggling schoolboys behind the DDOS, but murder as a response to censorship? WTF?
If I had to choose between Conroy and this religious wacko mates vs you and your gun toting maniac friends, I'd take the Minister for Censorship and strap on my cilice with relish.
But Anonymous aren't doing stupid shit, they're trying to stop the filter!
As an Australian AC too lazy to register, perhaps I can ask you why you support this filter? I know I don't "like and expect some censorship". Personally, I like the movie rating system (for example) but don't think anything at all should be banned. Just rated.
Why do you think Conroy's censorship proposal will a) do anything useful, b) be cost effective, and c) not be abused? I reckon it is pretty obvious it won't stop anything nasty, will cost a lot, and will be abused to censor political discussion (especially since euthanasia and abortion sites are already on ACMA's block list).
What is there to like about this proposal? I'm keen to know since as far as I can see it's pure shit and stinks to heaven.
Not really. Five days is forever in this group.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I believe the situation the Great-great-GP refers to is if you capsize (or fall overboard) with indefinite information as to when you'll be rescued, and you either don't know which way land is or know it's too far to swim.
What you mean is either "I have an idea", or, "I have a great emotional investment".
In these cases, your best action is to lie still and float, because someone will figure out you're missing and send rescue (which is a lot harder if you've drowned after exhausting yourself).
Get a life. (Have you actually been in the ocean? Was there any waves?)
Your answer is as stupid as criticising someone's answer on "what to do when attacked by a bear" (run), because it's not "what to do when attacked by a rhinoceros" (climb a tree).
Now you are really off on a tangent...
Get a brain - my post was in response to what I quoted.
Also, your use of both HTML [ul]s and manual list points is infuriating.
So then you don't support it?
Many people see the benefit of personal filters for their children. Not many appear to agree with a mandatory filter for everybody. I'll grant you though that most people are apathetic, as about most things.
Not that I agree with censorship in any medium, but TV and radio are dumb terminals once you've tuned into a channel. The only valid justification for the censorship, in my opinion, is that people therefore want to have a reasonable expectation for what content they will get. The internet however is completely different. You have to seek out your own content and specifically request it. And if you don't like it you can filter it out yourself with perfect ease. I completely object to this choice being made for me by anyone else, especially this government which has shown itself to be fairly puritanical in its leanings (anti-gay marriage; want to ban depictions of small breasts, female ejaculation, and cartoon characters; want to raise the drinking age to 21, don't understand the concept of adult satire re. the various Chaser incidents, etc. and so on)
This filtering scheme would be like turning on SBS TV and finding it's been totally blocked by the Goverment because they feel they've shown too many foreign films with nude scenes.
OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.
Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.
Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.
As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.
The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.
It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."
Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."
except this isn't about stopping porn on the net a task the previous conservative government admitted was hopeless and certainly against the public desire. This "Liberal" government is more communistic and wishes control of the media as witnessed by the $250 million Gift to free to air TV this week http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/stephen-conroy-cold-on-kerry-stokes-talk/story-e6frgczf-1225830260479 Note Conroy was is internet villain of the year censoring the net is only the first step in letting us see what they want us to see
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Yeah, you're right - it really would be nice if the Aussie government would shut YOU up.
There are no leaders...willing to own up to their actions
Fixed that for you.
No, there actually are no leaders. There are people who get up on (virtual) podiums, present ideas and sometimes get the crowd to implement them but they aren't leaders. Them being anonymous, the group can't rally around specific people. No formal command structure exists at all.
reason why they were attacking Scientology... was to stir shit and create "lawlz"
Fixed that for you also.
Then why don't they attack Mom & Pop's Flower Shop's website, which doesn't have the legal ability to fight back that Scientology has? True bullies that are going out for lulz attack only the weak. The answer is because they, being human beings, don't want to hurt innocent people. Scientology deserves it, because they are an enemy of internet freedom.
why shouldn't they refocus their efforts?
because their efforts are the efforts of a large group of pathetic sub-human idiots, who glory in their perceived freedom from consequences and scatter like little slimy things when their rock is overturned.
If you're part of a guerrilla force and authorities are moving in to your location, you flee. That's how George Washington liberated America, and that's how all groups that aren't strong enough to attack the enemy head on fight. It's not cowardice, it's common sense.
Yes, indeed! Let's dry out any kind of outlet for those freaks! Once they wont be able to get off from something besides the real deal, they are bound to stop and suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings.
Right? Right?!
[sarcasm] See, you just don't understand the government's logic.
Once you've eliminated any other outlet for deviant desires other than damaging and traumatizing children they'll be forced to reveal themselves through said unspeakable acts, then all authorities need to do is just look for large groups of irreparably-damaged children to flag a pedo's existence & location so they may be locked up at taxpayers' expense!
It's a perfect plan other than some collateral damage to innocent children, but then the demand for large numbers of pediatric therapists and prison workers will help keep the unemployment numbers low and the politicians' "unlike my pedo-loving opponent, I thought of the children!!!1one" factor high for the upcoming elections as well as provide a convenient excuse for raising taxes to pay for more police, prisons, and pediatric emotional-trauma treatment centers.
Win-win! [/sarcasm]
I tagged this sarcasm, but I'm afraid that it's frighteningly-close to the truth.
Strat
It is frighteningly close, but you both are a-miss on one point. I have yet to see a study that shows which part of the "pedo process" is actually the damaging part. We can all agree that children are capable of achieving orgasm. If the acts are consensual, and neither party are doing physical damage to the other, and both parties enjoy the process. I should take this moment to state clearly, Rape is Rape, the victim is almost always left psychologically harmed. In the case of consensual sexual interludes, I postulate that victimizing one party does more damage than the act itself.
I have no first hand knowledge of this
I just cannot trust anyone who would equate a "phile" with a sexual attraction. as the definition of "phile" is a non sexual attraction, or platonic love, or the love a parent has for a child. So in technical terms of the definition, most parents are peadophiles.
I will tell you what bugs me most about the entire situation.
Sex, that thing that brought the vast majority of us into the world, is shunned. While murder and violence are "acceptable" forms of entertainment.
42 69 6C 6C 20 47 61 74 65 73 20 69 73 20 61 20 77 68 6F 72 65 21
Yeah well, before you start a revolution make sure it's something you're really willing to sacrifice your life for, because you might. In this case, I would be willing to wait it out until I could vote some sane people into office.
I'll bet German dissenters felt the same way.
"Eh. How bad can this Adolph guy be? Let's just wait until the next election."
Securing the media and controlling speech are the first steps in ensuring that there are no more elections.
It has nothing to do with it being an "outlet" as being a matter of right and wrong. Cartoons depicting children being raped or in other sexual situations is obscene and repugnant to the vast majority of people and the law reflects that. If pedos want an "outlet" they can see a psychiatrist or counselor.
The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia. As a nation we generally like and expect some censorship. What is that to you? What is it to Anonymous? It's our nation and we can do as we like with it.
We elected this government and the previous one which planned the censorship originally. Unlike the USA we actually do have a pretty democratic system here. Let us run our country as we like!
Because when a "respected" nation does something that a "non respected" nation does, then it becomes "respectable". China has draconian monitoring systems to watch its citizens, it's distasteful. The UK has draconian monitoring systems, it's a template for the US. This is why we should be concerned about Australia, because Australia can be used in the "if they can do it so can we" excuse, while China can't.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Better idea. Order pizza online and send it to the Australian protests.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
Your answer is as stupid as criticising someone's answer on "what to do when attacked by a bear" (run), because it's not "what to do when attacked by a rhinoceros" (climb a tree).
I'd just like to point out that running from a bear is completely pointless. They can easily run faster than any human, and if they've decided they're going to attack you (say, if you're playing with their cute little baby) you're pretty much fucked. The way to deal with a bear is to convince it not to attack you by not doing anything to make it angry (it almost certainly isn't planning to eat you, so it probably won't attack unless you piss it off), and by making yourself look larger and scarier than it by holding your jacket/pack over your head, standing up straight, making noises, talking (to show that you're human) etc. Of course, then you slowly get the hell out of there.
I'm not taking issue with anything in your post, but I figured knowing how not to be killed by a bear is useful knowledge that everyone should have.
Web bugs. Teeny tiny little pictures you never see. Used for all sorts of things like tracking users. Can also be used to link to images you'd rather not have cached on your work PC. Or any PC.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
"Conroy seems ideologically committed to this"
The operative word there is "seems". On just about every slashdot story concerning this issue I have asked for someone to point to a quote from Conroy where he says he is in favor of implementing a mandatory filter on private computers. There are tons of quotes about how comminted he is to the inquiry and the trial but none that I have seen that says he's committed to implementation.
The fact is most people in Australia who follow politics are smart enough to see this "yes minister" episode for what it is, ie: a snow job on two independent senators who (under certain circumstances) hold the balance of power in the senate but this is NOT one of those circumstances.
Now before anyone accuses me of being Conroy's #1 fan, the previous Howard government did exactly the same thing but Labor blocked their mandatory filter legislation in the senate, in other words the two major parties are taking turns at being the good cop (senate) or the bad cop (house of reps).
Anyone with half a brain and a bit of knowlege on Aussie politics (eg: Conroy) knows this bill will NEVER pass the senate, this is why Conroy has stated that he plans to reintroduce the legislation just before the next election, neither major party wants it to become a double dissolution trigger and would prefer it to be quitely voted down when it can be drowned out by the noise of a federal election.
Anyone who has bothered to read what the policies of both major parties actually say will find that neither are in favour of mandatory filters on private computers but both are in favour of the current mandatory filters on GOVERNMENT computers (ie: schools) and both are in favour of the current law that says ISP's must offer the mandatory government filter as an opt-in choice for those who want it. That translates to ~5% of users who have opted-in and with those sort of numbers it's obviously not seen as a vote winner by either major party.
None of this is new, it's a political game. The puritan minority will not go away so the major parties will continue this game because it has effectively kept the puritans busy chasing their own tails for at least a decade.
As for the independent senators, one of them backed down quite early on, making the football of this game Mr 2%, who has become strangely silent about censorship since his own anti-abortion sponsers "somehow" made it onto the proposed blacklist. It's also worth noting how Mr 2% got his nickname, both major parties have a score to settle with him and he will be gone at the next election, probably to be replaced by some other nutjob senator in a marginal seat who will keep the game alive during their fleeting term in office.
The game is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers money but OTOH a democracy must provide an avenue for minorites to voice their political opinion even if that opinon is ironically advocating censorship of the opinons of porn lovers they disagree with. Since opertaion titstorm is in effect illegally censoring the government with their DDOS they also fail the same irony test.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings
You're aware that confusing pedophilia and something other than heterosexuality is just plain ignorant right?
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but your choice of wording was bad.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Did you read the whole article you linked to? At the very bottom is this quote:
“He was a prolific collector,” says the lawyer. “He did not focus on this type of manga. He collected everything that was out there that he could get his hands on. I think this makes a huge difference.”
your rights online: none
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
until you have some real criticism against them?
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest? Their arsenal consists solely of "I don't like what you're saying, so you don't get to say it." If any person, corporation, or government did this, we would be outraged. So why would we accept or encourage it from Anonymous? It's certainly no better a behavior coming from what is putatively "our side" than anywhere else. .
The fact is that Australians have elected their lawmakers. If they don't want this law, it's up to them to change it. If Anon wants to bring attention to to the legislation, that's great. If they want to protest , that's cool too. If they are disrupting services in the name of doing so -- services that people presumably need and use -- that just makes them childish.
Let the downmod commence, I know it's not popular to be critical of Anonymous here. But is it any surprise that they're viewed as basement-dwelling losers when their only tactic is equivalent to shouting so loud their opposition can't be heard?
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
Or, it simply means that more people tell their daughters to "watch out for sexual predators" than they tell their sons. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is just ignorant. Also, please feel free to provide some citations for your numbers.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Someone please mod parent up. Well said.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
So let's see - some people want their Internet connection filtered, other people don't. How about this for a radical solution - we let the people who want it have it, and the people who don't, don't have it?
Wow, I've just solved the problem!
Or not. The problem with censorship is not that people want to filter their own connection. It's that they want to filter other people's connection. How many requests for those have you had in your shop? None of the anecdotal examples you cite are examples of people supporting censorship.
Oh, and if you're in favour of censorship - let's start with you. No more posts from you, please :)
The linkage is quite possibly caused by society, not by inherent nature. If both cases are shunned, then you're very likely to see more overlap than necessarily exists. There is no control group, so any kind of analysis is essentially meaningless. It is rather arrogant to assume that kind of conclusion from the given data. At best, what your figures actually show is that there is a correlation between people who act on one natural impulse and people who act on another natural impulse.
Additionally, based on studies of animal populations, it is very likely that much much more than "2-5%" of the human population is homosexual. I haven't seen any thorough studies of pedophilia, likely because it is the same kind of taboo that homosexuality was 100 years ago, but I imagine there are aspects to it that we haven't predicted.
Unfortunately, no politician is going to be running under the "Won't anybody this of the child molesters!?" slogan any time soon, so we're unlikely to know significantly more about this phenomenon anytime soon.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
A titstorm?
I want to see this!
When I start living in my mom's basement, breathing through my mouth and cruising 4chan, I will keep your sage advice in mind. Until then, I will enjoy crisp chips and such by my cunning utilization of modern technology.
When they came for the cartoons of child molestation,
I did not speak out;
I was not a pedophile.
When they came for the visual depictions of Muhammad,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Danish political cartoonist.
When they came after 4chan,
I did not speak out;
I was not a btard.
When they came after me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- With all due respect to Martin Niemöller.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Don't be absurd.
"There are some rights and freedoms which cannot morally be subject to a vote. Freedom of speech is one of them."
Aussie here in total agreement, I don't want my adult porn censored and for reasons I've posted elsewhere in this story I'm almost certain the porn filter will never become law.
However pre-pubecent child porn is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a denial of the victim's basic human rights and freedoms and is quite rightly viewed as a serious crime. I'm in favour of law enforcement agencies monitoring these sites through warrants and sharing that data with foriegn law enforcement for the sole purpose of hunting down the rock spiders who produce and habitually consume this material. I am not in favour of mobs taking the law into their own hands and that includes both peodphile lynch mobs and the operation titstorm mob.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion... In the long run it will create a generation incapable of appreciating the difference between independence of thought and subservience.
- Henry Steele Commager
Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.
- Noam Chomsky
Forms of expression always appear turgid to those who do not share the emotions they represent.
- Gilbert Keith Chesterton
The censor believes that he can hold back the mighty traffic of life with a tin whistle and a raised right hand. For after all, it is life with which he quarrels.
- Heywood Broun
I want a situation without censorship, because I do not want to be responsible for whatever they may say.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.
- George Bernard Shaw
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
- Potter Stewart
Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only.
- Plato
Please, reconsider exactly what it is that you are supporting. Censorship of any kind is the first step toward totalitarianism.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I've seen some stupid shit on slashdot, but that takes the fucking biscuit.
If you really think that a child can give informed consent to sex with an adult, you need urgent help.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm sorry, you thought I was spouting a talking point? Sorry, no. You'll have to make do with facts and well thought out arguments. Citation needed? Here you go.
Oh my! You mean fighting an oppressive government isn't a hallmark of the left, even when they're not even when they're not actually being oppressed? Yes, I'd say exactly like that. I just happen to agree with them in those cases. Not having thought out your argument worth a damn doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, e.g., Sean Hannity. Sean's so stupid it hurts to listen to him. Even when he's right in his position it's for completely the wrong reasons.
Yes. Again, exactly like that. The students protesting that war almost certainly sacrificed little or nothing to the war effort. They protested on behalf of an Iraqi public whose opinion on the matter they didn't care to know and on behalf of the soldiers who volunteered to fight the war. Well thought out, yeah?
Absofuckinglutely. Unless I missed it where all kinds of conservatives were shouting out against the war? I discount the buyer's remorse crowd because it means they were either sheep, too stupid to thoroughly consider their opinion beforehand, or simply saying whatever it took to get elected. In none of the previous cases are their positions of any strength or value whatsoever.
See Iraq War protesters. Protesting for a group that you don't have any idea if the majority of that group agree with you (the Iraqi people) is impressively stupid. Protesting on behalf of a group that is overwhelmingly opposed to your viewpoint (members of the US military) is more along the lines of astoundingly stupid.
GP(now GGP) was not speaking to the censorship laws or protesting thereof, he was speaking in defense of his hypothesis that being college-aged is not a bad thing. GGP(now GGGP) fired off a trolling snark at college students and said nothing at all on censorship. OP was the one speaking of censorship laws and the protests thereof and I happen to agree with him. This entire argument is a troll-feeding tangent with little to do with TFA. Fun though.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
I think the problem is mental capacity... If sex is acceptable if consensual, at what age is the consensual sex approved with full knowledge of the act, consequences, ect. Is there a mental capacity at 11 to consent? No
There are many legal precedents that set the age of consent for various legal items, contracts, military service, voting, drinking, driving, etc... These are the basis of some of our societial norms. Without them, we would break down (and I say we are already with the blurring of many lines, but I digress...)
SEX is also unofficially there in the list, by punishing those that would take advantage of someone who does not quite have the assumed mental capacity you should have at a certain age. (Varies by state I believe) But I feel that the physical act can over come the emotional stops that society may place on the act. therefore it is easy to manipulate someone that cannot distinguish between something that is "wrong" verses it feels good, so it must be good.
So, just because it is consensual doesn't mean the child had all the tools to make a decision based on anything other than it felt good and the person is nice to me. That is just plain wrong no matter how you may try to argue it.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
To be followed by Operation Hooter Hurricane, Operation Mammary Monsoon, Operation Boobie Blizzard, Operation Tata Tornado and Operation Sirocco Of Sweater Puppies.
I could keep this up all day. :-D
Yeah, I know. Pathetic.
You would, apparently seriously, compare the 4-chan /b/ crowd of bumbling perverted imbeciles thrashing around in pools of their own virtual filth to the secession of the America's from the British Empire?
It's somehow no surprise that you're unaware that that doesn't qualify as a liberation.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
So 4CHAN, er I mean anonymous is doing something constructive for a change? Or are they simply trolling Australia for the Lulz? If the government backs down on the filters will they turn around and fight to have them? I'm confused and scared, what about the children? Won't someone think of the Children... I don't want goatsx in the STREETS, around EVERY corner! O god the horror...
( o )( o )
too small?
( O ) ( O )
just right?
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
Remember, even a 17 yearold is still considered a "child".
Not all children suddenly become capable of giving informed consent at the same age. I will concede that there may be an age that is too young across the board, but yes, children are capable of giving informed consent.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
"...They protested on behalf of an Iraqi public whose opinion on the matter they didn't care to know and on behalf of the soldiers who volunteered to fight the war. Well thought out, yeah?..."
"volunteered" to fight the war. That's profoundly uninformed :-(
say: the billboards in times square
you could choose not to go to times square, but assuming you are like every other tourist, that is, you don't plan your media exposure, you just walk into times square and look up at the billboards: those billboards, in an attempt to catch eyes, try to be risque, they constantly push the envelope. what is too risque? PUBLIC policy determines that, and you and your family are exposed to exactly what PUBLIC policy has determined, not wehat you determine
for better or for worse, the de facto truth, even if you are shut in (television), is that public policy determines what you are exposed too. europe for example, has no problem showing female breasts on tv. americans however FEAR TEH BOOBIE, and will only show wholesome corpses and acts violent murder on television (smirk)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Taken axiomatically, of course. No proof given, no proof needed.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
How about: they're incapable of starting a sentence with a capital letter? Pretty serious in my opinion.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Just as well there was no American revolution and we English still govern the US as a colony. Oh wait...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Today, most people in China and Russia support their regimes, including oppression of dissenters. Iranian death penalty for homosexuals law has widespread popular support.
Or so we are told by their state media...
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
I didn't realise that the Australian government was going to illegally imprison and torture people over this.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'll grant you the first two years weren't voluntary, and possibly even some of those recalled from IRR (though they knew this could be done, it's in their contract and explained when they sign it), but the majority were entirely voluntary knowing exactly what they would be doing.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
Or so we are told by their state media...
I'm Russian. At least with respect to my country, the state media is correct on this particular issue (even if they're a lying bastards on most other matters).
Elections are rigged, true, but only to get higher percent of the vote - the people in power don't need it to get elected. They do want high percent for the president to get more legitimacy (as Putin told regarding his opposition once, "over 70% of voted for me, so they're opposing the clear mandate of the people"), and they want 2/3 of the parliament to be able to amend the constitution freely (like they did not long ago extending the presidential term from 4 years to 6). In practice, with fair elections, they'd probably get somewhere around 55%-60%, but the true support base is higher - it's just that opposition is more politically active, and thus more likely to bother to vote.
I have little reason to believe that it's any different in China, especially judging by the stance of Chinese hailing from PRC whom I've met. If anything, their brainwashing seems to be much more effective than ours.
For Iran, all you need to know is that death penalty for homosexuals is mandated by Shari'a. Any country that deems itself Islamic will have that implemented.
Because when a "respected" nation does something that a "non respected" nation does, then it becomes "respectable".
Or the "respected" nation becomes less respectable.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
its a chicken and the egg... do pedos wank off to child porn because they are attracted to children? or are they attracted to children because they spend all day wanking off to child porn?
It may be like Pavlov's dog. You see child porn, have a wank, which gives you positive reinforcement. Now whenever you think of children you pop a boner. What's going to happen the next time you're left alone with a child?
Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging people to see children as sex objects. If you get aroused when thinking about children, don't seek out child porn. Seek psychiatric help.
The scariest and most irrational part is that not only does the 18 year old get it for possessing child porn, but the 17 year old gets prosecuted for producing child porn. And then they both get to enjoy spending the rest of their lives informing their neighbors that they're child molesters.
Even worse is that you get basically the same punishment for pissing in a bush.
Do you equate "disagree" with "violate"? I can disagree all I want and not go to jail. I can protest all I want and not go jail, or at least not for more than a few hours on an iffy disturbing-the-peace charge. I can fight censorship, campaign for office to change the laws, and do a whole boatload of things to oppose censorship without putting myself in any serious danger of loss of life of freedom.
However, if my form of "disagree" or protest is to possess child porn, I'd be in danger regardless of any laws censoring the internet.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel represented by hackers cracking into websites. I also don't think that to be the best approach for protesting against net censoring laws. At best, it increases the general population's feeling that WWW is actually World Wild Web and that something has to be done to tame it. It just happens that the Aussie Government may be doing the wrong something.
How would it be like if the Al Qaida began a terrorism campaign to protest against the latest anti-freedom measures adopted in the US?
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
This assumes that an attraction for male children is, in any way, similar to an attraction to male adults.
It's entirely possible, actually likely, that there are three attractions: Male adults, female adults, and children of any gender.
As a pedophile is explicitly defined as someone who is attracted by the lack of secondary sexual characteristics, (1) it seems entirely likely that gender-based attraction (Which, after all, works off secondary sexual characteristics...we cannot see people's genitalia) does not operate the same way for them.
So, actually, the three things people are attracted to are: Male secondary sexual characteristics, female secondary sexual characteristics (Let's not forget transsexuals there, producing more than a few mental gymnastics as us straight men attempt to move them to the 'male' category from where they were before we figure it out.) and no secondary sexual characteristics.
Ah, but now I've caused a problem the other way. If the attraction is identical, than logically it should be roughly 50%.
Well, no, there's a reason for that. Most pedophiles are men, and, to put it bluntly, it's physically easier for a man to have sex with a female than a male, even a child.
Also, there may be less of a taboo in their mind(2), and they can imagine the female child in a more traditional role such as their 'wife'. It's entirely possible as the taboo against homosexuality goes away, the abuse will skew back to more gender neutral.
The question really is: How many people who are 'actually gay', as in, attracted to adults of the same gender, are also pedophiles? Or, assuming that almost all pedophiles are men, how many are attracted to male secondary sexual characteristics and no secondary sexual characteristics, vs replacing 'male' with 'female'?
I honestly have no idea of the answer, but that's the real question, not which gender of children they're abusing.
1) As opposed to just people attracted to underaged, but sexually mature people...and if you claim you've never been attracted to a mature 17 year old, or a mature person just under whatever the age of consent for your area is, when you were 20, you're lying. Adults do not act on such attractions, but, nevertheless, have them, and that is not pedophilia, which is attraction to non-sexually mature people.
2) Statistically, bisexuals end up in heterosexual relationships more often than homosexual ones, partially because it's easier to find heterosexual partners, but, just as importantly, they get less resistance from society so the whole thing is easier. While I doubt that a pedophile would find any meaningful difference of societal acceptance from abusing children of the opposite gender, (Although, frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised.), it's entirely possible they think that they would.
P.S. The commonly accepted figure is that 10% of the population is gay or bi. I don't know where you got 2%-5%,but 2% is way too low. Statistically, 4% of men, and 10% of women, admit to being occasionally attracted to people of the same gender, and another 4% of claimed to be mostly attracted to the same gender. (And that's just how many admit it on a poll.)
It sounds like you're doing the 'identity politics' trick, whether or not people consider themselves 'homosexual'. Only about 2.8% of men, and 1.5% of women claim to be 'homosexual', whatever that mean by that. This was, of course, the same survey where 4% of both admitted being attracted mostly to the same gender.
But that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Where are your references?
Erm, your water filtering analogy is stupid.
People do not actually have the right to have unfiltered water. Well, they do, but they don't have the right to have it provided by the government. There is only one water system, and the government will filter it to reasonable levels. You don't like the level they go to, you can either put crap back in, or you can filter it some more.
Perhaps your analogy works if everyone is drinking well water, and the government is running around putting filters on their wells, and outlawing purchasing soft drinks in stores, calling them 'impure water'.
This is after the government walked around offering to install filters for free, and put big warning on soft drinks, but people just kept getting soft drinks, and no one installed filters. People simply didn't care, their water was fine to them.
Even that's not a very good analogy. We recognize the government has the general right to stop dangerous things from being sold, but not stop 'dangerous' speech from being passed from person to person. It would be entirely reasonable for the government to require stores to stop selling soft drinks made with cocaine, for example.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How about this for a radical solution - we let the people who want it have it, and the people who don't, don't have it?
Oh, oh, and I know. The government could provide software to do that that people could install on their computer...for free!
Like the Australian government has been doing for a while now. No one used it.
You know, it's always amazing when governments say 'The people want this', and they try to make it mandatory, but end up compromising politically and making it optional...and no one uses it...so a push happens to make it mandatory.
Hey, dumbasses, I think we just figured out how many people actually want it. People might claim to want it, but they either are a stupidly vocal minority, or they are factually incorrect about their own desires.
We're about to do the same thing with health insurance in the US. Granted, at the same time, we're demanding that insurance companies allow people to purchase health insurance that they outright excluded until now, but there's a reason healthy people aren't buying health insurance...it's an insanely horrible scam that no one wants any part of unless they are already very sick.(1)
Sometimes ideas are just stupid. Sometimes the citizens, despite people saying 'This is what citizens want', are smart enough to say 'Thanks, but no thanks'.
1) I just know that someone is going to take that the wrong way, so I will say a) I am a Democrat, b) I am someone whose preexisting condition means he can't buy insurance currently, c) am for health care reform, and d) know that requiring people to buy health insurance from the same monstrous companies that kill every year approximately 1/10 the amount of people that cigarette do is going to be so incredibly unpopular that the Democrats will be lucky if they're not fucking lynched. Democrats: Always willing to shoot themselves in the head as long as both they and the Republicans bipartisanly pull the trigger.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
There are advantages, but I think it allows demonization in the end. Instead of "thousands of people marched in protest", it's "thousands of members of Anonymous marched in protest". At least for me, the latter is more easily written off as some fringe group whose views are shaped by small group of leaders.
I'll bet German dissenters felt the same way.
They didn't, the ones that spoke out were killed by the Nazis. When people who speak out get killed, that is a reasonable time to start a revolution. So far no one is getting killed for this in Australia, not even close.
Qxe4
So you agree completely with the government. You agree with all republicans and all Democrats. You agree with the homosexual ones and the straight ones?
You want no control over what you watch? Internet filtering software is a great thing. The government should provide a high quality version for free. But configuring it should be up to each person.
Read my sig. It's impossible to make these decisions on anything beyond a personal level.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Please, reconsider exactly what it is that you are supporting.
Right backatcha.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another...
Even if it's the goatse guy?
This is an example of a political protest done very badly. A distributed denial of service attack is unethical, to begin with, and thus would alienate many potential allies. Adopting an egregiously sexist title for it makes it worse, alienating more. All in all, this reads like a protest calculated to win support for the government's position.
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
No, I don't equate those two. Distasteful as the child pornography idea is, it is still a thought-crime law, and that's a very slippery slope for the government to have gone down. We're already seeing the start of this. First it's possession of images of a criminal act, then it's 'artificially replicated' versions (re; simpsons porn = child porn?), next is 'things that kinda look similar' (small breasted women = child porn?). Add in the fact that our current government has openly equated disagreement with their policy to 'advocating such crimes', and at the very least the slander begins to be an issue.
Sure,... they've not locked anyone away -yet-, for simply disagreeing.
I've heard wacko religious zealots make this claim as a way of justifying the ban on homosexuals in the Boy Scouts. They've cited a source, and neither have you.
Learn something new.
Bah... they've NEVER cited a source, and neither have you.
Learn something new.
From the ACMA website, it seems that small breasts is just one criterion used to decide if a woman looks underage, and it isn't new. The problem is that the law prohibits anything that turns on pedobear even if you can prove that no children were involved.
GP implied that most SLASHDOT READERS are not American, I asserted that most, in fact, are. As evidenced by Slashdot's management and administrators saying so (and I don't see any good reason for them to lie about it).
Whether or not most internet users are American is another question entirely, and one that I have not seen any reliable means of measuring (especially given that connections != users).
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
But does the existence of such cartoons cause any harm to you or anyone else? It is one thing to prevent images which are "obscene and repugnant to the vast majority of people" being posted on billboards and all the strawmen that pro-censorship advocates like to use, but it is quite another to prevent an adult viewing something in private, or transmitting it to another adult by any reasonable means.
He did make the point that harassment was different. Also rule 35.
Google is your friend.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I know a few supporters. One is a paid-up member of the FFP, believe in YEC and doesn't believe in any form of environmentalism or conservation at all. He's a CS student who should know better, but he hasn't let reality get in his way before and he isn't going to start now. A few believe that it could be made to work and that it won't be abused (these people are mostly in the liberal right and are law students or lawyers), and there are a few more who would like a magical filter which blocks all CP but not anything else, costs nothing for the end user, doesn't slow down the internet and comes with lots and lots of pink ponies, but have enough sense to know that this won't ever happen.
However, no-one who can be informed approves once they have the problem explained to them, they just probably won't do anything about it.
To be fair to the /b/tards, if their physical age matches the typical mental age, wanting porn of people their own age would be fairly reasonable. They probably find it funny because annoying the mods is funny, and CP would be the best way to do that.
You're right that these kinds of protests are just about useless over here. I'm a bit disillusioned myself.
That doesn't mean we should lash out at those who want to help (even if it is "for the lulz").
Fair enough, they have better things to do, but this is a human rights issue too.
Dare I say, their protests to lift censorship might even be more effective than writing polite letters to totalitarian leaders asking for the release of political prisoners.
You see them as 13 year old losers in their mothers' basements. I see them as the future of decentralization and democracy and most likely similar to the means through which the revolution people keep advocating around here will happen. It won't be guns or bombs, it'll be people with computers online behind cryptographically secure anonymity.
They're young and immature now, just wait and see what they become.
Oi! As an Australian I object to you speaking on my behalf in claiming we like censorship. I'm pretty sure if I did a straw poll among my friends they would pretty much all be against it. Even the parents with young children.
I'm in support of the rating of content so that consumers can make informed choices (and take personal responsibility for those choices), but it is not up to the government to decide that certain content is took challenging for me to accept/tolerate/understand. That way bad things lie.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
The question I want to ask is who the hell appointed YOU the spokesman for all of OZ?
Personally I do not like Conroys attempts at censorship, which was not part of their electoral platform.
If you think we are any better off than the US you are deluded.
>> just wait and see what they become.
Unemployable meth-addicted man-children.
Convicts and ex-convicts.
Child molesters and rapists.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
One mistake in your reasoning is in assuming that an adult who sexually abuses a pre-adolescent child of the same sex would be attracted to adults of the same sex (if they were also attracted to adults). This is not a given.
Pre-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent boys look almost identical, physically speaking. It seems a reasonable hypothesis that pedophiles may be attracted to the pre-pubescent body/innocence of childhood/whatever rather than being attracted to one sex or the other specifically.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Now I'm not disagreeing with what you're trying to say, overall; but I'd like to point out a few things:
SEX is also unofficially there in the list, by punishing those that would take advantage of someone who does not quite have the assumed mental capacity you should have at a certain age.
Who makes the assumptions? When I was a teenager - 25 years ago - I knew plenty of kids my age who were extremely mature when it came to sex. Plenty more who were not. Now that I'm middle aged I meet my friends' kids who seem to have about the same distribution.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps existing laws/morals do an injustice to those kids who do mature early.
I'd like to note that as to the emotional side/feel good side, I know plenty of otherwise functional adults - many older than I - who have problems with sexual relations very similar to what you ascribe to children - ie, not able to distinguish between a good sexual relationship and a bad one. I'm sure many other people have had similar experiences.
So how are children unique in that respect, again?
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the concept of "maturity" (regarding any issue in one's personal life, especially) can be assigned by chronological age. People mature at different rates, in different ways, and in some respects some people never mature at all.
Cases like these should be dealt with on individual basis and not by blanket laws, especially regarding even well-intentioned censorship.
I'd also like to note that in my opinion, any country where you can be conscripted to fight in the military before you can legally have a drink in a bar is seriously fucked up. Yes, I'm an American...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Why the hell is this flamebait? Bit too close to home for you, moderator?
Disclaimer: I do not condone the DDoS attacks. I think they are childish, stupid, illegal and counter-productive.
That's true, but there's one issue here which is important for everyone.
The previous government didn't "plan the censorship". Their plan was to clamp down on what is hosted in Australia that violates local content laws. The idea was to bring local Internet hosting under the same rules as local book shops. You may or may not agree with the classification rules, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, at least in principle. If you don't like the rules on what is refused classification, you should change the classification rules, not the rules which brings everyone under the same rules.
The current government was not elected on the basis of what they are currently proposing. The policy that they ran on has mysteriously disappeared from the ALP's web site, but a copy remains at the APH library. Here's they key snippet:
And just after the election, news reports were still saying:
I, and everyone else who actually read the policy prior to the 2007 election, interpreted this as meaning that ISPs will be required to provide a feed filtered with an ACMA-provided blacklist which filters only RC material, which will be provided by default, and that customers (possibly excluding schools etc) may opt out.
Essentially, the proposal looked like it was intended to move Net Alert from the client to the ISP, and restrict the filtering to the same standard that all other media are covered by, namely RC. Yes, this would have put a burden on smaller ISPs. Yes, it might give parents a false sense of security that the feed is "clean". Yes, details would have to be worked out. Nonetheless, everyone who read the policy document seemed to agree that it wasn't a ridiculous idea in principle and it might be worth trialling.
What is on the table now is something quite different. If the proposal happens, not only will you not be able to opt out (contrary to pre- and post-election promises), but classification decisions will also be secret (at the moment, every OFLC decision is in a public database).
Wherever you stand on Internet censorship, the bait-and-switch is something that you should be angry about, and I don't think you need to be Australian to feel that anger.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Breast size is one of these criteria. So, the picture could be of an 18 year old, but an 18 year old who - given that age doesn't determine how old you look - appears to be 14. So bald pubic region, small breasts, slim hips with not much waist, photographed to look you and so on.
As far as I can see, no one has even mentioned banning small breats per se.
It's an interesting issue for me because a couple of years ago there was a billboard ad for Target (a kind of wal-mart like shop in Australia) which used a girl who was over 18 but looked 15 or so. She was posed with a lollipop in a Lolita-style way wearing short shorts.
The outrage in that case was that it send bad messages to young girls about how they had to look sexy (heels for pre-teens came in at about the same time).
It's always confusing for me because on one side there is the issue of censorship (which I oppose), then there is the increasingly widespread commodification of sex, use of pedophillic images, sexualisation of young teens and body image issues for females which I oppose.
In any case, the claims being made about "small breasts have been banned" in the sense "you could be 40 and still not show your peddo-bait breasts" is crap.
Australian Politics Explained
Better still, educate your fucking kids to not do stupid shit on the internet. That works better than any filter.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to have everyone subscribe to your newsletter...whether they want to or not, ironically.
I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
And they can get it - right now - without the rest of us having to suffer. All ISPs in Australia must provide customers with filtering software if they want it.
What assumption? There have been several cases of homosexual men who have been convicted of pedophilia who were in active homosexual relationships.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Obviously some Aussies did! The government offer we had a couple of years ago of free net-nanny software was a huge success! I wish they were still running that program, it was a great idea.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I don't want it. Period. Now if you want to live beneath a net-nanny filter, that's your issue, but don't be forcing your filtering views on me though. I'm a big boy, I can take care of my own.
I don't see why you get to force your view on the rest of us either???
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Why is it such a big deal? We've always had censorship of the media here. A vocal minority oppose it. We've also had free and open political debate. You can be a communist here. That's ok. You can be a more right than a Thatcherite and that's ok. Censorship of the media and free political debate have co-existed here for a long time. The big fear that people have concerning censorship is that it will be used to stifle political debate, well, that has not been used to any great effect in the mass media here and I don't think people would let it last long on the internet either.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I do share concerns regarding the censorship of political material, like the anti-abortion site that was apparently on the list early on. The site was not offensive, and was actually quite sensitive towards women who had followed through with abortions. Not a bad resource at all. Censorship of the media has always existed in Australia, but alongside free political debate. Where censorship intrudes on free political debate is where I get concerned. As I have stated in other places however, I feel that porn etc should be available on an OPT-IN basis instead of an opt-out. Just like on cable TV.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
And they can get it - right now - without the rest of us having to suffer. All ISPs in Australia must provide customers with filtering software if they want it.
and how well publicised is this? That is the first time I've ever heard that!
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Why the hell is this flamebait? Bit too close to home for you, moderator?
Shhh! Most people here on slashdot don't actually believe in free debate. In fact most people who say they do, well, don't. They mean 'free debate as long as you don't disagree with me'. They use the flamebait or troll options as a 'disagree' option, which really should take the form of a well-worded response.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
The question I want to ask is who the hell appointed YOU the spokesman for all of OZ?
Personally I do not like Conroys attempts at censorship, which was not part of their electoral platform.
If you think we are any better off than the US you are deluded.
Good for you. I have my opinion, you have yours. We both speak it out. That's called democracy my friend.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Then you may choose to opt out of the program. Pretty simple really.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Ummm, I'm Australian. We don't have Republicans or Democrats. Not in the same sense as you anyway...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Yep. I see that YOU certainly believe in free debate...not. Hypocrite. If you actually researched the issue properly, you would find that people are quite able to opt out of the filter if they choose to do so.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Again I see it. All of you are supposedly shouting for free speech, but as soon as someone uses that right who you disagree with, you want to shut him up! I am in favour of free political debate. You are obviously not.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I think the politicians are less of a problem than the unelected civil servants. It is the civil servants who will be doing the filtering and they do not change from government to government.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Nice dodge but I don't see how your location in validates the question. Please answer it. Feel free to replace random party name with a random party name of your choice.
I find being offended by me offensive.
You miss the point. It isn't the censorship itself. It's more the fact that the banned sites list is fundamentally uneditable- it's being maintained by the government and not you, or (more likely) your ISP whom you are (supposed to be) free to cease business with if you want.
Even if the government mandated that ISP service include "censorship service", that wouldn't be as stifling as a government-maintained list for all ISPs that you can't do anything about.
A fundamental idea here (in theory, if not in practice lately) is that a government cannot be trusted with things like this. They teach you that in school when they go over the Bill of Rights. The document makes no sense at all without that assumption. It's not a list of what the government will allow the citizens, it's supposed to be a list of things the citizens will not allow the government to control. While censorship itself is not automatically something that would be forbidden by the First Amendment, the fact that the censorship is controlled by the government and not its citizens is what would make it a clear violation.
If some government employee in charge of maintaining that list quickly reviewed this site and and simply added slashdot.org to the list after spotting a typical FP troll, how would you feel about that? Someone in the government could add all Thatcherite sites to the list for all you know, and leave communist sites alone. At least here it would be possible to jump ISPs if you don't like the censorship they're applying. In your country your only option would to be to petition your government. They may institute mechanisms where you complain and they review the list (that might be done here too) but it still amounts to a petition to the government.
In practice, concepts like this tend to be carelessly talked over and avoided when we implement obnoxious things (like torture), but we are still supposed to talk about them.
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest?
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
In other words "Do as I say, not as I do".
Yep, that sounds like a great way to accomplish something. Principles are great, but only if you apply them consistently - even and perhaps especially when the other party doesn't.
No, in other words, "See how it feels?"
Idiot.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
First things first. We don't have a bill of rights here and we don't need it. We've gotten along quite nicely without it for the last 200 odd years.
Secondly, you are still confusing Australian politics with US politics. We have a democracy here, which is not based on how much money you have, unlike the US system. It's one of the best democracies in the world and it's hard to break that!
Thirdly, there is an opt-out option. If I don't want to be under the filter, I don't have to be!
Fourthly, I believe we have much greater freedom of speech in Australia than in the US, it's just less likely that someone will shoot us, plant a burning cross on our lawn or threaten us in any other way.
Fifth, the real worry about the filter list is not that it is done by the government, but that it is to be done by unelected civil servants without review. If it was done in a way that it could be debated in parliament, then we would have no worries.
In short, you fail. You have no understanding of Australian politics or even of our system of governance. Stay out of it.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I shouldn't have to run tunnelling software to access simple webpages. What they are proposing is mandatory filtering of all internet traffic - it's not something you click a check box to opt out of - that's what "Mandatory" means.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
I do think that, like most stuff on TV, porn etc on the internet should be opt-in, not opt out. Also the filter list should be debatable in Parliament, not just done in secret by civil servants with their own agendas.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
The government stopped the free software program a year or two ago. It's a shame. It wasn't well publicised either which is probably why it wasn't used as much as it could have been.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
"Several" is not the same as "32%".
The null hypothesis is that if you take the set of pedophiles who are also in relationships with adults, the distribution of those adult relationships between different-sex and same-sex would be the same as what you would find in the general population, controlled for socioeconomics and geography.
The controls are important, since same-sex relationships are more socially discouraged in some places and in some social groups than in others. It would also be a hard hypothesis to disprove, since the numbers are so very low to begin with. But that's what I would expect.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
My recollection of the numbers says that you are wrong, but I do not remember where I originally saw the breakdown of those numbers so I cannot look them up now. The numbers I gave above were a different compilation of data than my original source for saying that a larger percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. I did not closely look at the breakdown from that perspective, so my recollection may be incorrect.
You should spend some time investigating the numbers, not just homosexual versus heterosexual distribution. There is significant distortion in the way that incidents of pedophilia are reported. As an example, at the height of Catholic priests abusing children, if you were a Catholic with children in public schools, your children were statistically at greater risk of sexual abuse from their teacher than from their priest.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
and how well publicised is this? That is the first time I've ever heard that!
About as much as it can be - which is to say that it shouldn't take someone actually interested in filtering software more than a few minutes of clicking around in the "support" or "FAQ" pages of their (or any) ISP.
The law was enacted around 2000, from memory.
As one that has been a victim of statutory rape, I am appalled by you indifference in your first paragraph. Although it did not do as severe to me what it has done to a great number of others, it did damage my thought process and my "first thought" of how things should be. For example, sexually I am attracted to much older women (~45).
While I think sex should be celebrated, I think some responsibility is in order. Some American states have laws of 16+, others are strictly 18+. If you are 18+ and feel you need prepubescent sex, seek consult with professionals as you have a thought deficiency. Fuck that, you are retarded. What part of a person can't wait? (And fuck you if you hate the word retarded!)
As you stated, you know nothing (your words: no first hand knowledge). Well, I DO have firsthand knowledge. That kind of atrocity can cause a myriad of mental irregularities that (if gone unchecked) can produce exponential problems. I'm even going to imply that the world has experts to consult (if they did, this shit would stop), but what I will state is that from experience it is a bad thing.
Yeah, all the guys joke about "why didn't I get the 1-on-1 time with my hot teacher". After 15-16, that shit doesn't fuck with a guy (seemingly). That will forever alter the personality of an 8 year old, especially when they find out they have contracted some incurable STD.
You will have to forgive my indignation at your first paragraph. I take all your talk of "if it's consentual" to mean that you condone prepubescent sex with adults...
The Illuminati would kill me, but I'm not rich enough to take notice of.
I would, but I don't actually see how your question makes sense? Of course I don't personally agree with everything that each government does. Neither do I have to. I do have to accept that they were voted in democratically. If I do not agree with what they say or do, I have several options ranging from doing nothing to writing letters to relevant ministers or forming a lobby group. That is all part of democracy.
I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Isn't that only ISP's that opt into the program? A brief search ISP websites showed me one with a link to the Internet Industry Association website and one one with pages with links to resources on how to stay safe online as well as links to Cyberpatrol and Net Nanny websites. Other ISP's I viewed had nothing.
ISP's who participate in the program are not required to offer filters for free either. From the IIA website:
There are costs involved in providing filtering software products and services to end users. It is up to your ISP whether or not these costs will be passed on to you. Whilst a number of ISPs offer filtered products and services free to their users, the IIA does not require that ISPs should carry the cost of complying with the new regulatory regime because it is concerned that this would disadvantage many small ISPs.
This program is clearly not well publicised by ISP's, or for that matter, the government. Free filter software would seem to be pretty much unobtainable to the average windows user and the system is deficient.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
No, the whole problem is that the proposed filter is MANDATORY. There is no opt-out. Labor has changed its election promise significantly.
Graham
I agree with you mostly. I tried to emigrate to Australia a few years ago and they told me to go to hell for having a chronic health condition. So did Canada and NZ. I hope you can excuse me for being sour.
College age is the maximum of two trendlines, taken together. As we grow older, we acquire responsibilities, take on power to decide our own actions. But this means that we become caught up in the details; our gaze falls from the horizon; we end up looking at our own feet and just trying to get by without rocking our precarious little boats.
The moment when we're most free to change the world, when the desire burns brightest in us, is that age. No wonder college kids do so much protesting and working--their sharp edges haven't been worn down yet.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I can see why you'd be a bit sour. Australia is a great country to live in. Peaceful. It's a shame you couldn't emigrate. I also have a chronic health condition and can understand the difficulties and restrictions that it can place on ones person, even if you are able bodied and can work like myself. We have to fight so much harder to do stuff and people around really don't understand. I guess one my mottoes in life is, "Life isn't fair!" In a strange way, it helps.
If I've worded my arguments a bit strongly, no hard feelings?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Whoever modded this as a troll, fuck you! I hope your mother, wife and daughters get assraped by a pack of howling niggers and you get to watch, then are not allowed to lick the cum out their assholes. You are a fucking faggot piece of shit who gets buttfucked every night by your momma who wears a 20" strap on and plows your ass before making you suck nigger dick until you choke on all the cum. Fucktard mother-fucking asshat bastard faggot!!!!!!!!!!!
When you react to somebody else's suppression or censorship with suppression or censorship of your own, you have no moral ground to stand on. You can be easily dismissed as "hackers" or "loser basement dwellers" then, by the very same people you're trying to convince to enact change.
Name-calling doesn't change the validity of this point.
I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
First this is an invalid statement as you have no idea as to my knowledge level. Second the statement is irrelevant because my position has nothing to do with a particular government but government in general.
Government filtering is nonsensical. It can't work. By trying to appeal to the "majority", which doesn't actually exist unless you're in a direct democracy, you end up being overly broad in your banning to the point where it can't work well for anyone.
People are very diverse in what they think is should be filtered. What A thinks should be filtered B thinks is ok and what B thinks should be filtered A thinks is ok. So if the government filters then no one wins. Either A is unhappy, B is unhappy, or both A and B are unhappy. It is impossible to make both A and B happy. This unhappiness comes at a cost to taxpayers.
Now if we instead leave the government out of filtering both A and B are free to customize the filter so it is exactly right. Both A and B are happy. The cost to government, and thus taxpayer, is little to none depending on how hands off the government wants to be.
More money spent for less happiness or less money spent for more happiness.
I am curious though how allowing South Australia's 7.2% of the population to inflict their filtering views on the rest of the country is democratic.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Your lack of open-mindedness combined with generalisations, poor logic and questionable statistics is somewhat amusing.
sudo mount --milk --sugar