Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government May Shelve Internet Filter
RobHart writes "It is reported that the proposed filters are seen as too toxic a policy to take to the next federal election — due later this year. This is according to a spokesman for the Greens party. A Labor senator has called for the filter to be opt-in."
I don't care if they keep or drop the policy at this point. I'm still not going to vote for them. They've shown their colours. Hopefully other voters who care about this issue are the same and show them that we care because Australia doesn't need both its major political parties appealing to the Christian right.
So when you go ask a politician if they intend on bringing the filter online after the election, they won't answer you?
It's pretty obvious that the whole internet filter plan was an appeasement move to secure support for some of the more batty parts of the politicum. Now that it's passed its use-by date, I think we'll see it tiredly retired after "public consultation" and "thorough analysis". To be honest, I think we'd have seen exactly the same thing under the Liberals.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
...kids finding out about stuff on the Internet. I mean, we all turned out fine, didn't we? ;)
Who'd have thought that adults would possibly object to being treated like 5 year olds?
I still can't wrap my head around how anyone in a democratic country could consider a nationwide Internet filter a good use of taxpayer money and resources. I can understand authoritarian regimes like the PRC doing it--obviously, money is not nearly as important to them as control (but the money sure helps.) Implementing it somewhere like Australia is just such a gargantuan waste of time and money as to be utterly baffling to me. The Internet, in and of itself, is just not dangerous. It's also far too large for any country--or even all countries together--to police it proactively and censor things.
Anyone who is *that* worried about what's on the Internet should perhaps "opt-out" of live in the developed world and go live in the Outback or something.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
... but they've already exposed what they intend to do if we vote them in.
Kevin '07
Recession '08
Conroy '09
GG Labor. Time to vacate office.
No one in Australia drinks fosters (not even sexually challenged marsupials). Fosters is only for export.
Nothing is too bad for the rest of the world.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Or be opted-in by their wives "for their own sake".
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person
2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life
i mean its not like the ancient roman or chinese empires, with very little media, were places of calm and devoid of transgression. the opposite in fact is true. the history of mankind is LESS violence and transgression with more civilization (i'm talking domestically... in terms of war, population growth, the rise of nationalism, the march of technology has meant some spectacularly awesome killing fields). people are always talking about how we are all doomed, everyone is getting more violent, etc. the opposite in fact, is the real truth. people are just historically myopic. for every horrible story of murder and mayhem on your 6 o'clock news, human history offers far far worse, in much greater per capita bulk
and you only need to spend 5 minutes in your average kindergarten to come to the undeniable realization that bad behavior is innate, not taught
the fact is, if you took a psychologically normal human being and exposed them to 16 hours a day of violent pornography or violent fps videogames for 10 months, they will not become rapists or murderers. however, a psychologically problematic person might eventually rape or murder. anything could set him off, from his neighbor's barking dog or his boss's reprimands. such a psychologically unhealthy person might also seek out pornography and violent media, in a desperate attempt to get the catharsis most psychologically normal people take for granted. therefore, when violent videogames or pornography are found in the homes of rapists and murderers, someone somehwere will always say "see? that's the cause"
when in fact, there's no causal relationship at all. do some people REALLY believe that if you waved a magic wand and removed all sexual and violent media that everyone would be tranquilized and crime would drop?
in 100% honesty, i assert the opposite: we should ENCOURAGE people to use violent and sexual media. the result would be a LESS violent and sexually transgressive society. i say this with a completely straight face. i believe this wholly and thoroughly
japan has one of the highest production rates of pornography in the world. it also has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
japan also has free and widely available access violently transgressive media. and it also has very low murder rates
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
any country can emulate japan's enviable murder and rape statistics: just make pornography and violent media freely and widely available
the simply truth is, if you are honestly interested in the reduction of real world rape and murder, you are also interested in promoting, yes PROMOTING, violent videogame and pornography consumption. i sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that
it all gets back to the psychological notion of CATHARSIS
and understanding that we are NOT vessels of purity that are corrupted. we all carry rape and murder in our hearts. the question is: do we eject these asocial tendencies harmlessly on a computer screen? or in the real world?
access to violent and sexual media is the deciding factor, and MORE access to violent and sexual media results in LESS real world rape and murder
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Opt-in is currently available from NUMEROUS commercial sources. And if you are opting-in, then those are certainly an option and a hell of a lot cheaper for Australians.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
You (the US) have that too.
If you can make up a fictional web filter then so can I. Also the Australian Customs Service is backpedaling the laptop searches so fast I'm going to have to check into Perth Customs before I leave Malaysia. Unlike the US's TSA who still have no accountability.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This is at least the third time /. have run a story saying the filter is dead. Here's the definitive word: There aren't enough sitting days left to get the legislation introduced before the election. So they will introduce it after the election, assuming they win. They have said repeatedly it's still policy, so the election is merely a temporary reprieve. This battle is far from over.
- Colin (from Electronic Frontiers Australia)
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI