Australia - Censorship Overload

VooVoo writes "The Australian Broadcasting Authority has taken Australia to new heights of ignorance following hot on the soon to be implemented draconian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill. It has proposed to introduce an access restriction system where Net users will have to supply personal details if they wish to access R-rated material online. (R-rated is softcore and way tamer than X-rated and XXX-rated). The scheme was announced on October 27 and Australian's have until November 7 to object. The ABA wants people seeking R-rated or "likely to be classified R by the Classification Board" material to provide their name, address, birth date, email address, and credit card. Check out what the ABA has to say about it. "

Comments

Re:Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything

[tweek]

that's a funny ad but it's odd that australia would do something like this in regards to the internet. Didn't they have a topless hardware store there at one point?
On another note, I cannot for the life of me see how they can regulate this unless they do like singapore ( i believe ) and put government control on all pipes in and out as well as set regulations to the ISP's. If that is the case aren't they going to loose the tech sector (do they have one?) to such restraints?
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece

Re:Fight censorship with technology

[Wah]

from the conclusion to the above paper

Instead, and without fear tactics or moralist rhetoric, the Government could have instituted a public education campaign informing parents about the need to restrict unsupervised/unfiltered access to the Internet with young children (5-13) and begin a dialogue about personal responsibility and self moderation with older ones (13 and up). As a young person that has grown up in the midst of computers and communication technologies, I believe this would have achieved a much more productive outcome.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I was having a computer discussion with my somewhat *cough* less computer literate sister. She was discussing how quickly her 4 year old had learned to use their computer. My advice to her was to learn more about the Internet so she could teach her children when the time came. These actions will help keep us from having to legislate behaviour.

The War on Drugs(tm) in the U.S. is a perfect example of how silly it is to try and control content(substances) that your citizens want and will get either way. Fighting against yourself is never productive and leads to a waste of valuable resources. Widely spreading information is the best way to fight these battles, not limiting/controlling/spinning it.

Get your pr0n here!

[SpinyNorman]

The ABA article says that this only applies to "internet content hosted in Australia", so either the Aussies are going to be enjoying top quality USA pr0n, or the topless Sheila's are going to be moving to offshore hosts.

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[Saige]

But, you forget... the Democrat party and the Republican party are not the only parties out there.

I know there aren't any other parties out there. But the way the political and voting systems work, they are the only ones for all practical purposes. It is more beneficial to me personally to vote for which ever of the two big parties is more in line with my views, because if I vote for a third party, most likely that vote is a "waste" and it makes it that more likely that the one I want least is in office.

In fact, I hope to see more and more republicans head on over to the Reform Party. Why? Because if the republican party loses a big block of voters to the reform, then it makes it more likely a democrat will get elected (the lesser of two evils in my mind).

Until they create a voting system that actually allows you to vote for a fringe candidate that fits your ideals perfectly and yet still have an influence on who gets elected, the two party system is going to be what we're stuck with. And there ain't a chance that they'll go about trying to change the system, since it benefits them the most as it is.
---

How's about...

[Greyfox]

How's about every Aussie ISP shuts down for some length of time (Say... 24 hours?) in protest. A lot of them will probably be put out of business by these laws anyway, so them giving their customers a taste of what it'll be like should be in order anyway.

What's that got to do with anything?

[Wakko Warner]

Anyway let's do not talk about the bill of rights until US elects a woman for a president.

How is this anything other than a superficial gesture of human rights?

-A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

The Internet *can* route around censorship...

[Ratface]

... as long as people can be bothered to do so.

You are right of course, but don't you think that's a little implicit :-) I would hold that it is still possible to get around a system such as the australian government is trying to implement, but as I said in my original post, people will need to be bothered to do so.

Re:Tech sector?

[tweek]

I wans't attempting to be derogatory. Hell, I just noticed I mispelled lose in my post. I am usually the least Americentric person around. What I actually meant was if the tech sector was as big as, say, Japan or Valley. thanks for the rebuke. ;)

"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece

Re:Fucking yanks and their guns . . .

[WanderingWastrel]

What is it with guns and Americans?

Historical reasons mostly: had to kill the natives to take the land, had to kill the British to get away from them, had to kill the animals to eat, etc. We're a bloody group of people.

Why do so many of you seem to think that the only way to achieve and maintain freedom is by force of arms?

Mostly due to a historical (and still current) complete lack of trust in our own government. Some of us view the U.S. government agencies as a bunch not far removed from the Nazis, and distrust both their motives and their methods. Periodically the government provides various events as evidence to continue this distrust.


Are you completely impervious to the lessons of history, in places like India (everyone seems to revere Ghandi as some kind of demi-god, but they conveniently forget that he taught people a way to achieve freedom _without_ using force), and in Australia, too.

Impervious, no... just not as selective as some. Violence has been part and parcel of the history of mankind -- part of the reason Ghandi is so rightfully revered is that he was such an exception to the usual violent methods used by so much of mankind. But gaining freedom from a far off empire is a completely different story from keeping freedom from your moronic next-door-neighbor who isn't going to go away. Oh... and wasn't Ghandi murdered?


We were once a penal colony, ruled by Britain; now we're a free, sovereign nation who are on the verge of cutting the last of our ties with Britain. Did we ever even dream of fighting a war _against_ Britain? No. You see, we didn't need to - all we needed to do was ask them, and provide them with what we considered to be a good constitution, which they gladly ratified and set us free to follow our own course.

Gee, we didn't even want freedom from Britian at first, we just wanted a few seats in Parliment -- like they'd given to Scotland a few decades before that. Funny, they weren't so nice to us... amazing what a difference a couple of hundred years can make.

Please, will someone explain to me why this kind of thing is so hard for Americans to accept? Is there something in your psyche that makes you blind to the possibility that things do not have to be done exactly as you did them? That there might be other ways of life that are just as valid, and possibly more so, than your own?

Well, *I* accept that. The world would be a boring place if everywhere and everyone were like the U.S. Ugh.

Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto the rest of the world?

I don't. Most Americans don't either... most don't care about anything beyond the borders, really. It's just that the ones that DO care tend to go into the government (see why a lot of us don't like our government?) and go bother a lot of people overseas. I don't understand it either, really. They give the rest of us a bad name. But may I ask this: why do you listen? When an American comes to tell you how to live, laugh in his face and tell him to bugger off. (Or whatever local cursing is most effective.)


Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own mistakes than yours.

[shrug] Fine by me. Just please don't confuse what Americans want with what the American government wants. Perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, they are NOT the same.

I've heard much complaining for several years about how America forces other countries to do this or that... I've always wondered why. Seriously. Tell our government to shove it, and do as you see fit. The world *would* be a better place.

Without a bill of rights..

[WilliamX]

It's really no surprise.

Australia has always been on the edge of the censorship issue, and it is really no surprise to seem the placing the same draconian limits on the Internet that they have been known to do in traditional media.

Makes one appreciate our bill of rights here in the US.

--
William X. Walsh - Email: william@dso.net
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[Windigo The Feral (N]

In regards to the ease of Things Going To Hell Rights-Wise in the US:

There is actually a second way that things could go to hell. Specifically, the Constitution provides for a Constitutional Convention (or "Con-Con") to be held once the "governments" of 3/4ths of the states call for a Con-Con.

The rather scary things on this are:

1) It is unknown and there is considerable debate over whether a "Con-Con" is limited to discussion of one amendment or if the entire Constitution becomes fair game. (No procedures exist for determining which is the case--this is relevant because many states have called for Con-Cons on specific issues such as anti-abortion amendments or tax reform amendments to the Constitution.)

2) There is legal debate over whether a call for a Con-Con can be rescinded once the "government" has called for one, and most legal theory tends to lean towards the idea that Con-Con calls CANNOT be rescinded.

3) There is some question as to what constitutes approval by a government of a Con-Con--specifically, whether it is restricted to state legislatures. (Some legal theorists have stated that technically a meeting of the state governments--where representatives from each state are sent by approval of the legislature and the governor--could legally call a Con-Con due to the vague way it is defined in the Constitution.) According to whom you speak with, we are either not terribly close or dangerously close to a Con-Con being able to be held in the US. Assuming a worst-case scenario, we are approximately two states away from the legal requirements for a Con-Con being held.

In a REALLY worst-case scenario, it is entirely possible that a Con-Con could be held and a fundamentalist theocracy (or something similarly un-republican), monarchy, parliament, or dictatorship could well result (especially since the only requirements would be for the authors to show it to the states for ratification). Many feel in a Con-Con the entire Constitution is fair game.

Of course, I'd proffer that it doesn't take amendments or Con-Cons to destroy the effectiveness of a Constitution. Pure apathy, or even worse, apathy combined with a charismatic leader who is more than able and willing to whip people into a froth against the "Enemy of the Week" can wreck a constitution just as well as a Con-Con can. (Look at how most of our rights have been whittled away to "protect the children against the evils of sex and violence", or how many of our rights have been effectively destroyed between the Cold War and the "war against drugs". I'm not even going to go into how the country has gone literally so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a liberal in the modern US political spectrum...let's just say there are some rather frightening parallels to the government of Germany just before Hitler got elected Chancellor. And incidentially, Hitler was elected...)

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[Saige]

Of course, I'd proffer that it doesn't take amendments or Con-Cons to destroy the effectiveness of a Constitution. Pure apathy, or even worse, apathy combined with a charismatic leader who is more than able and willing to whip people into a froth against the "Enemy of the Week" can wreck a constitution just as well as a Con-Con can.

Apathy? While us Americans have it in droves (latest polls show only about 50% of Americans seem to really care about the freedoms in the Bill of Rights), it really doesn't matter when the only people we can vote for are ones who are trying to whittle those freedoms away.

Look at the current crop of presidential candidates we get to pick from with regards to freedom of religion, for example. There isn't a single republican candidate that's not highly religious (Christian), and even the two democrats which are visible are putting forward anti-seperation ideas. Heck, Bush has said he would put forth and Executive Order to ban Wiccans from the military (religious discrimination - illegial in the US except in the military?) Gore wants the gov't to fund more faith-based (religious) programs to help people, and Bradley wants to experiement with school vouchers (which fund religious schools).

Is there ANY goverment in this world that thinks of freedom and civil rights for everyone as more than just catch-phrases that are convienently forgotten when laws are made?
---

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[The Rickster]

Australia's media has and is more liberal than that in the US.
Australian's have enjoyed words like 'shit' and 'fuck' uncensored in our music on free to air radio and have seen full frontal nudity on free to air TV since the late 70's.

(ie JJJ Radio / The Box / #96 / Chances / Nude Hobbies)

Try doing any of the above on 'Ricky Lake'
'Gerry Springer' (maybee)

The Internet Censorship bill was passed to win the favours of a single puritant politician who held the deciding vote for some vital government legislation.

Pure and simple it was a BRIBE, but the irony is that the member who they tried to bribe voted against them and we are now stuck with the legislation.

Problem is now that although we all know that the legislation is UNWORKABLE no politician will admit that it is flawed (Surprise! Surprise!)

The legislation is due for review in a year or two and then the govermant will have an "out" clause
without losing face.
Politics as usual.

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[Tau Zero]

"Oh, well, that happens in Australia because their system of government isn't as good as ours. It won't ever happen here." When deep down most Americans know that it could very well happen here and indeed does quite often.

Except that here, the courts can strike the laws down. And they do; witness the so-called Communications Decency Act. Shot down in flames. The Australians have no such escape hatch.

No government is perfect. On the other hand, this is a perfect example of one place that the United States' system is demonstrably superior to that of Australia.
--

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[OldenMykroetch]

One thing to keep in mind is that Australian people have not asked nor voted for this form of cencorship. The only reason this has come about is because one old frigid fart holds the power in our upper house. As a result of this the government have had to kowtow to his b*llshit internet cencorship laws in order to get their new tax system in. WE DONT WANT THIS

Re:Without a bill of rights..

[Manaz]

I suppose you're going to provide some evidence to back up these ridiculous claims of over-the-top censorship in the Australian media?

I live in Australia, have done so for the past 23 years (I'm 23, so yes, I was born here) - but I've travelled, and am reasonably aware of what's going on in the world around me, especially when it comes to the Internet (I've worked with the Internet in one way or another, directly for over 4 years now), and I know that up until recently with this ridiculous Internet censorship law (which incidently has only gone through parliment because some old, backward, conservative to the point of being absurdly old fashioned Tasmanian politician holds the balance of power in our parlimentary system, and without his support, the current government would never have been able to sell off Telstra the way that they have - don't even begin to ask me about the ramifications this alone is having on our telecommunications industry, especially in relation to Internet access prices, technology and performance, I just won't stop, and I don't think I'm yet qualified to write feature articles for Slashdot).

If you consider Australia to be on the edge of the censorship issue, where do you put countries like China, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philipenes and other such countries?

So yes, it is a surprise - at least to people who actually know what's going on in this country.

Re:Geeks with guns--but not in Australia

[jms]

Yeah, well here in the U.S. when our children go to school, our teachers turn their classes over to the drug police, so the children can learn bigotry toward drug users and how to turn their parents in to the police. We call it D.A.R.E.

Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything

[dingbat_hp]

I'm puzzled, and worried, by what appears to be very vague wording, even for an intitial draft.

An electronic application requires either credit card details, or a digital signature. A requirement for these is an excluding measure, which removes web access from those citizens who don't have credit cards - it leads to an information-impoverished underclass, built from an already economically disadvantaged section of society.

Fortunately the paper-based application doesn't appear to require credit cards, as other proof of age is accepted. However, we then read that such applications may be invalidated if "credit transaction is not approved by relevant credit provider".
Does this mean that credit cards are still required ?
Does it mean that registration also requires a fee to be paid ? (and if not, who does fund this huge scheme ?)

Re:Credit cards aren't the way to verify anything

[rde]

As I read it, it isn't using credit cards; it's using its own 'register and get a pin' system that can use credit cards, but doesn't necessarily. But it begs the questions

What happens when an aussie tries to access my site (which contains the w*rd 'fuck') which isn't in Australia?

How many minutes would it take for 'cypherpunk/cypherpunk' type logins made it around the country? There's no provision (that I can see) for prosecuting fakers. And if they did include some sort of prohibition, it'd be unenforcable unless you were willing to throw the book at anyone whose PIN got out accidentally (say through keylogging on a public terminal).

It's unworkable, and will eventually be scrapped or replaced by another unworkable system.

Re:Politicians vs. public

[wanderingwalrus]

actually, the bill was very much about politicking and not particularly about any real government objections to freedom on the internet.

The deal basically was that the government needed support of an independent senator to pass the bill to sell off of another part of the mostly government owned telecommunications giant, Telstra. This was going to the government squillions of dollars, so getting the ultra-conservative senator on-side was pretty much the key here. This guy is also highly anti-pornography and i suspect doesn't have much idea about this little fad called the Internet, bar that it has lotsa naughty pictures on it. This bill was introduced pretty much entirely to make this guy join sides with the government and let them sell off Telstra. So in another words, one senator, who hails from the tiniest state in Australia in which (correct me if i'm wrong) they are so backward that homosexuality is still illegal. Surely most states would have gotten over that by now...

There seems to also be a bit of a moan and groan about how the Australian public haven't really joined forces to rally against this. I think one of the main reasons is that being so "laid back" we don't seem to really notice this creeping in. I mean i haven't heard anything about this for months now in the mainstream press; it's hardly big news. The general consensus in the public, I think, is that the bill is so unworkable and vague that nothing's really going to be done about it. Even the opposition party admitted that it was just a worthless token bill to suck up to the senator (who i STILL can't remember the name of...). Apathy seems all that it deserves...

But basically the chances of this bill really making any practical difference is virtually ziltch

Re:Some Background - for those who haven't heard t

[Anonymous Coward]

#define RANT_MODE

The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.

#endif

What most people in Australia seem to have conveniently forgotten is that Harradine (the Tasmanian Senator) is not the only backer of this legislation. A group within the current Liberal Party (conservatives) known as the Lyons Forum are just as much behind this. Harradine is a convenient smokescreen for their conservative (extreme religious) agenda.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/lyons.html has more information.

Can you say off shore internet hosting?

[God I hate mornings]

Now that big brother seems to be raising his ugly head in other parts of the world, it leads me to ponder a "work-around" to him. Off Shore banking has helped people shelter thier money from taxes, garnishments etc. Now will we start seeing off shore web hosting where for a nominal fee you can set up a web site hosted in a independant country free of the laws that govern web hosting in your country? If that is the case, will we start to see country A trying to regulate country B's web content? Or will Country A start to tighten it's hold on it's population? Which begs the question of when will someone come out with a way to circumvent the restrictions on websites? Makes my head hurt.

No - moderate that DOWN - it is not 'informed'

[The OPTiCIAN]

• The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.

No, this s just bullshit. I am sick and tired of having to correct people on slashdot with huge opinions and no facts behind them. Haradine (the independent to which Goonie is referring) did not vote for the tax package. Another balance of power party, the left-leaning Democrats voted it in. And they voted against the internet censorship bill. And they voted against it long after it was clear that the internet censorship bill was going to get through. The bill was not, as previous posts have suggested - one senator's 'crusade'. Much more worryingly, it was put together by a committee containing members from several sides.

One Gun, One Vote

[FreeUser]

Hey! It works for me (and I don't even own a gun). In all seriousness, I was very much a supporter of restrictive gun legislation in the US, especially after living several years in Europe with its relatively low crime rate, its relaxed drug and alcohol policies, and pleasant cosmopolitan outlook.

However, events in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo have brought about a 180 degree change in my opinions. Specifically, I find it very interesting that Montenegro (which does have an armed populace) hasn't yet been decimated by the Serbs, yet the others have. There is something to be said about making such repressive activities expensive for the oppressor, and while guns may not enable a populace to claim military victory against a well equipped, modern army, they can make using such a military for such purposes prohibitively expensive in terms of resources and soldiers' lives. Given a number of other disturbing trends in the United States today with respect to privacy, freedom of speach, etc., that particular check and balance, however dubious, is IMHO becoming ever more important.

Australian censorship

[vicwallet]

There are two main sticking points in the censorship law, whether you like the idea or not.
one: you must use an 'approved' filter, and if you don't your ISP must filter your connection for you and can charge you for it. Linux users may start saving now since no Linux filtering scheme is even being considered.
two: you cannot store your 'possibly' illegal content overseas, because the regulations make the ISP responsible for what you access.
It should be noted, the UK had a case where they court decided that even though the content of a site was hosted overseas, the owner was a local and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the local laws.
The censorship laws are going to kill the internet, because they even have the right to filter your email, and if you use SSL connections they can be terminated if there is a suspicion you are accessing illegal material. I watch jennicam and there is often scenes which would be bannned under the new laws, so I guess I will be denied Jennis' smiling face.
Also as a funny aside, the source code for the Linux kernel is littered with swear words that would make it restricted.

Especially because...

[Robert S Gormley]

... you can get a credit card at age sixteen with your parents/guardians as co-signatories.

Freedom around the world

[Kaa]

I see a lot of comments like "Australia isn't a bass-ackward country because there is full frontal nudity on TV, so how come you think it's less free than the US where "Eyes Wide Shut" was censored".

Well, freedom (as in speech, not beer) comes in many parts and countries can (and do) selectively pick parts to tighten and to loosen. For example, the US has a very stong tradition of free speech. Speech that would be banned in, say, UK (because of libel laws) or in Germany (as hate speech) is perfectly legal in the US. So as regards speech, the US is one of the most free countries in the world.

Unfortunately, the US also has a weird hangup about sex (I am not going to go into reasons why). A lot of sex-related stuff that is perfectly OK in countries like Australia, or the same Germany is prohibited in the US -- either outright, or by coercion. "Eyes Wide Shut" is a good example: there is no government censorship involved, but a film with NC-17 rating cannot be a commercial success or seen widely (many movie theaters just do not show any NC-17 films).

Kaa

Re:Freedom around the world

[Masem]

"Eyes Wide Shut" was censored as to bring the rating from an NA-17 (hard porn) to an R (soft porn) rating, due to the studio wanting to attract more people to the film. No gov't agency was involved here.

Hey...

[Greyfox]

Didn't some company just start work on a world-wide network of satellites to deliver internet access to really-out-in-the-boonies places? Wonder if the Oz citizens might find some relief in them...

It'd also be interesting to set up an encrypted VPN between various points in the world and various users in Oz. We have the technology...

R is not always softcore

[elflord]

In Australia, ( last I checked ), the classifications were mildly confusing because movies and pictures were classified differently.

As far as movies are concerned, R is softcore. The X rated movies are non-violent hardcore. They are illegal in each state, but can be acquired by mail-order from the capital city ( Canberra . )

As for print media, there are two types of R rated publications. R-category-1 is soft ( for example, it includes most "detailed" nudie pics ), while R-category-2 consists of similar content to the "X-rated" movies.

I am not clear on how online content is classified ( or even if the censors have made any clear rulings ).

Cheers,

Some Background - for those who haven't heard this

[Goonie]

#define RANT_MODE

The Online Censorship Bill was the result of a grubby little compromise between the government and a independent Senator from Tasmania who happened to hold the balance of power in the Senate at the time. The guy is a fanatical Catholic and is constantly trying to ban porn, restrict access to abortions and contraception, and generally demonstrate what a wowser he can be. The government was trying to get a tax bill through the Senate, and they needed this guy's vote. Hence, from absolutely nowhere, this ridiculous Bill was rushed through.

#endif

The local Internet industry didn't know whether to protest, laugh, or cry. Most seem to be taking a fourth option - relocating both themselves and their servers to the States, happily beyond this stupid law.Electronic Frontiers Australia is working as hard as they can to publicise the impact of the new law, but the mainstream media isn't interested.

In any case, I intend to treat the law with the contempt it deserves and set up a secure proxy connection to a US-based server. It's my guess that, before too long, the bill with either be quietly discarded through ignorance, or cause an uproar when people can't get to their favourite porn sites. Either way, watching the next few months would be fun if it wasn't so tragic.

The Internet routes around censorship

[Ratface]

I wonder how well such a situation will really work. I would be curious to know how effective such systems have been in other countries that have tried to repress "unapproved" Internet usage?

As far as I am aware, it should be possible for people to work their way around these systems quite easily - whether people will choose to take the "risk" (however slight it may be) of doing this remains to be seen. From what I have read (http://www.aba.gov.au/what/online/overview.htm) of the scheme, it sounds like there at least isn't a countrywide firewall in place, it's more of a scheme whereby ISP's are held responsible for the viewing habits of their customers (No common carrier status there then) and that in practise this will mean they need to introduce some kind of filtering system.

There have been several suggestions I have read about in earlier discussions on this topic to try and make the system unworkable - deluging the classification board with material, people in other countries mirroring prohibited content etc. What it is really going to take to stop this bill though is some form of mass protest - and that unfortunately sounds like it is unlikely to happen. It seems as though people in Australia just aren't spreading the word properly, or there aren't enough people who care about the subject to put up much of a fight.

One problem that I have encountered in discussions about censorship is countering the argument that anyone who opposes such a scheme is in some way condoning pornography. In this particular case it seems important to counter such an argument with arguments about the failure of filtering software to be accountable, about how almost all filtering software in the marketplace has had problems with the blocking of legitimate information sites. Warn people that the next step in such filtering is the filtering of viewopints that are unpopular. Explain to people that filtering should be something that is used as a tool to help parents keep bounds on what their children are up to and not as a method of controlling the whole population.

I guess a lot of people are hoping that this bill will go away, or be proved unworkable. I would just like to finally say that mass resistance *does* work sometimes. Look at the fight against the Poll Tax that happened in the UK, where mass civil disobedience (non-payment of the tax by over 30% of the population) led to the government backing down and withdrawing the tax.

Above all else, if you are Australian, don't just sit back and let this happen - because if it is implemented successfully in Australia, it won't take long before the idea gets exported - and I don't want a similar system in my country!

Fucking yanks and their guns . . .

[himi]

What is it with guns and Americans? Why do so many of you seem to think that the only way to achieve and maintain freedom is by force of arms? Are you completely impervious to the lessons of history, in places like India (everyone seems to revere Ghandi as some kind of demi-god, but they conveniently forget that he taught people a way to achieve freedom _without_ using force), and in Australia, too. We were once a penal colony, ruled by Britain; now we're a free, sovereign nation who are on the verge of cutting the last of our ties with Britain. Did we ever even dream of fighting a war _against_ Britain? No. You see, we didn't need to - all we needed to do was ask them, and provide them with what we considered to be a good constitution, which they gladly ratified and set us free to follow our own course.

Please, will someone explain to me why this kind of thing is so hard for Americans to accept? Is there something in your psyche that makes you blind to the possibility that things do not have to be done exactly as you did them? That there might be other ways of life that are just as valid, and possibly more so, than your own? Why in gods name do you have to try and force your morals, your ideals, your way of life onto the rest of the world?
Please, leave us to make our own way, without having to slavishly bow down before _your_ gods and heroes. We are not part of your country, nor do we want to be - we want to make our own decisions, and do things the way that we see fit. I'd prefer to live with my own mistakes than yours.

himi
(and no, I don't support any of these censorship bills, and I don't support the idea that governments know better than individuals what is right or wrong. But all too often these days I find myself absolutely _HATING_ America and how they interact with the rest of the world. It's not much fun, believe me)

Fight censorship with technology

[Sanity]

I would direct anyone interested in how censorship of the Internet can be prevented through technology to visit the Freenet homepage. Freenet is a system to allow the anonymous access and retrieval of information. It is being written in Java and will be released under the GPL. Java developers are currently needed to help with the project.

--

Re:Fight censorship with technology

[dj-nix]

Visit 2600 Australia for our white (black) paper on Censorship Evasion in Australia.
We are the most vocal Anti-Censorship Group in Australia and have been getting more press/radio coverage than all the other goups combined.
If you're and Aussie, you WILL be affected by this law, join our mailing list and help us speak out.

Re:Geeks with guns--but not in Australia

[Ratface]

I'm all for protecting children from harm, but protecting children from information is a parent's job, not the state. Anybody know what the laws are like in Scandinavia?

Well, at the moment, there's a big debate in Sweden as to whether membership in a fascist organisation should be made illegal. (A result of fascist gangs blowing up police cars, journalists and almost anyone else who seems to say anything against their views).

I'm not going to get into the ins-and-outs of this, but suffice to say that I think such a move is *extremely* dangerous, whilst at the same time I would like to silence every fascist out there!

It seems to me that existing criminal laws should cover such sitations, restricting freedom of speech is *always* wrong in my opinion.

Oh ... and regarding peaceful protest, at a street party about a month ago in Stockholm, held to protest capitalism, the police blocked off all escape routes and then arrested 240 people, hospitalised several people (one of whom suffered crushed testicles) and then later released everyone without charges - completely illegal behaviour here in Sweden!

I'll accept that on the whole Sweden is a much more relaxed place when it comes to government attitudes than most places, but it just goes to show that such crap goes down everywhere!

(And I moved to Sweden to get away from the UK's attitudes!! It's an improvement, but it's still not utopia :-)

R-rated content

[Wah]

That what I don't like. "If you want to see R-rated content you must give name, age, address and CC#". If you've ever seen that horrible for kids r-rated movie "Stand by Me" then you know why this is silly. /. often has r-rated content (and worse if you agree with the MPAA on the Southpark rating).

Does the bill get you if you link to r-rated material?

I do agree with the other poster that established media don't mind erecting more barriers to entry for new content providers, and thus will prove to be more enemy than ally in fighting this legislation.

Politicians vs. public

[Tet]

Australia seems a very strange place. Australians are some of the most laid back, liberated people I've met, yet their politicians all seem to be ultra-conservative beaurocratic idiots. Yes, my opinion is probably biased -- never having been there, I can only go by what I see on TV. Am I really getting a distorted view of things?

PS. Yes, I know all politicians are beaurocratic idiots, Australian or not. It's just that Australian ones seem to be very conservative (with a lower case "c"), and seem to be far more concerned with the moral wellbeing of the nation than you'd expect, given the attitude of the main population.