Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Delays Internet Filter Legislation
An anonymous reader writes "It seems the Australian federal government is being forced to delay the introduction of its proposed and much-hated, much-maligned Internet filter. It will not be introduced in the next two sittings of parliament, which realistically delays it until after the next election. News on withdrawing the filter, which was a promise from the previous election, has disappointed lobbying groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby."
The Australian Christian Lobby can go fuck themselves sideways with a 40-foot barge pole. Fucking morons.
With the election looming and the popularity of the Labor party taking a dive the Government is dumping all sorts of unpopular policies including their much touted Emissions Trading Scheme, the disastrous Insulation Scheme and of course this ridiculous Internet filter. Of course if Australia votes them in again, they'll say they have a mandate for this filter but the opposition is pretty much a joke. *Sigh*
The opposition Liberal Party are finally getting their act together and the Labour Government doesn't want to feed them any issues to debate, so filtering is on hold.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
With any luck we can get this farcical idea shot down somehow before then... I just wish every day Joe and Jane understood the slippery slope that is censorship. Unfortunately the government lackeys and christian rights groups continue to scream "CHILDREN!!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!!!" and no real logic ever comes into play. Oh well, I already have a remote box in Europe anyway... this won't effect me. I just feel bad for the technical illiterate folk who suffer. I wish it was OPT-IN.
Of course, the "election promise" wasn't actually mandatory. It required ISPs to offer a "clean feed" to their customers. The ACL are a bunch of moralizing extremists and shouldn't be given any more notice than the guys who believe George Bush is a space alien.
I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
Elections in Australia happen every three years, no four. That means they will be this year.
Rudd knows just how unpopular the filter is, even if it only loses him 10% of the votes it's enough to scare him as he got in by a gnats wing in 2007.
The question is will Rudd shelve the plan or just carry on regardless after the next election. Personally I don't want to find out but I cant vote for that hyper religious nut-case, Tony Abbott as he'll probably turn around and do something worse so personally my vote is going either to the Greens or an independent against the filter.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
the usa has long been a world leader in hypocritical simplistic moralizing "christians"
don't be nosing in on our turf and our monopoly now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Though I'm far from disappointed, this is the 3rd one this week! Last week it was the Emissions Trading Scheme nonsense, then the Health Care stuff, and now this. Seriously, what's up with the Rudd government?? It's turning out to be a "Dudd" government! Bring on an early double dissolution election and get this idiots out (not that the alternative is much better . . . ).
<rant>
Oh, and as to the Australian Christian Lobby and all those other extreme conservative political groups - don't mix religion with government! I'm Christian, but I don't think that should have anything to do with running a country. One of these days we'll end up like certain European countries and be forced to go to church every week!
</rant>
Last week I was discussing the filter with a friend who is an intelligent and sensible, non-religious person. Unfortunately he had swallowed the whole "think of the children" argument and thought the filter was a good idea. When I put the standard negative arguments to him, he agreed that it wasn't as simple as he'd thought. Problem is, he's probably representative of a large majority of ordinary people with voting rights in Australia. It's imperative that the debate about the filter is kept up and every Australian citizen is brought up to speed, otherwise I fear that we'll end up having it simply because nobody really bothered to give it much thought.
A few of the Aussies here have mentioned their disappointment with Rudd and greater dislike of the opposition, and have expressed their intention to vote dreen or independant.
If you wish to keep legislation such as this from passing its important to understand how the Australian government works.
firstly there is the Upper House: parliament. Here you find the Prime minister, Ministers and back benchers. Voting for anyone other than either of the two major parties here is basicly a wasted vote. In most cases the winning party will always have enough seats here to propose anything they like and see it pass. I suggest voting for the major party you find least objectionable.
The Lower House: The Senate, is where the postions of minor parties/independents are most powerfull. It is here that legislation such as the internet filter stand the best chance of being stopped. Many years ago the Australian Democrats held a significant proportion of seats here. Never aiming for the upper house, they focused on the senate with the tag line of 'keeping the bastards honest'. Today that power is held by the Greens and the Family First party, each equaly scary depending upon your own personal views (damn hippies vs Christian nutjobs). If you are disillusioned with Labor, and intend to vote Green, doing so in the senate will have the greatest impact.
You shall know him by his Sig
TFA is published by a Murdoch newspaper, so you can imagine where the bias is.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
The Australian is the local NEWS Corp. paper. Rupert essentially on record as saying that the internet is a bad idea...
-- Andrew
It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from viewing an adult film may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV program. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally protected rights. No one else will do it for you. Thank you.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that the Australian government will build a new $43 billion national broadband network, connecting 90% of homes to 100-megabit fibre internet. "We believe that fast broadband is absolutely essential for our nation's future", he said.
"Telstra has raised issues with the amount of bandwidth usage this will produce, given we're still hooked to America by tin cans and string, but our Great Firewall of Australia Internet filtering project should keep usage down to reasonable levels at near-dialup speeds. We promise you won't go over your download cap."
The Great Firewall will reliably block all illegal material, child pornography, terrorism and unAustralian thoughts.
"Not only are the contents of the list illegal," said Senator Stephen Conroy, " but revealing the list is also illegal, and so is linking to someone linking to someone claiming to reveal the list. So we're blocking Google Search. Having to use Anzwers should keep usage right down."
Calling it, the "single largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history," Mr Rudd said the project would employ up to 37,000 people a year monitoring citizens' net access, reading their email and correcting spelling errors in their football forum posts.
A consultative process will determine the regulatory framework for the network. "We're considering getting Senator Fielding to do it personally," said Senator Conroy, "since he's the dickhead who demanded the censorship in return for his votes. Hopefully it'll melt his brain. Bloody balance of power. At least Xenophon's bloody sane."
http://rocknerd.co.uk