Christian Lobby wants filter net cast wider

By Ry Crozier on Dec 15, 2009 6:38 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Government not too keen.

The Australian Christian Lobby has called for a review of the mandatory internet filter within three years to expand its scope beyond the ACMA blacklist.

Managing director Jim Wallace issued a statement claiming the Enex report had "proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet.

"This is now clearly feasible and we need a review in three years that might test this in practice, particularly using third party providers of URLs," Wallace said.

But in a question-and-answer session following the filtering announcement, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has indicated the Government is unlikely to support such scope-creep.

"It would take a legislative amendment in the future to add any other content," Conroy said.

"We're not proposing it. We'll make it quite clear - this is as far as we're going.

"So for people wanting to campaign on the basis that we're going to maybe slip political content in - we will never support that.

"And if someone's proposes that I will be on the floor of Parliament arguing against it."

"Scaremongering" dismissed

Wallace also believed the report "disproved the scaremongering of the sex industry and Internet civil libertarians who claimed filtering would slow down the Internet by up to 87 percent.

"We welcome the clear establishment of the principle that the internet should not be ‘a law unto itself' when it comes to putting safeguards in place to protect children, as we do with movies and books," Wallace said.

"We also welcome the Government's provision of financial incentives to ISPs to provide their customers with optional filtering of pornography and other harmful materials not covered under the Government's new scheme."

Christian Lobby wants filter net cast wider

62 comments in this discussion

"Good questions Slatts.... I keep telling myself not to logon to ITNews, cos I know I will respond to a comment.... Whoops here I am again, jusr taking a peek and writing again. My "hacking" ..."

By Maxxi

Tags

christian, lobby, wants, filter, net, cast, widely, netfilter

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

My Net Fone hunts for new purchases

Australian internet access prices fall for fifth year

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Breaking Stories

NBN Co buys TransACT fibre network

Myer automates online order management

Google technology advocate sends NBN safety message

ACMA shops 'freephone' charge changes

Vodafone still losing Australian customers

Comments: 62

cw Dec 15, 2009 7:25 PM	ACL == Scope Creeps
jackolatern Dec 15, 2009 8:05 PM	Lets clear things up here. The speed decrease was based off the previous trial using a Packet Inspection filter which infact had slow downs upto 80%. Speed loss was only ONE of the many factors why not to have Internet Censorship, funnily enough, the other was scope creep, exactly what Jim Wallace is proposing here. The Internet is not a law unto itself, Authorities around the world already take down illegal content and destroy child porn rings, all this is doing is covering up some inconvenient websites. Books and Movies are not a communications medium, there is no comparison here. Sorry Jim, but you and your crew of followers are a joke. This filter will not protect children, will not stop pedophiles and will only cause problems for the honest whilst allowing fringe groups such as your ACL to continually lobby the government for your own disgusting agendas of control.
Rhino Dec 15, 2009 11:23 PM	I want to know how many votes the Labor party got from selling the Australian publics soul to the devil, because I never gave them permission to do so.
Reece Dec 16, 2009 3:04 AM	"Scaremongering" dismissed?!?!?! Really? In the middle of an article describing how organisations like the Christian Lobby are already stating that they wish the scope to creep... I really wish that people had not argued about performance decreases as it is just usless noise. It is CENSORSHIP in a free country. Secret CENSORSHIP to be clear. Conjob wants us to believe that -"And if someone's proposes that I will be on the floor of Parliament arguing against it." How long is he going to be there to stall our brothers and sisters with so called higher moral values? Hey Conroy? The creeps are going to spread the scope. All it needs is for the filter to be inplace... And why mandatory? Honestly if the creeps want the scope to include their own agenda, why can't it be their CHOICE to use it? Surely no one wants to take their choice away... Sorry, but i just really wish the Christian Lobby (and other such obviously man made institutions/ieals) would get off of its high horse and try to educate their flock. If they honestly had anyones best interest at heart or if in fact they really were 'thinking of the childern'(won't someone..?!?!) they would Teach skepticism and critical thought so that parents(using some form of thought process) would be responsible for their childs viewing habbits and perhaps not stray themselves to the not so easy to 'accidently' stumble across porn site causing brain rot..or moral decay..bad eyesight.. and so on. Mandatory filtering is and always will be a bad idea, it is common knowledge how easy it will be to bypass any attempt, so it is obviously a flat out lie to say it is there to stop or even hinder the criminals at the heart of the argument, here I am refering to child porn rings, bomb building and other SIMILAR unwanted material... But what about EVERYTHING else that encompasses the new 'WMD'... Refused Classification, or RC. So what is the agenda here? Just to get the filter in place for future censorship such as the ACL are lobbying for? IMO this will not be far from the truth.
imortl Dec 16, 2009 8:26 AM	Not to mention that is is going to be SO easy to bypass. People who wish to view Refused Classification content will quickly learn ways around it. It just not htat hard! The only thing it will stop is the casual browser stumbling accross such content. I still maintain that the best use of the taxpayers money is in bolstering law enforcement on this front. $128m would go a long way at the AFP!
Desk Dec 16, 2009 8:56 AM	How exactly does one "stumble" onto unwanted content!? I've had the internet for as long as i can remember and i have never once "stumbled" onto anything unwanted. That is not to say i didn't find things that others didn't want me to, but it is a VERY FAR reach to say that i "stumbled" across it! I was looking for it, and i could almost guarantee that 90% of children will either know how to do it, know someone who can show them or find the information itself (i am a bit rusty on RC but information on internet networking isn't RC so they can't exactly filter it) I know there is NO way that I'd be voting Labor now
zaphod6502 Dec 16, 2009 9:22 AM	Finally we see the Labor governments true colours. I hope the Australian public enjoys the communist dictatorship they voted into office. Rudd can join his communist brothers in China and they can compliment each other in Mandarin once they have squashed all resistance in this country.
Sams Dec 16, 2009 9:25 AM	An so Labor's secret deal with the Christian lobby that helped Labor get elected is coming to pass. For better of for worse, it is very unlikely that Labor will get voted out in the next election. However, one way to make sure this farcical legislation never sees the light of day it to get more Greens in the senate so that the bill can be blocked. I wouldn't trust the Libs on this as they could just as well flip-flop in return for other favours.
Robby Dec 16, 2009 9:32 AM	And so it starts. Conjob and the religious lobby groups get the filter legistation passed and over time extend it. Starting with protecting children from paedophiles, who can easily get around the filter anyway, then what next? Secretly block access to any site that mentions abortion? Because women have no right to choose? Euthanasia? Gay rights? Because somewhere in the Bbible it apparently says, gay people will burn in hell? What gets secretly banned in the later amendments? Sites that are critical of human rights in China? Obviously, we can’t allow the Australian people to be critical of our largest trading partner? Who needs to know about Tiananmen Square anyway. Sites that are critical of KRudd selling out the Australian people to a vocal minority? Belittling self serving morons is a crime? Will Yahoo and Google be asked to provide the IP address of bloggers who run blogs critical of politicians or lobby groups? Will sites about Darwin and Evolution also be blocked? All those sites that let you read up on Intelligent Design and how dinosaurs and humans lived happy together will give kids a warm fuzzy feeling. Will websites for Atheists, Agnostics or non Christian religions also be blocked? Being an Atheist is so subversive. If it was lobby groups for Developers trying to get entire suburbs rezoned for high density, people would get upset. But if a group of ultra conservative Christians push for banning access to sites on the internet, the Australian people roll over and lap up the argument that it’s just to "protect children". Just how much power should lobby groups have?
bcmobile Dec 16, 2009 9:32 AM	I do agree with all of the anti-labour comments however if you're concerned about our govt bowing to the christian lobbyists, Tony Abbott is not your man! I hate to say it, but the greens look like our best option at the moment. I am seriously considering leaving Australia for good. I really don't like the way we are headed.
RDEFCON1 Dec 16, 2009 9:48 AM	The problem with any type of power to enforce censorship is that once it's place, it can be gradually and almost unnnoticeably extended over time until one day you wake up and find YOU'VE been banned. Introduce the power to restrict what people look at and read, and someday, someone will misuse it. The removal of liberty is an insidious, slippery slope - and we will all live to regret voting in this government. No amount of political assurances that this filter won't turn out like can actually guarantee that this filter won't be enhanced and extended in the future.
RDEFCON1 Dec 16, 2009 9:51 AM	That said, I wouldn't mind filtering the ACL from the internet... :)
zaphod6502 Dec 16, 2009 9:51 AM	@bcmobile: You are absolutely right. Abbott is even more of a christian fundamentalist nutter than Rudd is. Neither government should be allowed to hold power in this country.
brad23 Dec 16, 2009 9:58 AM	This country was built on the concept of freedom of religion, it's even in our constitution. I see no way that it could be legal for a religious group to enforce their belief system or morals by censoring our internet.
Lukas Dec 16, 2009 10:49 AM	Keep your Rosaries off my ISP!
legless Dec 16, 2009 10:57 AM	If the christian lobby groups had their way, we would not have access to any content related to pornography, abortion, euthanasia, atheism or any other topic that disagrees with their narrow viewpoint. What is considered "illegal content" now might only be the tip of the iceberg to a future government. The government says it would take a change in legislation to broaden the scope of the cleanfeed filtering but it's funny that it was no problem to put it in place to start with. Were the opinions of the majority of internet users in Australia taken into account before doing it? No! Once again the governments panders to the wishes of a very vocal lunatic minority. Sadly what choices do we have at the next election? Keep in the government that did this or vote in a new one that will take us back to the 19th century.
Sams Dec 16, 2009 11:38 AM	"Sadly what choices do we have at the next election? Keep in the government that did this or vote in a new one that will take us back to the 19th century." The lower house is a dead loss, but the senate is more amenable to change. These laws can't get passed without the approval of the senate.
frances Dec 16, 2009 11:58 AM	And so it came to pass that all websites were filtered except those that say the Earth was created in 4004 BC. And He looked down upon the chaos that was once civilisation, and saw that it was good. Hallelujah, Hallelujah , Hallelujah. How the hell did we end up with so many God botherers in both parties? Is it a reaction to Islam extremism?
Zvim Dec 16, 2009 1:20 PM	This is the problem when you start to filter content, once it gets in people will seek to push it further and further, it has to be stopped. The logic behind internet filtering is insane. It is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children are doing, you wouldn't send your kids out into the streets to fend for themselves and letting them loose on the internet is pretty much the same thing. You can't ban streets just because some parents are bad parents. Make it illegal to leave children unsupervised on the internet and if underage children are found accessing inappropriate content then fine or imprison the parents. The rest of the community shouldn't be penalised because there are bad parents, punish the bad parents.
Private Citizen Dec 16, 2009 1:54 PM	When was the last time you wrote to you MP on this matter? When was the last time you friends wrote to their MP on this matter? Remind them that if they pass the bill you vote against them and will move your preferences away from them. I live in a state where I cant even elect the premier, my party loyalties can now be described as fleeting. So I am now willing to vote on single issues. Remember once net censorship is legislated, amendments can be made with no consultation and almost no announcement. The moral nutters will already have lists of thousands of sites they want ACMA to review and ban. Once banned you cant appeal or ask for a review because they wont tell you what they have banned - pure stupidty.
Jahm Mitt Dec 16, 2009 1:58 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.
llama9000 Dec 16, 2009 3:12 PM	@bcmobile -- DON'T vote for Greens. They are in cohorts with Labor and WILL give them preference votes. For once I'm considering the Pirate Party.
Perdix Dec 16, 2009 3:37 PM	This is tantamount to Taliban rule, western style!. before you know it, we will all have to register for the content we wish to see, and anything other than fundamentalist Christian approved content will be banned, for the "good of the children". No form of censorship can ever be seen as good. If concerns about what children may see on the web are the real issue ( and I suspect this has more to do with control and special interest groups than protecting children)then it seems to be overriding the rights and obligations of parents. having raised 3 children to adulthood in an internet world, I can with some authority say that the best protection is parents who care, keeping TV's and PC's out of bedrooms ( they play havoc with sleep patterns anyway) and communication with the children. I certainly did not see it as the States role to determine what was suitable content for my children, that was my responsibility, and not one that I was prepared to abdicate in favour of someone who knows neither me or my children. I have a simple message for those who want to meddle in my life...get out of it, I'm not playing anymore, I don't want anything to do with you, your strange beliefs that you know whats best for me, or your pathetically immature attitude that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. I determine how I life my life, not you, so butt out, and leave my books, movies, internet and life alone.
anonymous Dec 16, 2009 5:07 PM	Many people have pointed out here and elsewhere that the fundamentalists have now got their secret political censorship, and are already working to expand the banned list. It would be easy to see this as simply the result of a weak and cynical minister bowing to a noisy pressure group to garner some senate and other votes. However, despite a chorus of "the govt wouldn't do that" from the true believers, two things are certain: The list will be expanded gradually to take in many things that are well outside the minister's current statement; and The temptation for this or a future govt to use their ability to impose secret political censorship, by the govt or their nominees, may prove too much for the political apparatchiks at the time to ignore.
Sams Dec 16, 2009 5:30 PM	"They are in cohorts with Labor and WILL give them preference votes." I think you mean "cahoots" and, no, believe me they are not. Labor often gets preferences because they are often more willing to do deals on the Greens issues, although several times they have reneged their side of the bargain. Labor really are not well liked by the Greens - but often the choice is the lesser of two evils. Lately Greens have not been giving preferences to Labor in some electorates. This is decided in the local branch in each electorate, although it is true that branches often choose to have a central state or federal team to negotiate preferences on their behalf. As a voter, you can also choose to allocate your preferences in whatever way you wish. Remember that the Pirate Party, like the Greens, will probably not win lower house seats, so their preferences their will eventually flow into one of the two big parties: Labor or Libs. It is not clear to me which way they would go - but an interesting question to ponder.
Mordd Dec 16, 2009 8:43 PM	GetUp is running a campaign to raise awareness about the filter legislation and to utilise people power to try and stop the legislation from being passed. I would highly recommended everyone signup here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 Then use GetUps tool to send an email alert to everyone you know to bring this to their attention. This is no longer just an issue for techies, activists or journalists, this is now an issue that every net user in Australia needs to be aware of!
Johnny Dec 16, 2009 10:18 PM	See how great religion is for our world? It really is great. Especially when I believe there is an inverse relationship between how religious somebody is and their IQ. (sarcasm).
Digger11 Dec 17, 2009 9:31 AM	I think you have all got this Internet censorship debate totally confused. It is a minor detail in the bigger picture. Now, I have to be very carfeful how I word this, otherwise Brett will be forced to censor this post and send me one of his wonderful warning Emails (not that I'm blaming him, because as the editor of a website you NEED TO CENSOR IT otherwise you can and probably will be sued). So, we already have censorship. We cannot talk openly about immigration, population policy, or anything remotely related as it is considered racist very very quickly. I caught a tram home last night after a xmas function, and it was 100% full of people who looked Indian or Chinese. I cannot make any comment on if this is good or bad, otherwise Brett will need to censor me. He has no choice. So, while you Internet warriors seem to worried about a couple of child porn websites being blocked, the whole cultural, livability, and social nature of Australia is being changed with NO PUBLIC DEBATE. Once again, I can only say that our country is being greatly changed (and very quickly), but cannot make a comment on if it is good or bad. So censorship is here already - you all just haven't noticed it for some reason.
KJ Dec 17, 2009 10:12 AM	ahh Digger11 is showing his true colours at last.....
Mitch Dec 17, 2009 10:41 AM	The ACL has no rights to lobby anything on anyone and especially pushing their religious moral agenda on everyone too. I wouldn't even leave kids around anyone who associates with the ACL.
Maxxi Dec 17, 2009 11:20 AM	The ACL has every right that you and I have to lobby Mitch. In case you had not noticed, Australia is still a democracy... Or would you introduce laws that ban the ACL from lobbying? Is that your political model Mitch?
Sams Dec 17, 2009 3:16 PM	"So censorship is here already - you all just haven't noticed it for some reason. " No, it's just that everyone else here understands the difference between moderation and censorship. Resources abound - go and look it up.
Maxxi Dec 17, 2009 4:17 PM	Sams, soz mate but moderation is and always was a form of censorship. A third party decides what can and cannot be printed or communicated on a site or in a forum etc. "Understands the difference" here is nothing more than accepting the censorship here because it is not uncomfortable, bacause you accept the referee here... It is the old conundrum Sams, where we do not accept the referee, it is "censorship", where we do, we call it "moderation". It becomes subjective and not objective...
Digger11 Dec 17, 2009 4:33 PM	@KJ and what colours are they ???? yellow ? black ? your comment would have to rank as the stupidest for the year.
Digger11 Dec 17, 2009 4:34 PM	@Maxxii I do agree with your last point - as it is correct.
block Dec 17, 2009 6:17 PM	I'm curious how child pornography sites might make it on the list. I have been on the internet since the early 90's and have to say I have never (accidentally or otherwise) come across child pornography. How is it that someone stumbles across it in the first place in order to make a complaint? Surly those actively out seeking it won't report it to the ACMA and surley the cops looking for it are out to arrest someone (not tip them off by blocking it). If it comes down to it, block kiddy porn... I don't care. Block anything else and its a no go. Just because some people may not like to view some of RC - that is still legal, doesn't mean that I may not want to.
donn prud Dec 17, 2009 6:18 PM	The Senator is claiming that his filter is 100%. That it will not slow any connection, but more importantly, it is 100% accurate in filtering out child pornography and other RC/illegal material. It has to be 100%, any admission of flaws in it's ability to filter the internet would be an admission that it does not work. By making it mandatory, it is taking the freedom of choice away from the individual. But it also means that the filter is also taking away the responsibility from the individual. Because if the filter is as foolproof as is claimed, ALL internet material that can be accessed in Australia MUST be legal. Otherwise the foolproof filter would have blocked that material. The scary? This filter means it will be IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute any person for accessing child pornography on the internet. Senator Conroy is in fact making it EASIER and LEGAL for pedophiles to collect and exchange their sickening material.
Sams Dec 17, 2009 11:10 PM	Digger11: "A third party decides what can and cannot be printed or communicated on a site or in a forum etc." A "third party"? Really? I suspect you mean the owners of this forum whose rules we agree to heed before joining. As I said, information resource abound on this, but I suspect you either didn't bother looking them up, or found them too subtle to comprehend. Since most people here understand the difference, so I'm not going to waste my time tutoring you.
Maxxi Dec 17, 2009 11:37 PM	It is still a form of censorship when you block or remove a post or data that someone had placed or tried to place there Sams. "Censorship" is not just political parties or governments defining a blacklist and applying it to internet traffic, it is not just staff running blacklines through soldier's letters back home in 1944, it is not just a headmaster deciding against an article for the school newsletter due to potential protest, it is in priniple any act of removing or blocking the publication of any content in any medium based on a set of rules decided on by those responsible for the oversight and/or legaliity of any publication, broadcasting or information dissemination medium. You cannot pick "censorship" for those acts that you do not like, and "moderation" for the ones you accept.... lol ACMA is only "moderating" the Austrlian internet under those criteria...
Sams Dec 18, 2009 11:38 AM	"You cannot pick "censorship" for those acts that you do not like, and "moderation" for the ones you accept.... lol" Like I said chuckles, go and do some reading.
anonymous Dec 18, 2009 3:29 PM	@Sams, perhaps Maxxi might need to consider doing a bit more than just some reading to join our universe. S/he thinks everything that St Kevin and Cardinal Conroy have done is just wonderful, can't wait to have Chinese-type secret censorship imposed in Australia and can quote intricate detail from ALP policy documents at the drop of a hat. Go figure.
Framtonm Dec 18, 2009 4:57 PM	What else does the Moral Right want to see filtered? Other religions? Sites that may be anti-religious such as Unreasonablefaith.com Remember, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
TuffGuy Dec 18, 2009 9:49 PM	To add another perspective the so-called christian lobby are hardly the ones that should be standing up and being so righteous on such an issue. After all almost all paedophiles in recent memory have been either priests or religious school teachers. Perhaps they should be fixing up their own backyards before standing on their soapboxes calling us all a bunch of perverts.
Maxxi Dec 18, 2009 11:25 PM	@anonymous: I quoted from openly available ALP docs, and found them via links from filter-protesters in WP... As Sams suggested, I have been reading, which I now suggest you do as well. If we had Chinese style censorship this forum would not exist and you could not make your insightful remarks... So I figure you probably simply do not know enough about the subject matter, have not seen the openly published ALP policy docs on filtering (check the ISP filtering thread on WP - it is often linked), you like making aspersions and you do not have the slightest inkling what I do or do not think of Rudd's and Conroy's decisions... I am not sure I want to "join" your universe, but I am happy to continue to seek co-existence...
Maxxi Dec 18, 2009 11:33 PM	@ Sams: a lol for you... >;)) Better to chuckle at the differences of viewpoint, than to try and raise yourself above the other party... There are myriad comments in these forums about how bad that is from the religious nutters, ACL, moralists, Conjob fanbois etc. A good knife cuts both ways Sams... "Moderation" remains a form of censorship, and always was, but I accept them both in their place and by those responsible...
Jahm Mitt Dec 19, 2009 12:46 PM	It wasn't the case of the Nazi's vs. the christians. The Nazi's WERE the christians.
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 3:20 PM	Incorrect Jahm. Core Nazi doctrine was that nationalist socialism replaces religions, but first of all redefined religious cult to place Hitler as the earthly mouthpiece of whatever deity you believd in... That was an immediate departure from Christianity, and they only used relationships with the churches as a transition to enhance the co-operation of the public. If you want to understand more about the nazis and Christianity and the churches, I suggest you read up on Der Krystalnacht. Primarily a front to attack the Jewish populace in Austria, a whole group of outspoken and independant priests and church officials were murdred in that night... Tip for you Jahm: Simply because someone is born into a Christian family and attends church for many years, does not mean they are "Christian"... You will have to learn to differentiate between the label and the substance, between the suit and the conviction... Not everyone in a church is a true Christian, not every true Christian attends church... The nazis were not the Christians...
ejobrien Dec 20, 2009 9:21 AM	The Christian Lobby have a particular agenda, and their proposal to expand the filtering scope is consistent with this agenda. Ultimately they are trying to save people's souls. This goal no doubt seems admirable to them, and is entirely consistent with their beliefs. Fortunately though, we live in a secular society, where the goals and aspirations of religious groups (of all persuasions) are kept in check by our constitution. If the government were to expand the scope of the mandatory filtering to restrict content purely because one particular religious group finds it offensive, then this would be a clear violation of section 116 of The Australian Constitution. I really don't think this is going to happen.
razblow Dec 20, 2009 4:26 PM	Heya Maxxi, So if I understand your position correctly, you’re saying it’s not a matter of censorship vs no censorship. The point of contention is what kind of censorship one wants or allows. Yes? And by making that previous point, you’re not necessarily saying that you support Conroy’s scheme? Yes? What then do you think of Conroy’s plans? I’m not incredibly well read on this debate, but knee jerk reaction tilts me in the direction of “this ain’t good.”
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 12:51 AM	Hi Razblow, We have various forms of censorship in most aspects of opur lives today, we just call it something else. There are people deciding every day whether or not some content or info gets published or not, will be accessible or not, is in contravention of some regulation or not. Whirlpool, as an example, has standards and regulations, and censors comments every day. We call it moderation, but the mods make a decision on what is allowed or not, as they carry the accountability for that site and it's intended use. It is long past the date where we can speak of a censorship vs no censorship debate, agreed. It is a question of the form and application of the censorship. Every society on the planet has expectations and parameters of what they accept or do not accept, none is excepted from that practice. The citizens of every society on Earth has one method or the other to express what those limits are, and generally have some sort of government to manage that process... I believe that the adaptation and implementation of existing laws in this regard to apply suitable levels of control on the internet are required, just as they are for all forms of content and media distribution, publishing, delivery and presentation etc that we today have. (TV, cinema, print media, DVD etc) The adaptation to the internet is a critical aspect,and some form of this is required. So let's see the legislation, the levels of oversight, the legal definitions, the criteria for the ISPs, the various vendor products that will hit the market etc. Conroy has not been incredibly good at articulating the plans to date,and has often left himself open to misinterpretation. But it does look like he has a plan that he can execute on and that the ISP industry will fall into line, and the majority of Australians will not vote him or the ALP out next election due to this... What can I say, you also need to go by your own judgements and impressions, once you are suitably informed on all aspects and the facts. Sorting the facts from the speculation, assumptions and doomsday claims is an interesting process, good luck. Naturally, no pollie or gov is perfect, and the previous process via ACMA was not optimal at all. We will all want to see marked improvements there...
Sams Dec 22, 2009 11:30 AM	"We have various forms of censorship in most aspects of opur lives today, we just call it something else." Yes, for example traffic lights censor traffic, and when you choose to write with a red pen instead of blue, you are censoring yourself, and so on .. and black is the new white. It is a classic political tactic to try to redefine words. But nobody is buying it here.
Maxxi Dec 24, 2009 1:58 AM	Anytime someone introduces measures that inhibit or stop the publication, presentation, availability or distribution of information in some format Sams, that is a form of censorship. Censorship is not oloy Conroy filtering RC content from the Australian internet. It is also when a headmaster decides that students article is not suitable forthe school newsletter because it handles a ssensitive theme, or is too brash, or is deemed inappropriate. Exactly the same. It is the same when the mods in WP decide a post contravenes their guidelines and remove it. Exactly the same. It is the same when the chief of a barbarian tribe stops another barbarian from grunting out loud that the medicine man is an epic fail... Exactly the same. It is the same when little Johhny wants to drop his daks in kindergarten and impress everyone with his newly discovered masculinity, and the teachers decide that the others can be spared that revelation... Exactly the same... Censorship is not just governments strapping controls on the public, it is everywhere where one person or entity inhibits another from expressing himself in some manner. You might want to call it something else, but that is exactly what it is and what it has always been. The shocker is, it is not always bad. Censorship by any other name, smells the same... It is often a critical necessity for the health, balance and well-being of a society, entity, group or community, for a nation, club, marriage or partnership. Not everything that people want to say, communicate, express, display, distribute, make available, sell, deliver, publish, broadcast or make known to others is good, positive or justified. We do not all have a right to do all of the above with whatever we want. There are limits in any society, decided by that society or by those that lead that society. From the enlightened trendies of Sydney to the pygmy tribes of PNG to the eskimos in Canada to the grunting barbarians. You have your limits and there are things you will not accept in your vicinity, or do not wish to be exposed to. Societies (well the democratic ones mostly...) expect their leaders to ensure these limits are not exceeded if this is not self-regulated in that society. Same in Australia. No political tactic, just the way it has been for thoudsands of years and the way it is today, here and now. The form may be different, but the substance is the same. This was and remains the same with or without religion being involved. The form will change, but the substance remains the same. You would not allow someone to come into your house and express degenerate things about your loved ones openly, there is a line for everyone that should not be crossed. Also for societies. And the political mangers, the ministers, the parties, well they have the job today to perceive and understand what the public wants nationally. They will bge turfed out if they are perceived as ideological, just ask John Howard if that makes sense to him, or better ask all the political observers if that is what happened. Just use the keyword: Workchoices... So Sams, we do have various forms of censorship in most aspects of our lives today, and we do just call it something else. And the government is justified and accountable for maintaining community standards and restricting the access of RC materials to the Australian society. Part of that process now involves the filter, and they have every right to do that, and we as a nation have every right to vote them out if the majority disagree. Your problem is not that nobody is buying it here, it is not mine either, your problem that the majority of Australians have been buying this for 90 years, and will buy into it again in 2010...
Sams Dec 24, 2009 6:53 PM	"Anytime someone introduces measures that inhibit or stop the publication, presentation, availability or distribution of information in some format Sams, that is a form of censorship." Good try, but no cigar. If I decide to stop my own publication of an article on a website because I didn't think I wrote a good article, then that is not censorship. "So Sams, we do have various forms of censorship in most aspects of our lives today, and we do just call it something else." Most of your example are of something else.
Maxxi Dec 24, 2009 11:30 PM	"Anytime someone introduces measures that inhibit or stop the publication, presentation, availability or distribution of information in some format Sams, that is a form of censorship." Luckily I do not smoke, I can sacrifice the cigar... Lo, ok and good, I should have specified that self determining acts are naturally excluded... Does not negate the validity of the rest of the post and the acts of censorship at all. The examples given are all forms of censorship. Again, we cannot decide that only the forms of filtering, control, etc that we do not agree with are censorship, ad the rest are something OK... It then becomes a situation where we actually accept censorship, but just not of our beloved internet by the gov? Censorship in Australia began in 1917, not 2007...
Sams Dec 25, 2009 11:23 AM	"I should have specified that self determining acts are naturally excluded" I anticipated you would amend. So I send a document to the printer in the wrong format - a Mcrosoft Word doc instead of the PDF they asked for - and they don't publish it. Again, not censorship.
Maxxi Dec 26, 2009 3:23 PM	Thanks Sams, the feedback is both valid and valuable, I will rephrase and see if this is more specific to censorship: "Anytime someone introduces measures that inhibit or stop the publication, presentation, availability or distribution of information, with the intention of preventing the dissemination of the information itself, in some format Sams, that is a form of censorship." The statement is intended to define the acts of hindering the dissemination, in any format, of information in any format. Censorship is often, daily justified, for a variety of reasons. Some folks want to say, write, present, disseminate information (content in any form) for purposes that will and/or are intended to cause distress, damage, libel, slander, incite hate, profit from suffering or crimes, incite suffering or crimes, destroy reputations, etc. Daily, hourly. Some content is disseminated due to ignorance or misinformation, naivety, innocence, well meaning motives, (The road to hell ... etc), unfounded allegations, speculation, assumptions, etc. Damage or evil is not meant, but is instigated all the same. Our society has a range of checks and balances in our private spheres and public spheres, that should protect folks from unjustified attacks, misguided utterances, ignorance or just plain hate speech etc. Intended or unintended, the damage can be done nonwithstanding. This has zero to do with religion, but is simply of an inherent desire of our society to maintain levels of morals, ethics and justice. We see these are several of the pillars of our community, our nation. They are part of our national values, some might call them part of "Australian values". Each to his own how he describes them. For many years, we have various measures in place to protect citizens from the abovementioned damages or attacks, as well as measures that restrict the entry to Australia and or access to people within Australia for substances and content that have been deemed to cause or support the abovementioned damages. Both physical and psychologically, also emotionally, ethically and legally. None of our laws are perfect, our Constitution is also not perfect. Our law enforcement, schools, courts, police, teachers, parents, editors, forums, bloggers, ISPs, CEOs, tech support guys, doctors, patients, bank tellers and tank drivers are all not perfect. Yet we all have limits to what we find acceptable and not acceptable, and in line with our convictions and the laws, statutes, regulations and rules that govern our domain of responsibilities, we seek to maintain behaviour and exchanges of substances, goods, content and acts within those accepted parameters. Where-ever we decide the requirement to hinder the dissemination of information based on the above principles, because someone has decided that the dissemination of the information (content) itself is not justified (et al), then that is censorship. Mostly good old fashioned and healthy censorship. It goes by many names, but it is still good old censorship. Not all censorship is well meant naturally, and that is the censorship that we read about mostly, that is the censorship that brings our blood to boil and rankles our sense of justice. That is the censorship of oppressors and dictators, murderous regimes and tyrants. What we should never, ever forget, is that is not the censorship that made the regimes murderous and tyrannical, it was the murderous and tyrannical regimes that turned the typical community checks and balances that societies use daily, into a tool of oppression and suffering. Then the huge error happens is a case like ours here in Australia. Some people, in their desire and right to protest against a government proposal, put the cart before the horse. They claim that the introduction, in our democracy, of the proposed internet filtering, the proposed internet censorship measures, makes us into regimes like Iran and China, as they do this as well. Such comparisons are completely and utterly unfounded. Australia does many things that both China and Iran do, yet we are not compared to them for those acts and practices. The proposed internet filtering here is so far removed in scope, intention and nature from that practiced in Iran and China, that it would be laughable if not so tragic to compare the two. So many people find it so easy to sit at a keyboard and make such claims and accusations online, but so few do so based on the facts, knowledge of the differences or with a balanced or clear intention. To make such comparisons denies our democracy here in Australia, denies the fundamental strengths of our citizens, our Constitution, our open and free elections, the moral and ethics of the majority, our rich history of fighting for justice and against evil regimes and tyranny. Imperfect yes. Unsound in morals and ethics? No. Is it right that the headmaster in a primary school decides that little Johnnies newsletter article about how the school should keep Asian kids out of the school, because they smell and talk funny, justified? Well yes, it is. And the headmaster will then most probably have a talk with our budding author and help him to understand differences and working together etc. Would it be right for the president of the local cricket club to do that same when good old Rob wants to put something similar in the Cricketing Monthly? Sure is, for a variety of reasons. Is it right that content and publications that the Classification Board has refused classification (RC) not be allowed to be made available, sold, disseminated, displayed or otherwise given access to people in Australia? Darn right it is. This is backed by our Constitution and laws, and is backed by a process that the vast majority of Australians have both trust and confidence in. The Classification Board process. Should these laws and statutes apply to the activities on the Internet as much and as far as possible as they do to other content dissemination methods? Darn right they should. Will it be perfect? No. Will people find ways around it? yes. Does circumvention stop us from hunting drunks on the roads or drugs on the wharves? No, darn right it does not. We would be a sad nation if we only agreed to laws when the govt could guarantee perfect application...
Sams Dec 26, 2009 11:40 PM	"Anytime someone introduces measures that inhibit or stop the publication, presentation, availability or distribution of information, with the intention of preventing the dissemination of the information itself, in some format Sams, that is a form of censorship." And so I'm about to publish someone's paper on solar astronomy, but I find that author has (clearly by accident) pasted Grandma Fanny's apple pie recipe into the middle of it . So I don't publish it, hoping to discuss it with the author next week. Still not censorship.
Maxxi Dec 27, 2009 2:02 AM	You have it wrong this time Sams, you are reaching.... "with the intention of preventing the dissemination of the information itself"... The intent there was not to prevent the dissemination of the information, but to clarify the content and get the article right, without the recipe, not without the information. Otherwise it would be censorship.... It is the intent that defines an action Sams, it is the outcome that defines the result. We have censorship every day in some form around us, whether you like it or not. For each of your examples, I can also say "the exception proves the rule"... Conroy has won this battle because so many anti-filter folks spent so much time splitting hairs about wordings and what they mean the words should mean, that he could sail on by and simply table his proposal in a format that the majority of Australians will accept, and he will get his senate votes as well... For every way out left example you wish to bring here, I can list 10 everyday, real and existing situations. Try it as you will, Australians accept many forms of censorship, every day.They have accepted mainsteam censorship for over 90 years. What makes anyone think they will reject this on the basis of loss of freedoms that they have not lost in the last 9 decades?? But, if Grandma Fanny's apple pie recipe is indeed good, please post a link.
Sams Dec 27, 2009 10:11 AM	"get the article right, without the recipe, not without the information" Not reaching at all. The recipe is still information. You are getting there but it is taking along time .. I don't really have time to go through the process, and because I recognise personality types that will always twist the facts to suit their prejudices anyway, I'm not going to waste of time. It is better sent on people that are seeking to discover the truth, not seeking to rationlise their own prejudices. I'm convinced that other readers have got the message, which is the whole point of a debate.
Maxxi Dec 27, 2009 1:38 PM	Once folks start splitting hairs around some rarity examples, in order to try and disprove something that happens every day Sams, they are reaching. You ere reaching.... Oie recipes errantly put into an article is your real life axample of what is not censorship? That's it? That's the example? Like it happens daily right? Pie recipes errantly placed in otherwise serious articles on an hourly basis, causing censors to go wild? lol, nice one. Again it is so easy to simply claim the other side of the debate has personality twists, and just how well you can recognise them. They always twist facts to suit their predjudices... The message is that it is a weak argument to point the finger at someone else and cry censorship, as if that was a newly discovered evil practice introduced by Conroy to Australia in order to nobble the interwebz... It has been around for over 90 years, it is accepted in Australia, it is practiced daily in many forms. What needs to be proven is that this gov is going to be corrupted bt this filter, or that Australian users and our internet is going to be corrupted or nobbled, or that the gov is going to use this filter to suppress or destroy freedoms. So far all we have are speculation, FUD and scaremongering. No proof, just a lot of wild gesticulation and claims we are about to be like China and Iran, amongst BS about IPv6 not working and the gob not increasing funds for the AFP. Which they did increase, for this purpose... So let's get some proof, and we will see who does and does not have predjudices...
Slatts Dec 27, 2009 8:39 PM	@Maxxi and Sams, Don't you 2 have anything else to do over the break? Looks like everyone else has gone on holidays. Maxxi, what's your typing speed? It's probably an impertinent question but with the size of your posts I've got to think your either a super typist or paid by the word. Merry Christmas and have a happy new year. Slatts.
Maxxi Dec 28, 2009 12:15 AM	Good questions Slatts.... I keep telling myself not to logon to ITNews, cos I know I will respond to a comment.... Whoops here I am again, jusr taking a peek and writing again. My "hacking" speed is OK, but not brilliant. Forces me to think a bit whilst writing, but I still make typos if the thoughts come quickler than I can cleanly type... I wish I was paid at all for this distraction! (obsession in the meantime...) Happy days Slatts and a great New Year!