Its probably, cause you don't have the full story. As an Australian who has lived in the US for a couple of years I believe I understand the Australian and some of the American perspective.
OK. Here's the thing.
The law is almost effectively mute.
First, please understand why such a ridiculous law would get passed in the first place:
The real villain isn't Aston its a politican by the name of Brian Harradine who holds the balance of power in government. This guy is a real old moron whose voters are pretty much all Grandmas and Grandpas. BUT he has the balance of power! So in order to get anything done, the government had to give him what he wanted - internet censorship.
When I first heard of it I was totally outraged (I still am that our political system gives tiny minorities so much power to do these things) and I wrote to my local paper and stuff saying how F*&ked it was. But later on the details of HOW it would be implemented came out, and the Government turns out to not be as stupid as I thought. They certainly didn't give Harradine what he expected, but they did get the laws they wanted passed.
Believe you me, it does NOT mean the Australian people want Internet Censorship. But effectively it is the 'lesser' of two evils.
Why?
Cause as I understand it currently, the censorship doesn't take place at some absurd national proxy level, or at the ISP level - it takes place at the end-user-level. Before signing on with an ISP the user must agree to censor themselves!
This *appears* to serve no purpose - as that doesn't *really* prevent anyone from examining material - but it does impose a LEGAL responsibility.
This therefore makes parents legally obliged to censor material for their kids. Not that that means much. But they 'risk' prosecution by the state if they don't.
(this is perhaps in the same, [at first glace] absurd light of US visa papers - where migrants must check a box something like: [ ] Are you affiliated with any Terrorist Organisation or plan to commit any Terrorist activities during your visit?) Its absurd, yes, but if they answer falsely they have committed a crime - which carries a penalty!
But the kids aren't the only issue.
Now, I know you Americans hold freedom of speech as being absolute and necessary for a free society. Please try to free yourself from that belief for just a moment and see it from another perspective. You have to understand that there are consequences of staying in that Ivory Tower. Indeed, America does have laws that censor a whole range of material. You probably just aren't very aware of it.
Perhaps the most obvious is the international ban (by all developed nations) on Child Pornography. It isn't just a of people who want access to this stuff. Indeed there are blackmarket child-prostitute tours in some poorer nations. And think of the huge demand for 'barely-18' porn. Child Pornography potentially is a huge industry. The international ban on such publications attempts to limit this as much as possible. Society *can* and *does* tolerate the removal of the 'right' of people to view child pornography so that poor children aren't forced into such exploitation. Even America's Government understands that there has to be a limit.
You see, the road to censorship is a slippery one. I'm sure you've all heard the slippery slope argument - it is used time and time again to stress that the press must be freed. (even Larry Flynt does it)
Problem is, the slippery slope works both ways. It is equally slippery going in either direction - and it is clear that one simply cannot be COMPLETELY on one side. There is no clear answer, instead one must tread cautiously.
On the one extremity we do not want defenseless people to be exploited by the demands of the masses, on the other hand we do not want political or moral commentary to be regulated. There is a tradeoff to be made. And all countries, including the US, make this tradeoff. The US, however, has excluded (for now) the Internet in this. But it does impose its constraints on all other media. Ultimately, though, I am sure that some form of censorship will permeate to the Internet, unless the US decides to legalize certain industries - which I highly doubt.
You guys would be amazed at what screens on public television in Australia - American TV is rather tame stuff in comparison - which are consequences of the censorship laws there. Each country makes their own tradeoffs.
Indeed, it is ironic that the US is trying to filter Online Gambling (a large Australian export), whilst Australia tries to filter Pornography (which are predominantly from the US). Who says the US isn't taking steps to censor the Net? Be it all gambling websites.
If you still think this Australian law is silly (I for one still do) please remember that most countries have really silly laws too (particularly England). Remember that in some US States sex other than in the missionary position is illegal.
So please, think a little more before you say you hate us and that we are fascist bastards, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you guys are overreacting...
I like porn, and I'm not all that concerned.
Its probably, cause you don't have the full story.
As an Australian who has lived in the US for a couple of years I believe I understand the Australian and some of the American perspective.
OK. Here's the thing.
The law is almost effectively mute.
First, please understand why such a ridiculous law would get passed in the first place:
The real villain isn't Aston its a politican by the name of Brian Harradine who holds the balance of power in government. This guy is a real old moron whose voters are pretty much all Grandmas and Grandpas. BUT he has the balance of power! So in order to get anything done, the government had to give him what he wanted - internet censorship.
When I first heard of it I was totally outraged (I still am that our political system gives tiny minorities so much power to do these things) and I wrote to my local paper and stuff saying how F*&ked it was. But later on the details of HOW it would be implemented came out, and the Government turns out to not be as stupid as I thought. They certainly didn't give Harradine what he expected, but they did get the laws they wanted passed.
Believe you me, it does NOT mean the Australian people want Internet Censorship. But effectively it is the 'lesser' of two evils.
Why?
Cause as I understand it currently, the censorship doesn't take place at some absurd national proxy level, or at the ISP level - it takes place at the end-user-level. Before signing on with an ISP the user must agree to censor themselves!
This *appears* to serve no purpose - as that doesn't *really* prevent anyone from examining material - but it does impose a LEGAL responsibility.
This therefore makes parents legally obliged to censor material for their kids. Not that that means much. But they 'risk' prosecution by the state if they don't.
(this is perhaps in the same, [at first glace] absurd light of US visa papers - where migrants must check a box something like:
[ ] Are you affiliated with any Terrorist Organisation or plan to commit any Terrorist activities during your visit?)
Its absurd, yes, but if they answer falsely they have committed a crime - which carries a penalty!
But the kids aren't the only issue.
Now, I know you Americans hold freedom of speech as being absolute and necessary for a free society. Please try to free yourself from that belief for just a moment and see it from another perspective. You have to understand that there are consequences of staying in that Ivory Tower. Indeed, America does have laws that censor a whole range of material. You probably just aren't very aware of it.
Perhaps the most obvious is the international ban (by all developed nations) on Child Pornography. It isn't just a of people who want access to this stuff. Indeed there are blackmarket child-prostitute tours in some poorer nations. And think of the huge demand for 'barely-18' porn. Child Pornography potentially is a huge industry. The international ban on such publications attempts to limit this as much as possible. Society *can* and *does* tolerate the removal of the 'right' of people to view child pornography so that poor children aren't forced into such exploitation. Even America's Government understands that there has to be a limit.
You see, the road to censorship is a slippery one. I'm sure you've all heard the slippery slope argument - it is used time and time again to stress that the press must be freed. (even Larry Flynt does it)
Problem is, the slippery slope works both ways. It is equally slippery going in either direction - and it is clear that one simply cannot be COMPLETELY on one side. There is no clear answer, instead one must tread cautiously.
On the one extremity we do not want defenseless people to be exploited by the demands of the masses, on the other hand we do not want political or moral commentary to be regulated. There is a tradeoff to be made. And all countries, including the US, make this tradeoff. The US, however, has excluded (for now) the Internet in this. But it does impose its constraints on all other media.
Ultimately, though, I am sure that some form of censorship will permeate to the Internet, unless the US decides to legalize certain industries - which I highly doubt.
You guys would be amazed at what screens on public television in Australia - American TV is rather tame stuff in comparison - which are consequences of the censorship laws there. Each country makes their own tradeoffs.
Indeed, it is ironic that the US is trying to filter Online Gambling (a large Australian export), whilst Australia tries to filter Pornography (which are predominantly from the US). Who says the US isn't taking steps to censor the Net? Be it all gambling websites.
If you still think this Australian law is silly (I for one still do) please remember that most countries have really silly laws too (particularly England). Remember that in some US States sex other than in the missionary position is illegal.
So please, think a little more before you say you hate us and that we are fascist bastards, ok?