Australia's Internet Filter Switches On In July
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
My dad has made hundreds of arrests to people who share and distribute child pornography. I don't care what you fucking think of him. If you would prefer a world were children are able to be coerced into sex and nudity and nothing could be done to arrest the people who coerce them and exploit them, fair enough. If you would prefer to live in a world where people could take pictures awful pictures and video of your little sisters/daughters/friends and share them online and nothing could be done about it, fair enough. The rest of us don't want to live in that world.Don't disrespect people you don't even know. It's incredibly petty and you are incredibly rude. What you just did was pathetic.QuadFish said:
Oh and by the fucking way, my Dad doesn't arrest people for having "thoughts" he arrests people for sharing and creating images of minors naked and engaged in sexual activity. And that's a bad thing? He should just let them be and acknowledge how demonised they are? Jesus Christ, the less people like you we have the better. Jog on.
"No one can go public about it" Oh, bullshit. Being a paedophile is not illegal and being attracted to children is not illegal either. What is illegal is people who abuse and exploit them and take action. They hurt innocent lives and they deserve to be arrested. I can't fucking believe you man. You see someone say their father arrests paedophiles and you immediately assume that he is some kind of thought police. Fuck me.
This is so going in the wrong direction. If this is to protect children... Honestly don't you think the internet should be restricted to 15+ yrs old... I mean what negativity could it do to block them from it?
Sure Wikipedia has some "relevant" info for them during school time and learning but really kids pick up a book. It'll do way more good than you think!
Sure I could be overreacting by saying a complete block from all material but think about it. This will just become one big snowball effect like that stupid 18+ classification debacle on video games...
... "If kids can possibly get their hands on it then it must be banned completely"...
^ This will eventually relate to the web if we don't make at least some rules.
I mean you're only that young for so long.
Sure Wikipedia has some "relevant" info for them during school time and learning but really kids pick up a book. It'll do way more good than you think!
Sure I could be overreacting by saying a complete block from all material but think about it. This will just become one big snowball effect like that stupid 18+ classification debacle on video games...
... "If kids can possibly get their hands on it then it must be banned completely"...
^ This will eventually relate to the web if we don't make at least some rules.
I mean you're only that young for so long.
There may not be "rioting" but there'd without a doubt be a MASSIVE uproar and protests over it. The "perverts" likely outnumber the "non-perverts" ten to one, and while some of those "perverts" may not attend protests out of fear of being labelled a pervert, they will certainly sign petitions and make their voice heard anonymously.Phoenixlight said:
Luckily, the politicians are likely too invested in porn to ever willingly outlaw it.
But back on topic, does anyone know what the two smaller ISPs mentioned are?
I'm actually not so against this since I found out that the blacklist is from the AFP and Interpol instead of ACMA, which means the sites they're blocking are actually a problem, instead of some political right wing shit that always seems to get out of hand.
ACMA blacklist and I'd be pissed. ACMA is just a tool fundamentalist Christians, a minority in a country they appear to rule, use to ***** about anything and everything that doesn't conform to their religion instead of choosing not to watch it. And is in far to a precarious position from influence by politicians.
If it's AFP's and Interpol's blacklist; I'll support this. I'd also say some of the other first world nations should get on-board and filter these sites, if the blacklist is managed only or mostly by Interpol.
ACMA blacklist and I'd be pissed. ACMA is just a tool fundamentalist Christians, a minority in a country they appear to rule, use to ***** about anything and everything that doesn't conform to their religion instead of choosing not to watch it. And is in far to a precarious position from influence by politicians.
If it's AFP's and Interpol's blacklist; I'll support this. I'd also say some of the other first world nations should get on-board and filter these sites, if the blacklist is managed only or mostly by Interpol.
It's bad, but not as bad as it would seem.
1) The Filter is not compulsory. It was to be complusory, but the Green party (who control the balance of power) demanded that filter be voluntary. Optus and Telstra are implementing it - but others don't have to. I'm pretty sure my ISP won't, given it's ferocious stance against it. So it won't affect anyone and Telstra and Optus can back out of it anytime they want (which they probably will once they start losing customers)
2) It is easy and legal to bypass. There is no law against breaking the filter. There's a law against visiting Child Pornography sites (of course, and I think we can all agree that such laws are good) but there is no law that says circumventing the filter is illegal. And it's relatively easy to do. So if the government does start inadvertently (or, on purpose) blocking sites which have nothing to do with Child Pornography, then it would be completely legal and easy to bypass the filter.
So it's not that scary. Even so, the filter should be opposed, for three reasons:
1) It's a stepping stone towards a mandatory filter. Sure, the filter is (reluctantly) voluntary today, but go back a year and Conroy (our communications minister) was fighting tooth and nail to make it compulsory and wide-reaching. The filter's voluntary status is subject to change. There shouldn't be ANY government filter, mandatory or otherwise, because it can quickly be made compulsory.
2) We don't know what it blocks. Sure, the government SAYS it it's ONLY for child pornography. If that was the case, then sure, fine, have the filter (even if it's useless). Child porn is evil and evil things SHOULD be stopped. But the list of block sites, the criteria for blocking the sites and the process by which sites are blocked, is a mystery. It's called a black-list, because the list is secret. Now, I can fully understand that you don't want to give the public the list of blocked sites (it would just tempt pedophiles to visit them). But can't they let lawyers or civil rights activists see what sites are blocked? Why can't they at least publish the CRITERIA under which sites are deemed fit to block, so that we could challenge incorrectly blocked sites (and you know they will block sites wrongfully. This is the government we're talking about here). The government wants everything about this filter to be secret, so that no one can challenge it, no one can criticize it.
3) Child porn today, but what else tomorrow? When the filter was being proposed back in 08, the government wanted to ban a LOT MORE than child porn sites. They wanted to ban pro-anorexia sites, pro-bulimia sites, anti-gun law sites and much, much more. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like Anorexia or the Pro-Anorexia crowd (they're all mental, as far as I'm concerned). But ban them? Literally BAN them? What next? Why not ban the websites of tobacco companies? Why not ban regular pornography sites for "corrupting the minds of children"? The government is trying to spin this as a "child-protection" act, but you go back a year or two and they wanted this filter to be a lot more.
So while I'm not very scared or worried about the Government's current filter or the way it is implemented, I am worried that they'll slowly extend it, step-by-step, law-by-law until even the firearms page on Wikipedia is banned.
1) The Filter is not compulsory. It was to be complusory, but the Green party (who control the balance of power) demanded that filter be voluntary. Optus and Telstra are implementing it - but others don't have to. I'm pretty sure my ISP won't, given it's ferocious stance against it. So it won't affect anyone and Telstra and Optus can back out of it anytime they want (which they probably will once they start losing customers)
2) It is easy and legal to bypass. There is no law against breaking the filter. There's a law against visiting Child Pornography sites (of course, and I think we can all agree that such laws are good) but there is no law that says circumventing the filter is illegal. And it's relatively easy to do. So if the government does start inadvertently (or, on purpose) blocking sites which have nothing to do with Child Pornography, then it would be completely legal and easy to bypass the filter.
So it's not that scary. Even so, the filter should be opposed, for three reasons:
1) It's a stepping stone towards a mandatory filter. Sure, the filter is (reluctantly) voluntary today, but go back a year and Conroy (our communications minister) was fighting tooth and nail to make it compulsory and wide-reaching. The filter's voluntary status is subject to change. There shouldn't be ANY government filter, mandatory or otherwise, because it can quickly be made compulsory.
2) We don't know what it blocks. Sure, the government SAYS it it's ONLY for child pornography. If that was the case, then sure, fine, have the filter (even if it's useless). Child porn is evil and evil things SHOULD be stopped. But the list of block sites, the criteria for blocking the sites and the process by which sites are blocked, is a mystery. It's called a black-list, because the list is secret. Now, I can fully understand that you don't want to give the public the list of blocked sites (it would just tempt pedophiles to visit them). But can't they let lawyers or civil rights activists see what sites are blocked? Why can't they at least publish the CRITERIA under which sites are deemed fit to block, so that we could challenge incorrectly blocked sites (and you know they will block sites wrongfully. This is the government we're talking about here). The government wants everything about this filter to be secret, so that no one can challenge it, no one can criticize it.
3) Child porn today, but what else tomorrow? When the filter was being proposed back in 08, the government wanted to ban a LOT MORE than child porn sites. They wanted to ban pro-anorexia sites, pro-bulimia sites, anti-gun law sites and much, much more. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like Anorexia or the Pro-Anorexia crowd (they're all mental, as far as I'm concerned). But ban them? Literally BAN them? What next? Why not ban the websites of tobacco companies? Why not ban regular pornography sites for "corrupting the minds of children"? The government is trying to spin this as a "child-protection" act, but you go back a year or two and they wanted this filter to be a lot more.
So while I'm not very scared or worried about the Government's current filter or the way it is implemented, I am worried that they'll slowly extend it, step-by-step, law-by-law until even the firearms page on Wikipedia is banned.
Again - a filter to stop ONLY CHILD PORN is fine. I have no moral problems with that.
But.... can you guarantee that the government would stop at that? I can't. I don't trust the government, I don't trust business, I don't trust just about anyone in power. Period.
Why make the blocking process secret, so secret that we don't even know who is on the censorship board? Why make EVEN THE CRITERIA for blocking sites secret? Why so much secrecy? Again, of COURSE you don't want to publish the child porn sites to the public, but why can't civil liberties lawyers or regular politicians look at the list?
I'm worried at the fact that there is no accountability, and that Stephen Conroy is a moral control freak. The man has said that he would ban even regular pornography if he could. I don't trust him.
Right now, there is no need to "freak" out. The filter is still voluntary and can be legally bypassed (although, rightfully, visiting child porn sites is still illegal, and always should be). But at the same time.... this could lead to bad things. The Government of Australia has, in the past, banned a lot of things. It was only till recently that the book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was unbanned here. Yep, you heard that right - until the 19-freaking-80's, a completely tame book about an extra-marital love affair in England was deemed "obscene" enough to be banned completely. Not only that, books MENTIONING the ban were themselves BANNED! They banned all mention of the fact that the book was banned, that's some Orwellian crap right there! Eventually a copy of the book was smuggled into the country and it embarrassed the government enough to reverse the ban.
The Australian government bans a lot of things that are of no harm to anyone. Books discussing euthanasia have been banned as well - not books telling people how to kill themselves, but books discussing the matter AT ALL (except in a negative light). Now, I don't know about you, but I think I have the right to decide when and where I end my life, and I think that Australian society should have a fair discussion on this topic. The Government (both Labour and Liberal, which means conservative down under), think there shouldn't be a debate.
Hell, the previous Conservative (Howard Government) administration tried to ban pornography which starred women with small breasts, under the idea that "if they've got small breasts, they look a little bit like kids and a pedo could get an erection by watching it! Ban it! Ban it, it's evil!". The law didn't pass, because it was incredibly stupid (adult women with small breasts are NOT children for god's sake), but it highlights how warped and stupid our government can be.
It is for those reasons that I don't want the government to implement a filter. I do not trust them to use it responsibly, and I don't like the secrecy attached to it. Mark my words, in the coming months, you'll hear about non-child-porn sites that have been banned by this filter. And, mark my words, the government will do everything in it's power to stamp out any discussion of any potential wrong-doing on its end.
But.... can you guarantee that the government would stop at that? I can't. I don't trust the government, I don't trust business, I don't trust just about anyone in power. Period.
Why make the blocking process secret, so secret that we don't even know who is on the censorship board? Why make EVEN THE CRITERIA for blocking sites secret? Why so much secrecy? Again, of COURSE you don't want to publish the child porn sites to the public, but why can't civil liberties lawyers or regular politicians look at the list?
I'm worried at the fact that there is no accountability, and that Stephen Conroy is a moral control freak. The man has said that he would ban even regular pornography if he could. I don't trust him.
Right now, there is no need to "freak" out. The filter is still voluntary and can be legally bypassed (although, rightfully, visiting child porn sites is still illegal, and always should be). But at the same time.... this could lead to bad things. The Government of Australia has, in the past, banned a lot of things. It was only till recently that the book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was unbanned here. Yep, you heard that right - until the 19-freaking-80's, a completely tame book about an extra-marital love affair in England was deemed "obscene" enough to be banned completely. Not only that, books MENTIONING the ban were themselves BANNED! They banned all mention of the fact that the book was banned, that's some Orwellian crap right there! Eventually a copy of the book was smuggled into the country and it embarrassed the government enough to reverse the ban.
The Australian government bans a lot of things that are of no harm to anyone. Books discussing euthanasia have been banned as well - not books telling people how to kill themselves, but books discussing the matter AT ALL (except in a negative light). Now, I don't know about you, but I think I have the right to decide when and where I end my life, and I think that Australian society should have a fair discussion on this topic. The Government (both Labour and Liberal, which means conservative down under), think there shouldn't be a debate.
Hell, the previous Conservative (Howard Government) administration tried to ban pornography which starred women with small breasts, under the idea that "if they've got small breasts, they look a little bit like kids and a pedo could get an erection by watching it! Ban it! Ban it, it's evil!". The law didn't pass, because it was incredibly stupid (adult women with small breasts are NOT children for god's sake), but it highlights how warped and stupid our government can be.
It is for those reasons that I don't want the government to implement a filter. I do not trust them to use it responsibly, and I don't like the secrecy attached to it. Mark my words, in the coming months, you'll hear about non-child-porn sites that have been banned by this filter. And, mark my words, the government will do everything in it's power to stamp out any discussion of any potential wrong-doing on its end.
Sir, you've severely underestimated the stupidity of the Government - and don't tell me to grow up when I've said nothing against you whatsoever, that's just plain rude.MattAn24 said:
Alright, there may not be hufe rioting per se, but there will be a mass outcry against it. You seem to not realise just how many people actually watch porn and don't give a shit who knows it.Phoenixlight said:
I know that anon is all for an uncensored internet, but we're Australia. Not much happens in Australia and usually we can't be bothered rallying against something that pisses us off, but I suppose not much has happened to actually piss off most of Australia. And even if there is a decent amount of people opposed, it will still happen. Not even the majority of Australia could stop the government sending us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.Findlebob said:
Also, does anyone know how much this will slow down internet speed, if any at all, because ISPs are checking what websites you want to go to against their black list. I hope the internet doesn't become as slow as the filtered internet at my school.
They should also have every right to take books off of shelves that they find offensive, and take down blogs that might be anti-government, and stop peaceful protest rallies that don't agree with the current regime, or maybe they should halt the creation of material that parodies them, or points out their flaws.SomethingAmazing said:
EDIT: If you didn't get it, that was me being sarcastic as hell, because what you said seems like you REALLY didn't think it through before you posted it. Yes, I understand you probably meant to direct your comment at these child abuse/child porn websites, but your phrasing makes it so broad that it's basically tantamount to giving them control over the entirety of the internet.
The problem is, blocking the website is not the source. Finding the sick sons of bitches who actually make the porn is the source. Those are the ones you hang, and hopefully reduce the amount of child porn that exists.ProfessorLayton said:
Wow, what an enlightened opinion! My life in two paragraphs.QuadFish said:
Seriously, I think this is the first time ever that I read a post like this, that's writer doesn't want to torture, mutilate, and murder me with all sincerity of his hearth, for having this thing in my brain.
Even if I never even watched any porn with real life underage children involved, and didn't actually HARM anyone, and of course I'm not even thinking about doing anything IRL, I have to spend my days reading about how society plans to hunt down me, the monster.
Though I guess now you will only be seen as the guy whose thinking is approved by the pedo freak, so my praise didn't exactly reach it's intention, sorry about that, but still.
Hey look, Australia is clearly the most progressive, liberal-minded and free place in the developed world. I can't POSSIBLY think of a less restrictive place on this planet! [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SarcasmMode]
I think I just hurt myself.
I think I just hurt myself.
i hate child abuse as much as the next rational guy in the world, but this is a slippery slope. today its the child abuse sick shit, tomorrow its the legal albeit sick shit, than its the normal porn, than its any thing the isp/government finds to be indecent, than its any thing they don't like.
as i said, child abuse is wrong, and it should be fought at the source, but as blanket censorship controlled by the few in power is not the answer, if it were controlled by the people it would still be scary, but much less so.
as i said, child abuse is wrong, and it should be fought at the source, but as blanket censorship controlled by the few in power is not the answer, if it were controlled by the people it would still be scary, but much less so.