I have argued this point already. Please read my previous posts before replying.
I did, in fact, visit the classification.gov.au website before making my previous post. I will concede that there is legislation there that convers Internet content.
If Senator Conroy wants to use this as a definition of "unwanted" contect, then whay has he refused to answer any questioning on the subject? I don't believe that The classification system covers all of the content he wishes blocked.
I still want a definition from the "horses mouth"
I would also appreciate that you refrain from personal insults. This is a very important debate, and by a)swearing and b)offering personal insults, you are subtracting heavily from the discussion. If you cannot voice your opinions in a couth manner, then you should keep them to yourself.
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship. Censorship is not inherently bad. Again, as I've discussed earlier, it is the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that can be bad. In this case, I'm certain everyone will agree, it is a terrible implementation.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Conroy refuses to answer the question because he doesn't have an answer for it! The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
At no time, in any document, media interview, or Parliament Question Time, has Senator Conroy EVER fully answered any question regarding "unwanted" content. There had been a vague definition offered, but there has never been any SPECIFIC definition offered. Conroy refuses to inform us any further as to his definition of "unwanted" content.
As for your other comment - There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
Thank you for your flame. It has allowed me to explain myself further.
If the plan were only to block specified illegal content, then aside from technical issues, I would agree.
The problem is they plan to block "unwanted" content, with no definition of "unwanted" being offered. They can legally block anything they don't want. That is incredibly dangerous.
It's new here because our supposedly left-of-centre Labour government is trying to impose a decidedly right-wing policy on the public. That and the (dis)Honourable Senator Conroy responsible for the plan shows only complete disregard for the truth and logic, and utter disdain toward the general public and ISPs.
The primary reason for the protesting and media coverage is the fact that the blacklist that would be used is to be secret, and there will be no transparency or public accountability in regards to the content of the list. The fear is that the government could easily, and quietly, block ANY content they want at any time. This simply cannot be allowed. In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.
It's the same PS connection thats on the bricks for the new Al Cinema Displays. It's completely reversible, further reducing the chance that a user will try to plug is in backwards and destroy their shiny new iSquashedCube
It'd be interesting to see whether or not this would gain government backing.... I'm not sure of the laws, but I don't think a 'Family Group' can do this by themselves....
I'm in Oz... if this goes ahead, who overseas wants to run a VPN so i can still surf pr0n?
Slashdot Mirror
I have argued this point already. Please read my previous posts before replying.
I did, in fact, visit the classification.gov.au website before making my previous post. I will concede that there is legislation there that convers Internet content.
If Senator Conroy wants to use this as a definition of "unwanted" contect, then whay has he refused to answer any questioning on the subject? I don't believe that The classification system covers all of the content he wishes blocked.
I still want a definition from the "horses mouth"
I would also appreciate that you refrain from personal insults. This is a very important debate, and by a)swearing and b)offering personal insults, you are subtracting heavily from the discussion. If you cannot voice your opinions in a couth manner, then you should keep them to yourself.
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship. Censorship is not inherently bad. Again, as I've discussed earlier, it is the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that can be bad. In this case, I'm certain everyone will agree, it is a terrible implementation.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Conroy refuses to answer the question because he doesn't have an answer for it! The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
Exactly!
At no time, in any document, media interview, or Parliament Question Time, has Senator Conroy EVER fully answered any question regarding "unwanted" content. There had been a vague definition offered, but there has never been any SPECIFIC definition offered. Conroy refuses to inform us any further as to his definition of "unwanted" content.
As for your other comment - There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
Thank you for your flame. It has allowed me to explain myself further.
If the plan were only to block specified illegal content, then aside from technical issues, I would agree.
The problem is they plan to block "unwanted" content, with no definition of "unwanted" being offered. They can legally block anything they don't want. That is incredibly dangerous.
It's new here because our supposedly left-of-centre Labour government is trying to impose a decidedly right-wing policy on the public. That and the (dis)Honourable Senator Conroy responsible for the plan shows only complete disregard for the truth and logic, and utter disdain toward the general public and ISPs.
The primary reason for the protesting and media coverage is the fact that the blacklist that would be used is to be secret, and there will be no transparency or public accountability in regards to the content of the list. The fear is that the government could easily, and quietly, block ANY content they want at any time. This simply cannot be allowed. In the UK, they only use a ratified international blacklist of 1,300 sites. In Australia there would be those sites, plus anywhere up to 10,000 sites of the Australian Governments choosing.
It's the same PS connection thats on the bricks for the new Al Cinema Displays. It's completely reversible, further reducing the chance that a user will try to plug is in backwards and destroy their shiny new iSquashedCube
If you have to ask why, you wouldn't understand anyway
Well, people - time to vote for Latham!
It'd be interesting to see whether or not this would gain government backing.... I'm not sure of the laws, but I don't think a 'Family Group' can do this by themselves.... I'm in Oz... if this goes ahead, who overseas wants to run a VPN so i can still surf pr0n?