Telco/ISP

Christian Lobby buoyant on filtering after meeting Conroy

By Ben Grubb

Nov 27, 2009 2:34 PM

Claims it was not privy to ISP-level filtering report.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace met with communications minister Senator Conroy yesterday to get a status update on ISP-level filtering.

At the Christian Lobby's national conference at the weekend, Wallace said he would meet with Senator Conroy on Thursday.

"I'll be seeing the communications minister next Thursday about this to find out how [the filtering trial] has gone," Wallace said at the conference.

Wallace also said that the Christian Lobby had "found out" enough on the ISP-level filtering trial to believe it supported their position: that ISP-level filtering worked.

Today Wallace was asked how the lobby would know this information, considering the report was yet to be tabled for public consumption.

Wallace told iTnews he had not received any information on the trial results "except what is available in the open press".

He said he had drawn his conclusions from newspaper reports stating ISP-level filtering worked.

"I'm drawing my confidence from what's available in the open press and what we have always believed to be the case and I think is proving to be the case," Wallace said.

He claimed he did not gain access to findings in the report into the filtering trial during the meeting with Conroy.

"I think the minister's anticipation was that report would've been issued [in time for the meeting]," he said. "Us having been a lobby on this, and I assume stakeholders, he would've spoken to us about it."

Wallace said his understanding was that the report was not yet complete and that the government's position "hadn't been finalised yet".

He said that he anticipated that when the report was released the minister "might have another meeting" with him or have one of his staff advise the Christian Lobby about the matter.

Christian Lobby buoyant on filtering after meeting Conroy

70 comments in this discussion

"http://www.pirateparty.org.au/"

By MarkP

Dell ready to up bid for 3PAR - report

Internode, iiNet respond to Telstra price "aggression"

iiNet launches "Terabyte" plan

UK ISP to notify malware victims

Breaking Stories

Consensus evaporates on NBN model

Internode to offer terabyte plans next week

Analysis: What's holding back IPv6?

Adioso takes on online travel market

Ex-HP's Hurd considers Oracle touchdown: report

Comments: 70

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

btone Nov 27, 2009 3:19 PM	Well that's a disgraceful situation. An ex SAS operative acting as a self appointed moral guardian for the 'christian' lobby gets a favoured audience with the minister. After Rudd addressed the annual conference of an admitted lobby group a few days ago. Ever seen some of their non web filter pronouncements, like homosexual rights for example? Apart from the total fantasy of the filter trial 'results' these dangerous right wing fundamentalist bigots deserve as much access to the inner sanctum as any other cult - none. Jimbo, get your 'faith' based superstitious twaddle out of my internet, my government and my freedom. Conroy, get these moral midgets out of your office, your ethics are getting below the previous basement level.
anonymous Nov 27, 2009 3:19 PM	Nothing about the content of the report has been "available in the open press", so it seems we may be looking at an un-holy alliance between the interests of secret political censorship and the forced imposition of religious fundamentalism. God help us, indeed.
Robby Nov 27, 2009 3:28 PM	Once again, we see why there should be a separation of State and Religion – but then again, what else can we expect from Krudd and Conjob? So much for the democratic process. No doubt, after many revisions, any document released on the filtering trial will support Conjob and the Christian Fundamentals who are pulling his strings.
Simon900 Nov 27, 2009 3:30 PM	It almost implies that a "Status update" means that they we're one of the Stake Holders in driving this forward. I cannot believe that he thinks that the reports so far from Public information has been positive. The only things I have seen is that it's not really workable, at any level.
Sams Nov 27, 2009 4:10 PM	It seems likely that the entire filtering stunt is the product of a secret deal with the Christian lobby in return for votes at the last federal election. One suspects Conroy will hold off releasing the report until either the next election campaign, or until after the election, depending on its content. It looks like the lobby has turned up on his doorstep demanding to know "where is that filter you promised us then!?". One can only imaging what new secret deals are going down for the next federal poll.
cw Nov 27, 2009 4:36 PM	Listen to what Jim says at the ACL conference when asked about Internet censorship. He sure seems to think he has the inside scoop. mp3 available from http://bit.ly/7zENFK (2.3MB)
meski Nov 27, 2009 4:51 PM	""I'm drawing my confidence from what's available in the open press and what we have always believed to be the case and I think is proving to be the case," Wallace said" Yes, but what christians believe is beyond rationality.
KJ Nov 27, 2009 4:56 PM	Outrageous - why cannot ordinary internet users get a "stakeholder" meeting !!!
sputnik Nov 27, 2009 5:23 PM	Every internet user in Australia is a stakeholder. I find it outrageous that a bigoted group like the Australian Christian Lobby can label themselves as a stakeholder on this issue and manage to have private meetings with Senator Conroy. Going from audio recordings of the last ACL meeting it appears that they have inside access to Labor party senators that other interested stakeholders on this issue do not have. There are far more effective ways to spend my tax dollars to protect children than implement some filter which can be bypassed in five minutes by purchasing a VPN account on the internet. Give the money to the Australian Federal Police or similar. From what I can see the Labor party is pandering to minority lobby groups in a way that smacks of favoritism and possible vote buying. Unimpressed, Simon Shaw.
TruthSphere Nov 27, 2009 6:18 PM	Scum bastards, leave our internet alone we don't touch your Jesus.
Mordd Nov 27, 2009 7:23 PM	Meh, it will only take 2 weeks if they go ahead with the whole plan for some 15yr old high school student to crack through anyway, and then there will be 2 classes of net users in the country, those on filtered access and those who know how to get around it. Im almost resigned to this going ahead unfortunately, the christian lobby is strong here as it is in America, we only have to look at our Senator Steve Fielding for proof of that, i am worried about the future of the internet in the country, but only for those who won't have the technical ability to bypass whatever flawed filtering scheme is hoisted upon us.
Craigus Nov 27, 2009 7:36 PM	1. Keep all religions out of government! 2. If there's any filtering I want all relgious sites on the black list, they offend me, and I want to protect my children from them!
bcmobile Nov 27, 2009 8:07 PM	I once read a paper by some crackpot christian organisation which was designed to encourage their younger followers to speak out and help them feel comfortable preaching to their peers. Without a doubt, the only phrase in the whole paper was: "nobody has the right not to be offended". Maybe the religious nutters should practice what they preach!
Slatts Nov 27, 2009 8:43 PM	Let us pray. Oh God, who is so big and clever and wise, please protect us and our holy Interwebs from the meddling of bloody theists and their politicians. Amen.
Rhino Nov 28, 2009 7:10 AM	Hang on, let me get this straight. The Australian public who are the biggest stakeholders in this (well after all we are paying for it) are being denied access to the report, however the ACL get to meet with the minister and access to the report before we do? Oh ok, so their getting lazy and not knocking on peoples doors on weekends, crowds are dwindling at churches so what better way to force your beliefs on someone than make a deal with the government and have them do their dirty work for votes. The scope of this filter is getting worse every week. Just another example why Church and State MUST be kept separate.
Mitch Nov 28, 2009 10:00 AM	The ACL has no business in sticking their noses in peoples lives. ACL is abusing their powers to have their own way, The ACL should be torn to shreds for this..
anonymous Nov 28, 2009 12:27 PM	No, Mitch, if anyone is going to be torn to shreds over this generally unwanted secret censorship, it should be the scheming politicians who are responsible for such a cheap and cynical bid to buy votes. It seems the ACL and the rest of the godbotherers are just doing what comes naturally to them - trying to impose their fundamentalist tenets on everybody else. Perhaps we should "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". Or perhaps not; just never forget the pollies involved.
Ford Fairlane Nov 28, 2009 6:55 PM	How ironic we have these moralising bigots imposing their views on everyone else when religion has been harbouring paedophiles and sexual sadists for centuries and their beliefs based on something that never existed. It is all about controlling the masses one way or the other. Religion is behind most of the violence and killing in this world, so they are hardly in any position to force me into what content I can and can't access based on their "moral" grounds. The hypocrisy is breath taking. We have our parliament full of religious fundamentalists and voting conservative is not the answer it would be even worse. Senators are hard to vote out so Conroy, Fielding and other unelected parasites in senate are almost impossible to dislodge. We need a system of Government like France. Religion has little or no influence at all in that country.
utedog Nov 28, 2009 11:43 PM	Interesting how everyone here is immediately thinking conspiracy theories and the like because the word 'Christian' is mentioned. What you need to realise is that these types of lobby groups meet with Politicians all the time. There are plenty of other such groups, and the Christians aren't the only ones who get that privelege. You're totally kidding yourself if you think that's the case. And no, I don't count myself among the religious.
MoralPanic Nov 29, 2009 11:07 AM	@utedog. It's fair enough not to go overboard with consipiracy theories. It's also important to not take everything at face value when it comes to politics and vested interests. Yes, the communications minister will meet with many different people lobbying for all sorts of things. Wallace has spoken of meetings with Conroy before while saying "we" when describing his version of the policy's aims. There are other stakeholders that Conroy refuses to communicate with at all on this policy (eg EFA). It's possible that either this meeting was a fluff waste of time designed to make ACL feel important, or something deeper is going on. Add to that, how many other political lobby groups get the Prime Minister delivering a keynote address for their conference?
Maxxi Nov 29, 2009 4:52 PM	LOL, loads of angst and demonising here... Seems some people have a manic fear of anything they cannot or will not comprehend...? What's with this phobia about the ACL? And what's with all the name-calling? Makes people look so immature when they resort to outraged name-calling... And the conspiracy theories are right out of a 2nd rate Hollywood flick... And then there is this dizzying level of interpretation of people's words here. You know, people mean what they mean, not what you mean what they mean... lol. Loads of posters here are doing just that what they accuse the ACL of doing, and put themselveson the same level. If this Wallace guy plays by the ruloes and gets his meetings and discussions, then that is his good work. Spend your years working on that aspect instead of spouting so much accusative language and you might get there also. It takes time, committment and effort on every lobbyists behalf to get there, and you are fooling yourselves if you think any of these guys get a free ride all of a sudden. And BTW, if you sprout these types of responses in Conroys direction it is no wonder that you never get to a meeting...
utedog Nov 29, 2009 7:03 PM	Well thank you MoralPanic and Maxxi for bringing a bit of a voice of reason back into all this. Actually MoralPanic it would be iteresting to know how many groups have the PM deliver a keynote address for them. I suspect it is actually quite a lot.
Sams Nov 29, 2009 9:00 PM	"Interesting how everyone here is immediately thinking conspiracy theories and the like because the word 'Christian' is mentioned." Not that surprising. They reap what they sow - just in this week: http://www.theage.com.au/world/irish-church-apologises-for-child-abuse-coverup-20091127-jx03.html ["IRELAND'S Catholic Church has apologised after a damning report showed it covered up child sex abuse over more than three decades." ... "The judicial investigation discovered that the archbishops did not report abuse to police until the 1990s, as part of a culture of secrecy and to try to avoid damaging the reputation of the church."] - a real conspiracy, not just a theory. "What you need to realise is that these types of lobby groups meet with Politicians all the time." What you need to realise is that pork barrelling, buying votes from lobby groups, and favoured treatment of political donors happens all the time, and often right in front of our noses. I'm not guessing here - half of my clients are political parties, and on rare occasions I the inside story from MPs/senators too. "Well thank you MoralPanic and Maxxi for bringing a bit of a voice of reason back into all this." For some people the definition of "voice of reason" is an echo of their own biases.
legless Nov 30, 2009 1:22 AM	Yes get religion out of any decision making on this or any other government related issue. Afghanistan is a perfect example of what happens when religious nuts run a country. They say the filtering is to protect the innocent. Children should have their internet time monitored by parents and teachers. If parents wish to place filters on their home computers or the kids' laptops then fair enough. Filtering at ISP level or higher is just ridiculous. It will slow everything down and not keep paedophiles and the like from sharing their rubbish. Technologies are around that will not be impeded at all by the filters and "we" the general internet users will be the ones being penalised. It's to stop stuff like porn in the near future but who knows what this government or future governments might decide they don't want us to see. Just add it to the filters. How dare these self-righteous so-and-sos decide what is proper or not for me to access online.
Maxxi Nov 30, 2009 8:42 AM	ROFL...! Now some expert is comparing Australia to Afganistan...?? You really have to be joing? Have you been watching too many Schwarzenegger films? No matter that Christian principle societies make up the majority of free and open democracies onour planet, no our wiseacres have to come up with Afganistan.... ho ho ho... >;)) I am not a member of any religious org, but I denounce your demands that these people cannot make their decisions based on their principles, ethics and moral values. And if these happen to be Christian based then it is no business of your's to demand that they do not apply these. Some of you guys are beginning to sound like Commies or Nazis... Sprouting the same demands. Afganisitan??? Oh precious.... It may not have occured to some posters that religion, like any other basis for moral and ethic, can be well applied and badly applied. Oh surprise yes people... You have your knickers in a knot with the filter, so now their "religion" is the problem and the demon in the pantry? Hey but let me give you two wonderful expamples of counties that have/had no religion at a national political level: Nth Korea and Nazi Germany... lol. Sprinkle a good serving of that across your corn flakes and see if you can see past your own biases. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. sigh
anonymous Nov 30, 2009 9:36 AM	The outrage about the Rudd/Conroy filter has per se nothing to do with people who are Christians, and everything to do with a registered lobby group which is trying to impose their kind of narrow fundamentalism on everybody else. It appears that group has had special and possibly unique access to the Minister and Prime Minister on this issue. It is more than just a theory about conspiracy to publicly wonder out loud about the nature of the perceived relationship, and why other "stakeholders" have not been able to get the same access.
Sams Nov 30, 2009 9:45 AM	Maxxi: "Hey but let me give you two wonderful expamples of counties that have/had no religion at a national political level: Nth Korea and Nazi Germany... lol." [sic] Sorry, but here is/was plenty of religion going on in both cases. In fact there was a strong accord between the Nazi party and German churches. In addition, most developed countries have secularisation built in to their national government - so why exclude them as examples? Even if you were right, Nazi Germany also made a lot of sausages. Does that mean sausages are evil? Obviously not - you need to demonstrate causality, not just association. The causality might seem 'obvious' or 'common sense' to you, but that is the hallmark of a prejudiced mind.
Maxxi Dec 2, 2009 9:58 AM	Hi Sams, The "accord" in Nazi Germany was nothing but a control mechanism agreed to in order to prevent the clergy being eradicated on one side, and to prevent a general uprising on the other. There was no religious base to the Nazi Party at all. A core of Nazi dogma was that national socialism (just another totalitarian power structure) was to replace religion, become the "religion". The Nazi's feared Christian values and gradually worked towards their eradication. Remember Sams that we must always look past the public statements and look at the actions. Whilst signing an accord, thay also murdered thousands of priests, send many off to the front as soldiers (high numbers)and came down increasingly hard on any people resisting their rule and then their thinking based on it's lack of Christian values. That was and remains a brutal and stark causality. I think that you must also consider the actual developments in governments and societies in regard to secularism, and not make the error that many make in mixing up the concepts of religious rule and societies being based on Christian values. Secularism was developed and introduced to allow the basis of common law and society/community values on Christian principles, which the majority of the populace embraced (and still do), but prevents general government rule by religious organisations. Secularism was never intended to exclude Christian values in our societies, or the basing of laws on thos values, but to prevent the churches striving for a holding government. Secularism was never intended to exclude religious organisations from lobbying for their interests and their convictions, as the Nazis did intend to do Sams. Secularism is there to specifically allow the religious orgs the freedoms to be active and be involved at all levels of society and government decisions, but not form governments. That Sams is comprehensiove causality, practiced and refined over centuries, and clearly seen to fail where any group is either repressed or allowed to come to national government based on a "religion". Again, you should also differentiate between a religion and personal conviction. They are not always the same. To clump all folks who are active or speak out based on their personal beliefs and convictions, also when these are "Christian" or religious, with religious organisations in general, is the true hallmark of a prejudiced minds Sams... Which you are naturally not doing, correct? You example on the sausages is a good one for the deluded folks who claim that we are becomeing like Iran or China because they have some form of internet filtering as well. Thanks for helping clarify that ridiculous speculation...
TruthSphere Dec 2, 2009 10:53 AM	Education is better than Censorship. If they implement this filter I will take whatever method necessary to bypass it and help others do so aswell.
Sams Dec 3, 2009 9:28 AM	"That Sams is comprehensiove causality, practiced and refined over centuries, and clearly seen to fail where any group is either repressed or allowed to come to national government based on a "religion"." I should also mention that the developed countries with both secular governments the highest rates of agnostics/atheism (Netherands, Sweden, ...) are also ranking very highly on the various development indicies - higher than Australia if memory serves. "You example on the sausages is a good one for the deluded folks who claim that we are becomeing like Iran or China because they have some form of internet filtering as well. Thanks for helping clarify that ridiculous speculation" Other readers are just going to ignore your transparently specious reasoning here, so why waste your keystrokes writing such childish comebacks.
Maxxi Dec 4, 2009 10:00 AM	Well Sams, if you come up with childish and specious examples you can expect nothing more that a similar response. The islamic terrorists drink coffee, does that mean coffee drinkers are terrorists? Give us all a break and drop the specious examples. Both Netherlands and Sweden are very open societies, have and allow high levels of religious freedom, and also have very high levels of Christian values built into their constitutions and community standards. It is these values that allow the high levels of acceptance for people with diverging viewpoints and the freedom to have or not have religious adherence. However, attempts in the past in both countries to sever the basic Christian values from their consitutions have failed and will continue to do so. The vast majority of Swedes also had no issues with their telcos introducing telco wide internet filtering, ie mandatory filtering for this telco customers. I do not have any data on whether it was the Christians or the agnostics that had no issues, just that it was as usual a small group of vocal and active opponnents, which is to be expected in any healthy democracy Sams. Whether you consider it a childish comeback or not, the point made on China and Iran stands as valid, and you made that comparison with the sausages Sams, not me...
anonymous Dec 4, 2009 11:32 AM	Back on topic, which was to ask why any registered lobby group with fundamentalist leanings should be able to get exclusive access to the Minister and Prime Minister on the issue of secret government censorship? Maxxi, it doesn't matter a toss whether they are Christian or calathumpian. In a liberal democracy there should be no secret deals with sectional interests, and if there are, we have every right to discuss and oppose the process (or lack of process). For somebody who talks a lot, you seem to want to stop others from pointing out the latent danger in giving our politicians the power to appoint a secret censorship tribunal to control Net access. Once the system is in place, it will be an offence to discuss the detail of the censorship, with heavy penalties for anyone who breaks that secrecy. Everybody should know what this power to impose political censorship will mean under current or future governments.
Sams Dec 4, 2009 1:06 PM	Maxxi: "Well Sams, if you come up with childish and specious examples you can expect nothing more that a similar response." I had hoped that the argument: Person A: "You are". Person B "No, you are." got left behind in primary school. Since you have added no further value except to repeat your evidence-free assertions, I have nothing further to add.
Maxxi Dec 4, 2009 1:36 PM	There is no evidence at all that any group has exclusive access to the Minister. You will need to be able to validate that assetion. There is also no proof but only speculation that there are any secret deals with any sectional interests at all anonymous. And BTW I agree there should not be any secret deals with any special interest groups.. I do not desire to stop others making their points at all, however the levels of subjective speculation and demonising have risen significantly, and if you look back you will also see the context of the postings: The demand that certain folks be excluded from the process because they had Christian connections or values... Oppose, fine, that has always been your rigt and if you actually read all of my post you would see that I have stated this right several times...?? Censorship has been established in Australia since early last century, and now this aspect of Internet controls is foreseen to be handed over to the same board. So where have you been the last 90 years, 50 years, 10 years? It has only become of interest to you now that it will be allied to the Net... Now by the same group in oversight... The ACB is subject to existing federal laws and statutes, you may want to have a look at those and pursue their history before making accusations about their activities.... "Once the system is in place, it will be an offence to discuss the detail of the censorship, with heavy penalties for anyone who breaks that secrecy. " That is a broad assertion anon, care to be more specific? If you mean the publishing of the URLs in Australia that have been placed on the blacklist, then I would remind you that the ACB has oversight, appeals and mediation processes. But you need to make the effort to actually find out about those, OK? The gov imposed censorship early last century, and I am yet to see the perversion of our justice system or democracy in the meantime due to this... Unless you can substantiate that aspect, here in Australia, then the rest is pure speculation.
Maxxi Dec 4, 2009 1:42 PM	Sams, you came up with the two examples German sausages and Swedish society. You can only expect that someone will then follow up on them with "evidence" and comment. Again I thank you for the Germany and sausages example, it is an excellent clarification point that IU am sure others will enjoy using when some people insist on comparing Australia to to totalitarian countries and despotic regimes. One interesting aspect of evidence is that it can be valid whether or not you accept it. I brought evidence on the aspects of Swedish and Netherlands societies, yet you chose to ignore those...
anonymous Dec 4, 2009 5:36 PM	It seems we have a troll placed here to run the lines about how great it will be to have secret government censorship imposed. "and now this aspect of Internet controls is foreseen to be handed over to the same (Australian Censorship Board)". Really, got some inside info on that have you? And it wasn't the ACB that threatened heavy penalties for anyone disclosing censorship details. Go and run your verbose ignorance somewhere else.
Maxxi Dec 4, 2009 6:38 PM	Now Anonymous, you are not going to resort to childish name-calling are you now? lol I never said filtering would be great, that is your purely speculative interpretation. Show me where I have posted that the filtering would be great...? If you cannot, then I cordially request that you keep to the facts and try your own trolling elsewhere... OK? If you consider the aspect of proposed oversight of the filter being handed to the ACB to be insider info, then you are woefully misinformed or you need to read up a bit more on the history of the process to date. Otherwise again just another pure speculation with shades of trolling to add some flavour... I would appreciate any links or validated references to statements from the ACB or the government that the ACB "threatened heavy penalties for anyone disclosing censorship details." Otherwise again that is another piece of unsubstantiated misinformation... And thank you for the attempt to censor me and my right to join the debate and have another opinion as yourself, I was totally unaware that this was a private forum under your private control? (My apologies if you are the ITNews editor, owner or Mr Ben Grubb himself, however somehow I doubt that....) Now, please note to me where, factually and not speculatively, I am inaccurate. Facts please, not opinions.
Sams Dec 4, 2009 10:42 PM	Maxxi: "I brought evidence on the aspects of Swedish and Netherlands societies, yet you chose to ignore those... " No, you didn't.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 8, 2009 8:21 PM	Sams and Maxxi, I don't see what the argument is about. The existing Federally-provided opt-in net-filtering has been such a wild success, the government ought keep that system going! The existing opt-in system suits all god-bothering families. They can feel safe that their children are not exposed to all sorts of material ranging through to messages from a political opposition. The ONLY things that ought be compulsorily censored ought be something that a judge says is not suitable for viewing by ANY member of the Australian public. This might include instructions for building bombs, performing terrorist acts, etc, but arguably not self-harm (how to suicide). Prohibition should not include adult material or other things that some within the community may find offensive (including religious/belief material). Overview by a committee appointed by the government of the day does not meet my standards of fairness. The McCarthy error of post-WW2 US politics shows how this can become dangerously deranged. I think the separation of powers is the best safeguard. A judge must approve the list, to ensure that it does not involve any political censorship. The government ought change organ donation from opt-in to opt-out (ie donor by default), before it seeks to change net censorship from opt-in to compulsory. The fact that the government achieved such a tiny level of participation with its opt-in net censorship plan ought ring large warning bells that the general populace does not want it.
BrettWinterford Dec 10, 2009 1:52 PM	Ta guys. Much appreciated.
btone Dec 10, 2009 4:32 PM	@ Maxxi: Oh Hi Digger, nice to see your reasoned views again!
Maxxi Dec 10, 2009 5:07 PM	@btone..? If you are referring to Digger11 (or any Digger), who also posts here, then I am sorry to dismay you, but we are not the same person. Not unless I am now "sleep-writing"... lol Are you the same school kid btone from other forums? cya
Maxxi Dec 10, 2009 5:26 PM	Graeme, it is an inherent responsibility and function of government to do not only that which the general populace "wants" and is pandered to in what is often referred to as "populism". Failure to act on an initiative is often not a sign that a populace does not "want" the inititive, or would not accept it as good and beneficial, it is very often simply a question and result public apathy. Governing any country according to public apathy is the death of accountability and governance, and always leads to highly negative results for the said populace. George Wallace was a great exponent of populism. There are some decisions that go beyond the apathy of the populace to act, and require government decisions that are not popular. A couple of examples in Australia were seat belts and pool fences, which have attracted some amusing responses in foums and the media. Yet they are exactly relevant. There were exhortations to use these measures to ensure safety from many sides for years, the public showed apathy and did not use either to any significant degree at all. You would say "that the general populace does not want it."... Hmmmmm Graeme, we now recognise that these decisions to make either and both of these mandatory have proven both beneficial and completely correct. Yet at that time few "wanted" them. Next question: I have recently read that the Australian Censorship Board (ACB) has been around in one form or another (Customs back then) since 1917. Censorship since 1917. Yet, no documented or dangerously deranged developments and usage of these censorship powers in over 90 years in Australia... Hmmmm again, strange one that one. No misuse to date in 90 years, but suddenly now we will begin to act like the McCarthy administration? We have not needed the judges to control the ACB during the last 90 years, we resisted the Mcarthy inclinations, which by your view is utterly amazing as the pollies must have been salivating to swamp us with their censorship powers at the time? So please, show me why the democratic structures of Australia have now suddenly change so far that our highly entrenched ACB and censorship systems (foreseen for the overview of the ISP filtering, that have worked wel for over 90 years, will now abruply become unhinged? Do we not then need to be worried about the police, army, ASIO, yikes!! (plz excuse the dramatics Graeme...) So mate, this censorship regime has been meeting our standards of fairness for over 90 years, where have you been in that time? (well Harvard I expect...) I have an uncle at Caltec, professor as well. Great institution. Cheers
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 10, 2009 6:54 PM	Maxxi, Your likening of the ISP filter to other 'compulsory' measures such as seat belts and pool fences misses the point. You would need to show hard statistics for what lives will be saved through the filter, as the other two things you've compared it to have strong figures for lives saved. The issue is that Conroy said the types of nefarious sites that would be blocked... and then the actual list got leaked, and people could see that all manner of other sites, some only offensive in a political sense were also on the verboten list. The government has not insisted on seat belts in things which aren't vehicles, but what would the reaction be if they 'over-reached' and required you to wear a seatbelt when sitting in a lounge chair in your house? That is more like the idea of compulsorily prohibiting things which are not validly censored. Besides, there have been huge outrage over the years about the censorship board. The musical 'Hair' with nudity caused an uproar, and the government flip-flopped on whether nudity in a theatre was offensive to those consenting adults who wanted to attend. There was no threat to life, only Christian values involved in the debate. It would seem to be about the imposing on one's religion on another in retrospect. Many books and films which fell foul of the censor would be seen as meek today. Unfortunately there is no government in the world which censors the internet for its citizens which does not use that censorship to prohibit the populace also seeing material from opposition groups. You are saying that the present Australian government, and presumably those in the future which are not devious would not offend. However, my position is that you ought be able to limit your internet viewing for your family by an opt-in system... but the fact that the take-up of that offer has been so low is somewhat damning. I don't mind what (non-illegal) things are said inside your church, but please do not insist that I join. I would prefer to stay outside and let you and your sub-set of the community filter the world precisely as you would like. The Armish shun cars, motors etc, and get along just fine. The trick is that they have not sought to insist that others also have similar values. The problems with the Ayatollah and Fred Nile (alike) is that they seek to impose their particular religious beliefs on others. Tony Abbott also did the same with banning the abortion-alternative drug for all on the basis of his personal beliefs. Personal beliefs should remain just that - personal.
Maxxi Dec 10, 2009 8:10 PM	Graeme, did the gov have any "hard statistics" on how many lives or injuries would be avoided thru the use of pool fences or seat belts prior to passing the laws? No, they just had studies to support the analysis that it would decrease the number of deaths and injuries. Thus the example hits the point perfectly. And the point in question, the context (oh how I admire the concept of "context") of the point was whether the populace wanted those measures or not. The examples per completely accurate in the context that they were presented Graeme. Now, if you wish to address these examples in a different context, then we can do that as well, however this does not lessen the impact and accuracy of the inital and presented context. That context was not a measurement of lives saved, but the question of whether the populace wanting a measure is the defining and sole reason for a government to introduce that measure. I contend that this is not so. The statistics that you refer to Graeme, and my experience in University has conditioned my logic process on this Professor, is that the metrics must relate to the example in question, and not be cross-implied from other examples. Thus it is incorrect to require statistics on lives to be saved from filtering, when that is not the purpose of the measure proposed. The question is indeed whether the measure will demonstrate any degree of effectiveness in either reducing the instances of child sexual abuse for the purpose of creating child abuse content, and/or reduce the instances of users of the Australian internet entity gaining access to, using, propagating, creating, hosting, supplying or profiting from child sexual abuse and/or other, now being defined, prohibited or refused classification content. Being a democracy, we the public have the right and the ability to respond to "over-reach" Graeme, in most areas of our lives and community, local and national. We have few if any laws at all that guarantee that there will be no "over-reach", as we have a constitution that provides a wide range of protections in this country. Again, show me where the past 90 years of censorship have instigated and not remedied "over-reach"?? Show me your hard statistics, please. It is not only Christians Graeme, who object to public nudity. It is not only Christians who object to children being exposed to pornography and high levels of violence, overly aggressive and degenerative behaviour. You may wish to think about that. I have very good friends who are of various faiths, and close friends who are as agnostic as they come, and they consider the notion that it is OK for kids to see porn as a sick sign of people losing their sense of personal and parental responsibility. They also believe strongly in taking consideration of other people's sense of proprietary behavior. So I think we need to understand that although Australia is by modern heritage a nation based primarily on Christian values, that does not mean that Christian values are the exclusive domain of propriety. Let's get some perspective into the "huge outrage" over the ACB in the past: How many instances of huge outrage in those 90 years, just how many people were actually hugely outraged? Not every law and statute is based on loss of life Graeme, otherwise we would have a sad and wild society, where you can freely injure others and torture them as long as no-one is killed? No Graeme, there is more to governing a country than avoiding the loss of life... This comment is a good one: "Unfortunately there is no government in the world which censors the internet for its citizens which does not use that censorship to prohibit the populace also seeing material from opposition groups." Block a prohibited image, a single URL, from a single web page, of a site commenting on abortion, and some will immediately claim you are blocking political comment? So I invite you to prove Graeme, that all these governments (all...) have intended to block material from opposition groups because it was from the opposition group, and as stand-alone material was fully legal... Graeme, did I just read that you are suggesting that my views are related to a church? Did you just suggest that the foundation of this discussion from my side is somehow church ideology based? Now I certainly hope not Graeme, for that would be a serious and very erronous assumption, and would cast a strange hue over your responses to my comments. You will have to live with the fact that although I analyse the Australian political and cultural landscape based on the realities of it's legal and population developments over the past 200 years or so, and see a Christian basis of values, that does not mean that I am church-goer. Australian Christian values are middle of the road to liberal at the least. The examples you bring up at the end are at the extremist end of the scale, are you trying to suggest that the gov folks proposing the ISP filter belong in some way to those types of groups you listed? But Graeme, you are welcome to stay outside of the buildings I am active in, which would include a couple of our universities...
anonymous Dec 11, 2009 10:56 AM	Graeme Harrison is right. Politicians cannot resist for long the temptation to use secret censorship powers to filter, ie block, what they regard as inappropriate. Which, to a politician, is likely to include opposing views. Nobody is suggesting "that the gov folks proposing the ISP filter belong in some way" to church lobby groups. It seems that the govt enthusiasm to impose their filter is based on two things - a cynical attempt to buy Senate and electorate votes, and a latent desire to acquire the means of suppressing opposing points of view. And a memo to Maxxi re post length - quantity does not equate to quality ;-)
Maxxi Dec 11, 2009 2:41 PM	And a memo to anonymous: neither does brevity and a lack of explanation and substantiation equate to quality... Rather a pound over than an ounce short... >;))
Maxxi Dec 11, 2009 3:01 PM	And a memo to anonymous: neither does brevity and a lack of explanation and substantiation equate to quality... (OK I am being cheeky, it is a very long post...) Rather a pound over than an ounce short... >;)) If we consider our politicians, we must remember that they represent the inclinations and mentality of the nation. We have conditioned them to be as they are, and direct their actions with our votes and daily, wavering and changing poll results. They are a product of our national mentality, as we have an open and freely accessible parliamentary democracy, which means that they are not, as some postulate, impervious to our desires and inclinations. If the masses yell/vote/blog/respond "make our lives easy!!!", then the pollies eventually promise that and see what they can put in place, in order to retain government. And then, on top or thru all that, they will then seek to establish laws based on their ideals/credo/convictions/principles/"what is good for the nation"... As far as they can whilst keeping an eye on the next, maximum 3 year period election timetable... Anon, there are plently of commments and forum/blog entries, as well as opposing group articles, suggesting or asserting that Rudd and Conroy, even the ALP and then the Libs for good measure, are beholden to groups such as the ACL, and make decisions based primarily on their church membership. I wished to point out that personal beliefs and church ideology are very often two distinct aspects of human decision making, also when there will always be degrees of natural overlap. If, as some suggest, the ISP filter is so unpopular with the public, then why would you pursue that measure if you are focused on gaining electorate votes? The policy was initially put in place by the ALP long before the current senate was in palce, backin Beazely's days if I remember correctly, as the opposition... It was some phenomonal foresight and totally out of character if Beazely was seking to facilitate, in opposition, "a latent desire to acquire the means of suppressing opposing points of view"... However, there will always be those who believe that of the gov of the day, that is part and parcel of politics. So in the interests of healthy "semi-brevity", I will stop here and in spite of how my comments may appear, I do appreciate the points of debate from both yourself and Graeme. tnx
BrettWinterford Dec 11, 2009 10:02 PM	Maxxi your argument is sound. And because you argument is sound, the filtering debate confuses me. I had always assumed that - beyond the pressure applied by special interest groups - Kevin Rudd likes to think he has a good feel for the pulse of the electorate - that this policy is about reflecting their 'need' for a 'safer' online experience. But I nonetheless have met several people close to his party who testify (off the record, which does dilute the impact somewhat) that Rudd's zeal for this policy is more about his own principles and morals than that of the voter, the minor party or lobby group. So the impression I am left with is that Mr Rudd assumes, rightly or wrongly, that the majority of the citizenry feel the same way as he does on this issue, even if that hasn't ever specifically been tested.
btone Dec 12, 2009 7:01 PM	@ Maxxi: "Are you the same school kid btone from other forums?" Ooh, how clever of you to use juvenile disparagement! No, sorry to disappoint but I have better things to do than spend balmy school days playing truant and posting wordy tomes on public forums like some... Erudite embellishment fails to impress when the position is weak, it simply demonstrates a grandiose sense of pompous self importance and common trolling disguised with verbal excess masquerading as reasoned argument. Lost me when you appeared bemused at opposition to the ACL. See you prof, sounding more like Hamilton than Dig now I must admit, university buildings et al.
Maxxi Dec 12, 2009 10:18 PM	Well then btone, OK. I remembered seeing a post on the WP from a btone a while ago, who spoke of his school. Not you I guess... I enjoy being erudite, thank you, however I strive to leave the embellishment to others. The rest of your well versed sentence seems to want to return the compliment, which I will accept as such. I do though invite you to define "trolling", and you could avail us of your thoughts on the otherwise lack of reasoned argument in many posts, long or short? It is disappointing that it was not possible to choose words that sufficiently clarify, for you, the difference between the bemusement based on the opposition to the ACL as such (which I understand), and the bemusement at the reasons for the opposition. (EG: "Religion is behind most of the violence and killing in this world" etc) May I suggest that you go back and reread those posts btone, and see if my erudition instigates a lasting epiphany for you on this subject and the reasons for the actual bemusement. Once again though I observe a strong inclination to categorise people and to align them strongly to a "them or us" mentality. Although as I do not know either of the folks that you mentioned, and have only the posts of one "Digger11" and the statements/articles from Hamilton to go by, I am also bemused by your choices. You make the comment that "the position is weak", I would counter that my analysis of the dynamics of this debate and the developments leading up to and moving forward with Conroy, his relationships, the ISP filter and the ACL will be proven fairly accurate, and that they will not be nearly as damaging as the "other" btone indicates. And once again, is there any proof that Conroy divulged otherwise confidential information to JIm Wallace or the ACL, or do we still only have speculation on this question?
Maxxi Dec 14, 2009 1:14 PM	Brett, you bring up significant points, that have relevance on not only this subject, but to the current style and substance of our government. You have given me some food for further thought and I wish to respond appropriately. I do have an RFP to get out today, as usual last day changes and challenges, let me come back to you this evening if I may. Maxxi
anonymous Dec 14, 2009 3:44 PM	Maxxi, you will be well aware of the standard test to determine when politicians are lying, and you may be a bit naive to seek proof about a subject where none of the participants are likely to publicly admit to anything. However, the circumstantial evidence is strong - as usual, there has (still) been no information released about the report, but the ACL was said to be "bouyant" after a secret meeting with the Minister and Prime Minister. Holy rapture, perhaps?
Maxxi Dec 15, 2009 12:17 AM	OK anonymous, LOL, agreed on the pollies... Wasn't that something about checking whether their lips are moving?? And agreed that it would be fairly fruitless to try and prove it one way or the other. Conroy may have some ideas and initiatives that drive loads of folks up the proverbial wall, he may be an oratory zero, but he is a practiced, polished and successful political play-maker. He knows when to imply and when to divulge. A nod can be as good as a wink and you still do not divulge any confidential information, he can be talking about the "excellent progress" and "positive developments", that the ACL "will be pleased with the outcome of the trials" etc. Manifold ways to bolster someone's confidence without breaking confidentiality. That is typical political parlance and practice. "Plausible deniability", as we all learnt from Independance Day. Folks should be careful not to underestimate their opponent, and for a variety of people Conroy is currently considered as such. He knows how to handle most of these situations, and Wallace or whoever also know what he can and cannot say. They know to ask the right questions, so that they can come to an understanding of the status quo, but not put the minister in a difficult position. Like them or not, these guys are experienced professionals in what they do, as clumsy as it often appears. And let';s face it, what was so secret about the meeting? If it was secret we would not be discussing it... I doubt Wallace or whoever marches down the main street of Canberra playing a trumpet to announce he is having a meeting with Conroy.... or? But, I did like the "raptures" comment, nice touch.
horst Dec 15, 2009 10:45 AM	as an old labour voter,wait and see,any changes to way the internet works,will not work ! senator conroy is a intelligent man . i can not see him falling for the oldest trick in the book. horst in wollongong
anonymous Dec 16, 2009 11:15 AM	@maxxi, so the ACL had no idea that they were going to get all their wishes for Christmas when they were buoyant after their public and private meetings with the Minister and Prime Minister? Well, you've got your beloved filter, so hopefully nothing will occur after it has been imposed on the Net to make you reconsider your certainty.
Maxxi Dec 16, 2009 11:41 AM	@anonymous: I am sure they had an idea what the status was at the time, why shouldn't they? Nobody needed to divulge confidential information in order for the ACL to "have an idea" and get buoyant. No secrecy around any of the meetings, all publicly announced. Well I don't know if "the filter" is beloved as yet to me, but I do welcome some clarity after the massive reams of speculation, innuendo, assumptions, accusations, codswallop and plain inaccurate misinformation I have been reading in trhe media and on many forums in the past 12 months. Personally, I do expect to be blocked by the mandatory filter at all, and Telstra delivers me a 50% drop in performance that wavers around all day, so the performance scaremongering will take an end as well. My certainty, which may people lack, is a certainty in the strength of our democracy and our political processes. They allowed the nation and voters to kill off WorkChoices, the filter will be cynch to kill if it fails...
RDEFCON1 Dec 16, 2009 4:39 PM	If you want to know why this type of censorship is dangerous, just look into the history of literary censorship in this country. At various times many classic works of fiction have been banned. Examples include Ulysses (James Joyce), Lady Chetterly's Love (D.H. Lawrence), Of Mice & Men (John Steinbeck), Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger), American Psycho (Brett Easton Ellis), and many more. Do you honestly think that the ability censor the internet will stop at child pornography? This is not a conspiracy theory about the lobbying power or motives of the ACL. That's just an example of how ANY lobby group could convince a future administration to use this internet filtering technology. The internet filter is a significant threat to our right to freely access and disseminate information - and ALL Australian who believe in democracy should be very concerned.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 18, 2009 7:54 PM	Maxxi, I loathe the idea of potentially triggering another of your overly-confident diatribes, but you are still wrong on many points. Your suggestion that 'politicians only deliver what the electorate wants' has so many counter-examples, I will say no more on that issue. The proof that ACL and developers (to name just two) always want the ear of those in power is to get outcomes favourable to their own groups, usually at a cost to the rest of the population. Your assertion that those of us who fear misuse of any filtering must be wrong is well countered by Justice Kirby coming out in yesterday's SMH that he is strongly opposed to the filter for precisely the same reasons. Like many, we are not seeking to have porn forced upon anyone. I have argued that an opt-in system is great. But when you allow a government of the day to decide what the citizenry may read, you have crossed an important line, seeking to defeat a right which underpins democracy (freedom of expression). And as noted in an earlier post, I don't believe a government-appointed committee is a sufficient safeguard - I would demand that a judge must periodically confirm any list, being able to see all prohibited material used in the prior six months (say) to stop the government from taking things off the list just prior to each judicial review. And the legislation ought have a three-strikes rule, that if a judge finds that any government has substantially over-stepped the mark (ie not just one site accidentally like the dentist's site on the leaked list) then the law ought cease to allow any censorship. Then if the government of that day seeks to introduce a replacement law, let it then try, after the judicial rebuke. That 'use it carefully or lose it' would be a strong message to government and those who seek to impose their views on others (mainly religious nutters of all sorts of beliefs). So, I am still against the filter, because it is like the US using torture - the big issue is what message does it give to North Korea, the middle east etc. I think the only way to 'fix' the western religious groups is to allow the Muslim Council of Australia also cite any web sites it finds objectionable to the committee for prohibition. That way, the religious nutters on one side would have to fear that in getting extremist sites blocked (eg jihadist sites) perhaps Scientology and Hillsong sites might also get blocked for putting up material which cannot be proven, and is overtly proselytising or offering extreme or unsubstantiated views. And if that did not happen in Australia, you can be sure that in certain Muslim countries, (as soon as filtering was seen as an acceptable restriction on freedom of expression even in the Western/developed countries) there would be blocking of Christian sites. You can already go into Google and set the security level to not return any inappropriate sites... I just don't see the need for church-attending political leaders to want to go further. If the Howard years taught us anything, it is that if you push the country too far according to your personal views (what Howard called "the hard decisions"), there will surely be an electoral backlash.
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 12:06 AM	Ah Graeme... A diatribe by any other name, smells the same... There is a simple basis in law in Australia, that stipulates the federal government as responsible and empowered to define legislation and measures to enforce that legislation, in order to restrict access for defined substances, content, media materials, films etc We have democratic processes to regulate this Graeme, and we can as a majority also use these democratic measures to remove Australian governments. In the meantime it was, is and remains their legislated responsibility to decide what can and cannot enter Australia, and to enforce measures to the best of their and our national abilities to restrict access to media, content or substances that are in contravention of our statutes and laws. None of these measures are perfect, many slow down our lives and commerce, many can be circumvented, many have been the instances of misuse of our laws and enforcement agencies. But that does not mean that we drop Customs, or the Police, or the Judiciary, or Parliament, or the Armed Forces, or the Telcommunications Act, or the AFP, or the Fire Brigade, or Doctors, or Nurses, or Teachers, or Professors, or Parents, or Forums, or the Internet... The list goes on Graeme, of persons, groups, agencies, entities, laws, practices and customs that we have here that are not perfect, that sometimes or often fail, that intrude on our lives and are misused. Yet we do not discard them for that reason, no, we keep them because we need to do something continually to safeguard basic levels of accountability, security, control and sustainability of the myriad aspects of our daily lives. Censorship has been around since 1917 I believe, formally, in Australia. So your point about what the gov can and cannot decide what we read is around 90 years too late... We crossed that line long ago, and our rights remain pretty well pinned, underpinned, strong and resilient to date. And guess what? We still have a democracy, a strong one. We have freedom of expression, or we would not be deabting here on this forum. More freedom that most nations on this planet. We can only find a handful of examples of truly contentious or wrong decisions from our censorship agencies, and many that today may seem extreme, but at the time were accepted by the majority as period relevant. I am afraid that comparing the proposed Australian ISP filter to US decisions on and acts of torture, and what signals they give Nth Korea and China, is wayyyy out there Graeme. Nth Korea and China were and continue to be corrupt regimes, long before internet filtering came along, long before. They corrupted the use of filtering for censorship, the filtering did not corrupt them. You will have to live with a mandatory system, due to the apathy of the ISP industry and the public who were not ready to exercise a degree of self-regulation. And this is not a question of what the public "wants" Graeme, that option passed us long ago when neither the ISP industry nor the average Australian wanted to act, now the access of the defined RC content will be technically restricted. There are government forums and interfaces where you can submit potentialand proposed oversight models Graeme, use them. Now, I love your example of : "And the legislation ought have a three-strikes rule, that if a judge finds that any government has substantially over-stepped the mark (ie not just one site accidentally like the dentist's site on the leaked list) then the law ought cease to allow any censorship." Using that logic, we would have to cancel 98% of all the laws in Australia... ROFL!!!!!! That was a joke, right?? And Graeme, if you really want to experience "religious extremism", head off to Iran and get on a box in a main square of a big city, and explain your viewpoints on democracy, religion, freedoms and religious nutters. Nice and loud, preferably to the mullahs there. You will then experience eternal bliss mate...
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 12:14 AM	@RDEFCON!: Censorship has been around in Australia since 1917, and yet it has not undermined our democracy, our freedoms o our high levels of personal liberties in Australia. In fact we have one of tghe highest levels of personal liberties and freedoms on the planet here in Australia. These measures, when implemented in a democracy, maintain freedoms, not restrict them. 90 years, and you will only be able to come up with an extended handful of examples of contentious decisions... The average Australian, the vast majority of Australians, have never seen the need to remove this formal censorship agency, as they do a great job in a very developed nation. If they were truly a problem, they would not be around after 90 years... Or do you believe that the majority of Australians are too dumb or otherwise to realise that?? Even consecutive Oppositions never even tried to remove or substantially change to direction of our censorship agencies. Good luck mate, but you are banging your head against a wall with that proposition...
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 12:14 AM	@RDEFCON1: Censorship has been around in Australia since 1917, and yet it has not undermined our democracy, our freedoms o our high levels of personal liberties in Australia. In fact we have one of tghe highest levels of personal liberties and freedoms on the planet here in Australia. These measures, when implemented in a democracy, maintain freedoms, not restrict them. 90 years, and you will only be able to come up with an extended handful of examples of contentious decisions... The average Australian, the vast majority of Australians, have never seen the need to remove this formal censorship agency, as they do a great job in a very developed nation. If they were truly a problem, they would not be around after 90 years... Or do you believe that the majority of Australians are too dumb or otherwise to realise that?? Even consecutive Oppositions never even tried to remove or substantially change to direction of our censorship agencies. Good luck mate, but you are banging your head against a wall with that proposition...
Jahm Mitt Dec 19, 2009 12:43 PM	The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance. You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets. Losers. So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites. Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on? Why? Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark. Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall. Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that? I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values. Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus. Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right. And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so. Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.
hoey350 Feb 9, 2010 1:54 PM	a vote for Kevin Rudd is vote for conroy no thanks not this time kev.
hoey350 Feb 9, 2010 1:54 PM	a vote for Kevin Rudd is vote for conroy no thanks not this time kev.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Feb 10, 2010 5:15 PM	Until the 1960s there was a Press Club informal arrangement in the UK, whereby if the government of the day advised the media that it would be unacceptable to cover a certain topic in the media, then the newspapers never really covered the topic. Maxxi tells us we have nothing to fear, but I agree with Justice Kirby's views, over Maxxi's assurances. And sure we are not in an overtly-controlled society like Iran, but the issue here is whether we want to give any future government the mechanism to have a complete clamp-down on such freedoms. Now that the news is out that Conroy put a mate - a disgraced former-Minister of Qld Labor into a cushy, not-advertised, not-competitively-filled $450,000/year job in NBN Co.... he must be lamenting that he does not already have the means to quash such bad coverage....
Mycroft Feb 12, 2010 3:56 AM	Maxxi wrote: You will have to live with a mandatory system, due to the apathy of the ISP industry and the public who were not ready to exercise a degree of self-regulation. And this is not a question of what the public "wants" Graeme, that option passed us long ago when neither the ISP industry nor the average Australian wanted to act, now the access of the defined RC content will be technically restricted. Maxxi's breathtakingly authoritarian bias rears its head... The government must protect people from themselves. It wasn't that they didn't want it, they're just so apathetic. Basically, what the public and industry wanted wasn't inline with the government so it's being forced upon them for their own good
Sams Feb 12, 2010 7:36 AM	Mycroft: "Maxxi's breathtakingly authoritarian bias rears its head... The government must protect people from themselves." Exactly the same excuse that China uses.
OzzyBloke Feb 13, 2010 1:18 AM	Maxxi, Firstly you're a f'kg idiot and a dangerous f*kng idiot of the highest order. Dangerous because of your opposition to the right to free speach, choice, thought, ideas ad nausium. Take your legal jargon which is spewing out of your mouth and shove it up your arse. Personally you are a disgrace to people fighting freedom across the world and if you were bleeding out on the road I wouldn't even kick you to the side gutter. Ah now that is free speech in action. Current Censorship law (created as far back as early last century to serve the 2 and 3 rd generation convicts) is no longer representative of current Australian mindsets in the new digital millennium. Piss off back to the industrial revolution if you prefer everybody lives under those antediluvian laws. This is the digital age and law has replaced religious influence and fervour in our legal system. Simply put, there appears to be legislation which needs severe overhauling, for in many peoples opinion it is no longer representative of modern Australia. This filter blacklist is based on 40+ year old Broadcasting Classifications legislation. The internet is a telecommunications carriage service, a postal service, a gaming network, a library of books, newspapers, images and video - and many people's main BANKING and SHOPPING interface. The areas of the internet which broadcast content are absolutely minuscule in comparison to these other main parts. Imposing 40-year-old broadcasting laws to new technologies and mediums needs to be reviewed. I don't care who you are. Mr Justice Kirby said: This proposal in Australia is something entirely new, and of course it is opposed in some circles, including some of the big service providers, on the basis that this is the thin end of the wedge of a government moving into regulating the actual internet itself. Once you start doing that, well, you get into the situation of Burma and Iran, where the government is taking control of what people hear and what information they get. I understand the problem that is being addressed but it is an entirely different approach to the approach taken elsewhere in the world as I understand it and I think there is going to be quite a debate about it in Australia. He gave this interview on Radio 2UE, on 17 December last year. The interviewer said: It doesn’t sound like you are personally keen on the idea. Justice Kirby said: Well, I know it a little bit because of work that I have done in connection with the internet and it is out of line with what other countries in the world do. Now that does not necessarily mean that Australia is wrong. After all, we are totally out of line with the bill of rights or the charter of rights issue. Sometimes you have to do what you think is right. I understand all that. But we are a very small player in the internet business if you look at it globally, and the internet is on the whole a marvellous advance not only of information but also freedom of ideas and ideas of liberty. So that we have got to just be careful because if just one government, our government, begins to intervene in this then there will be other governments who just want to get into it in order to control the freedom of ideas that are out there on the internet, which are the ideas that will break down the Berlin walls of the future and make sure that humanity can live together on this blue planet.
MarkP Jun 12, 2010 2:04 AM	http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

Christian Lobby buoyant on filtering after meeting Conroy

Claims it was not privy to ISP-level filtering report.

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments

Polls