Internet Censosrship in Australia.
It's coming, oh yes, like a massive wireless cock, ejaculating freedom all over your moobs.
www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html
Ed: Might I add that when this comes about in the UK, prisonplanet.com and infowars.com will be gone. Great stuff.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:52,
Reply)
"The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia. "
GOOD!! these are all things that make the internet horrible.
there are times when you need to bring in common sense and the simple fact is that the internet is massively underregulated, in a lot of ways that makes it a fun place to be, but in other ways it makes it dangerous, scary and an ideal stalking ground for sickos with their own agenda.
i think this is a great idea and the minor worry of "oh but where will it end?" far outweighed by the fact that my 6 YO niece will be able to surf the web without my sis being worried about what she might stumble across.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:59,
Reply)
Adult contect isn't a bad thing, so long as it's of one or more consenting adults.
(
Captain Wow currently being a cunt in Infamous, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:02,
Reply)
totally agree with you, but illegal adult content (kiddy porn, munting ;), that sort of stuff) are bad things.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:18,
Reply)
Hmm yes, it's to protect the children.
I don't think you realise the full implications of this.
Blogs/sites critical of the government - gone
Independent news sites - gone
Midget-horse-fisting - toned down.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:04,
Reply)
You may have to opt-in to access it.
Or, it'll still be up, but you'll only be allowed to post pictures of cats with amusing phrases underneath them.
Which is a good thing, everyone loves cats..and fisting.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:11,
Reply)
hang on a sec.
who mentioned blogs being removed? you seriously think the government of any developed country would sneakily just start chopping sites off the internet that it didn't agree with?
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:14,
Reply)
Read the entire article.
- In December 2006, Republican Senator John McCain tabled a proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:16,
Reply)
Don't let your six year old use the internet
Problem sorted.
(
The Coast Of Yemen, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:04,
Reply)
AFAIK
They are having a two-tiered censorship system. Tier 1 is unsuitable for children, tier 2 is unsuitable for adults.
You can opt out of tier 1, which merely places you on the tier 2 list instead; which is just somewhat less restrictive.
I think that your 6 YO niece (or anybodies!) should not be surfing the web without adult supervision anyway, to be fair. More parental involvement would solve most of the problems that the OZ government are using as reasons for this.
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:07,
Reply)
And how exactly does the state decide
what is unsuitable for adults?
What a load of bollocks
(
The Coast Of Yemen, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:08,
Reply)
I couldn't agree more
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:10,
Reply)
I think the state should supervise everything, it avoids confusion.
Thinking can be such a burden sometimes.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:15,
Reply)
Just maybe
six year olds shouldn't be surfing the web unsupervised in the first place.
(
somegreybloke, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:07,
Reply)
granted, let's forget about my niece for a sec and ask,
what's wrong with filters to remove child pornography websites, sites on euthanasia or other such horrible and unsuitable sites?
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:10,
Reply)
It's also illegal in Australia to name an animal that you plan on killing & eating.
Which surely takes all the fun out of having kids.
(, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:20, Reply)
Sites on euthanasia being horrid and unsuitable is surely a matter of opinion
It's a controversial issue to be sure, but a very subjective one. It may be right for some people, but not for others. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone else they were wrong, or a criminal, for helping an elderly\injured relative or friend to die painlessly with dignity.
What about abortion, another controversial issue? Should there be sites that discuss where people can get abortions, if they can't in their home town? Would this apply to people who are carrying their rapists unborn child? As a result of incest?
What about distasteful sites like Fred Phelps' 'God hates fags' website? Whilst I strongly disagree with him, it sets a dangerous precedent to remove someones ability to express an opinion because it differs from your (or societies) own.
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:19,
Reply)
yes it's a matter of taste as to whether they're suitable for everyone, but it's a matter of law that the practice is illegal.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:21,
Reply)
I have never,
ever, in ten years of being online, EVER seen any child pornography. Ever.
Which makes me think it's not the kind of thing you can stumble upon just by accident - I'd imagine that paedos share images with each other via p2p or something.
And why exactly is a site on euthanasia "horrible and unsuitable"? Because it upsets you?
(
somegreybloke, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:23,
Reply)
look, everyone seems to be going against my point here and picking small hole in my phrasing.
euthanasia is horrible and unsuitable only on the grounds that its illegal.
i have no problem with it.
i simply think that everyones fucking panic over a tiny bit of regulation is extreme to say the least.
the govenrment have said nothing about censoring political opinion, only about sites that are unsuitable (i don't know about you guys but i take that to mean sites that actually break laws within that countries boundaries)
i can't be fucked to talk further on this cos i'm obviously not in with the popular opinion and as such i'll just get pulled apart on everything i say.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:28,
Reply)
the act of euthanasia is illegal in australia
but information about it surely can't be?
and that's the real problem here.
there's a BIG difference between an illegal act and information about it, however unsuitable some people think that information may be.
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:34,
Reply)
sadly
hang around 4chan /b board long enough.....
just one of the reasons I don't go there anymore
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:39,
Reply)
there's nothing wrong with filters against child pornography
but about euthanasia?
seriously?
it's a controversial issue, sure, but should information about it really be banned like that?
I have a real problem with governments controlling information like that.
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:31,
Reply)
Reading through the above comments...
There are some very good points, but the question is - who would trust a polititian as a moral guide?
(
Random Image Yes, yes, I'll speak to you on Monday, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 14:13,
Reply)