Australian Government Plans to Censor Internet

[ManchestrMorgue]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/labor-warned-on-porn-filters/2008/01/02/1198949855875.html

This has made me really angry.

Australia tries to present itself to the rest of the world as a free, democratic, and unbiased nation. This really demonstrates how far that is from the truth.

Basically, the current (recently elected) government wants to enforce mandatory filtering of the internet. It plans to filter out pornography and "excessive" violence.

If you actually want access So sites that are in fact legal in their content (for example, porn involving consenting adults) then you will have to call up your ISP and "opt out".

However it looks likely from some other sources that whether you "opt out" or not, some things will still be filtered (things considered illegal).

So what will contitute porn or extreme violence?
Who will be keeping those who add sites to these filters honest? Ie not adding sites because of their religious/political/etc content?
If one "opts out" will their name be passed on to the government? Added to a list of perverts? Monitored to see what they need an uncensored internet for?
Will horror.com be banned for its "violent" content? :)
It is unlikely that the people of Australia will actually be allowed to know what sites are banned - already the government insists that ISP's block some usenet newsgroups, and it is illegal for the ISP to tell what groups are blocked. So we can't even assure ourselves that the things being blocked are the sort of things that the government say they will be blocking.

This really pisses me off - when we hear of countries restricting access to the internet, we tend to think of countries like China, etc. Communist countries or dictatorships that are known to restrict their people's freedom of speech. Australia up until now hasn't been considered one of those countries.

Well now it is.

Not to mention the fact that filtering on such a large and inclusive scale has to have an affect on the speed of internet connections/browsing. I mean, if every URL request has to be scanned by the ISP and then allowed or denied, this has to have some impact on network performance.

The thing is - I am not really interested in accessing porn. I would rather watch a horror film than pretty much anything else. But it is the principle of restriction of information and liberty that gets me.

What do others here think? Does the rest of the world see Australia as the sort of country that would do this sort of thing? Is it right?

[newb]

I don't think censorship is right in any country. "Clean Filter" the schools but as far as home use, its the parents job to monitor the kids.

[Disease]

Rudd, I knew he was going to have some wierd Christians policys... no sex or Violence... Is it definatley happening? Has it been passed?

Still, he is getting rid of work place agreements...

[illdojo]

I don't think censorship is right in any country. "Clean Filter" the schools but as far as home use, its the parents job to monitor the kids.

True dat!!! :cool:

[ManchestrMorgue]

I don't think censorship is right in any country. "Clean Filter" the schools but as far as home use, its the parents job to monitor the kids.

Exactly. Schools are a different matter, but they have their own IT people that provide filtering of content to their own local area networks.

They will still want to do this because it is not just porn etc that they want to block, they will also want to block social networking and other things that are likely for children to waste time on.

So they don't need the government to filter the net - they do it themselves anyway. Sure porn still gets through occasionally, but I am sure it will if the government filters as well.

As far as households go - the previous government already made filtering software freely available to all households. All they have to do is download and install it.

[ManchestrMorgue]

Rudd, I knew he was going to have some wierd Christians policys... no sex or Violence... Is it definatley happening? Has it been passed?

Still, he is getting rid of work place agreements...

It has just been announced in the last few days. So it isn't definite yet. As to whether it needs to be passed as a separate law or if existing internet laws in this country already allow for this is yet to be seen. Australia already filters the internet to some extent.

[neverending]

They should put all that effort into getting rid of spam.

[ferretchucker]

They should put all that effort into getting rid of spam.

It's spam like that that gives spam like this a bad name!

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p255/ferretchucker/spam.jpg


What's happening to the world?:(















:D

[ChronoGrl]

And this from the same government who galvanized its citizens to over-procreate, "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5040582.stm)" From the same utopic haven of universal healthcare and social services that encourage single parents to stay in and get knocked up rather than go out and work?!

I honestly have a difficult time believing that this is going to pass. I feel as though this is something that will be discussed (political extremists going for the very ends of the pole)... I feel as though this will be tossed around and then turned down. Australia has enough social consciousness so as not to impede basic human freedoms, of which this definitely is one.

Then again, I'm just an American. What do I know? :p We have the Fist Amendment that the bleeding heart liberals simply LOVE to hide behind and wave in the faces of the fascist extremists... Do you guys have anything like that?

[ManchestrMorgue]

And this from the same government who galvanized its citizens to over-procreate, "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5040582.stm)" From the same utopic haven of universal healthcare and social services that encourage single parents to stay in and get knocked up rather than go out and work?!

It's actually a different government - we had a change of party late last year.

Perhaps though these sorts of censorship policies are really not at odds with universal healthcare and social services for single parents. I mean, these other policies create dependency on the government rather than on oneself. And if you are dependent on something you are more likely to accept being controlled/told what to do by it.

honestly have a difficult time believing that this is going to pass. I feel as though this is something that will be discussed (political extremists going for the very ends of the pole)... I feel as though this will be tossed around and then turned down. Australia has enough social consciousness so as not to impede basic human freedoms, of which this definitely is one.

I really hope that is true. But this issue has been re-emerging for at least the last 2 or 3 years (from both parties). The previous party (a conservative party, more like your Republicans but not exactly the same) investigated mandatory ISP level filtering but were advised that it would slow down the internet unacceptably and so ditched the plan and instead provided free filtering software to everyone.
However they still did blacklist some sites/newsgroups, and it is illegal for people to be told exactly what was being blacklisted.

So it is really a much more extreme version of what we already have - ie government censorship of the internet.

Then again, I'm just an American. What do I know? :p We have the Fist Amendment that the bleeding heart liberals simply LOVE to hide behind and wave in the faces of the fascist extremists... Do you guys have anything like that?

That would be an interesting Amendment, but alas is exactly what the government is trying to block.

If, however, you mean the First Amendment - no, we don't have anything like that. We have no Bill of Rights.

Constitutionally, our government can do this to us. Whether they will or not is yet to be seen.

Interestingly, over the last few days this issue has been reported in most of our major papers (and some international press - eg the BBC). This I think is the best thing that can happen. I don't trust the Australian public to strongly oppose the erosion of our liberties - Australians in my experience tend to be much more easily convinced by political rhetoric than Americans. You guys seem to be a lot more cynical (which in many cases is a good thing when dealing with governments). I fear that Australians will fall for the line that this is to save children and stop perverts; and will be welcomed as such.

[ChronoGrl]

It's actually a different government - we had a change of party late last year.

That's too bad. I miss the pro-sex government. :p

Perhaps though these sorts of censorship policies are really not at odds with universal healthcare and social services for single parents. I mean, these other policies create dependency on the government rather than on oneself. And if you are dependent on something you are more likely to accept being controlled/told what to do by it.

You're totally right... I was really creating a false dichotomy, which, honestly would work here in the States (being solely bipartisan, the assumption is that if, say you're an advocate for the Death Penalty, then you MUST also be Pro-Life and against abortion... By that same token, if you say you're Pro-Choice, you must also be fore affirmative action). Pigeon-holed politics drive my CRAZY (my friend just game me a similarly lame argument AGAINST me getting an SUV... Because I'm LIBERAL, I must also be GREEN... But I want my XTERRA, DAMNIT!)... The point being, it was a lame rant, but would hold true I think more here in the US than over there... I do not thing that your government is that bipartisan, is it? I must plead ignorance here.

I really hope that is true. But this issue has been re-emerging for at least the last 2 or 3 years (from both parties). The previous party (a conservative party, more like your Republicans but not exactly the same) investigated mandatory ISP level filtering but were advised that it would slow down the internet unacceptably and so ditched the plan and instead provided free filtering software to everyone.
However they still did blacklist some sites/newsgroups, and it is illegal for people to be told exactly what was being blacklisted.

So it is really a much more extreme version of what we already have - ie government censorship of the internet.

Sure it's a step, but not necessarily in that direction. I'd imagine that the liberal counter-slippery-slope-argument is, "Well, where do you STOP censorship?" The extremists will always be out there, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have followers... The Republicans here have been trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (women's right to Choose legally) since its birth (so that's over 30 years now). But it's not going to happen. There is no way that abortion is going to be made illegal (especially since they refuse to budge with allowances for rape and incest). I wonder if it will be the same case of Internet censorship in Australia. But then again, I can really only claim from my own frame of reference.



That would be an interesting Amendment, but alas is exactly what the government is trying to block.

bwahahaha... I'll FIST AMENDMENT YOU!

Oh, I'm sorry... Obviously you're not aware of ChronoGrl's FIST AMENDMENT. It's her absolute unalienable RIGHT to BEAT PEOPLE... WITH HER FISTS. :p

If, however, you mean the First Amendment - no, we don't have anything like that. We have no Bill of Rights.

Constitutionally, our government can do this to us. Whether they will or not is yet to be seen.

Interestingly, over the last few days this issue has been reported in most of our major papers (and some international press - eg the BBC). This I think is the best thing that can happen. I don't trust the Australian public to strongly oppose the erosion of our liberties - Australians in my experience tend to be much more easily convinced by political rhetoric than Americans. You guys seem to be a lot more cynical (which in many cases is a good thing when dealing with governments). I fear that Australians will fall for the line that this is to save children and stop perverts; and will be welcomed as such.

Do you really think so? That's fairly bleak. Are there a lot of liberals and/or activists over there?

[ManchestrMorgue]

I do not thing that your government is that bipartisan, is it?


I don't think it is to the same extent.


Sure it's a step, but not necessarily in that direction. I'd imagine that the liberal counter-slippery-slope-argument is, "Well, where do you STOP censorship?" The extremists will always be out there, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have followers... The Republicans here have been trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (women's right to Choose legally) since its birth (so that's over 30 years now). But it's not going to happen. There is no way that abortion is going to be made illegal (especially since they refuse to budge with allowances for rape and incest). I wonder if it will be the same case of Internet censorship in Australia. But then again, I can really only claim from my own frame of reference.


What concerns me is that many Australians seem happy to be censored to some extent.

Australia bans movies and video games.
The lastest "Soldier of Fortune" game was banned due to its excessive violence - it was only allowed to be sold once it was submitted in a modified form.
Several movies remain banned in Australia. One example is the full version of Caligula. So we are not just talking about the most extreme of films.

Our broadcast TV is probably a bit less censored than the US equivalent, but our ratings system is mandatory. So any movie or video game that is released has to receive a rating before it can be shown/sold etc. If the Board refuses to classify it, it is effectively banned.

We don't have the same system that you have in the USA whereby a film that would have no hope of an MPAA rating (eg August Underground) can be released on DVD without a rating. That would be illegal.





Do you really think so? That's fairly bleak. Are there a lot of liberals and/or activists over there?

Here is a thread that I have been following on our "Whirlpool" forum. Note that this forum is a forum for broadband internet, and tends to be frequented by people in the IT industry and who are generally the most tech-savvy. So these are the people who should have the most desire to protect their access to the internet

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=887503

Now, generally the consensus is against the filtering, especially as an "opt-out" system (as would be expected). The things that concern me are:

- The main concern seems to be that the performance of the internet will be crippled, not that liberties will be eroded.
- That many seem happy for some level of filtering.
- That many see an "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" system as acceptable. That is, this would be OK if you had to ask for it to be turned on, rather than asked for it to be turned off.

[Vodstok]

Governments, especially democratic ones, need to learn that they are here to serve the people, not rule them. That is why most countries have stopped using monarchies.

[Disease]

Australia will hopefully get rid of ours soon, it has been talked about a lot over the past few years in politics.

[Phalanx]

especially democratic ones, need to learn that they are here to serve the people, not rule them.
Kinda easy to SAY isn't it.
Ha.:D