Conroy green-lights centralised internet filtering

Aubrey (User):

An appalling announcement. This "independent body" to decide what gets blocked is a real worry.

I have no problem with bans on "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use" but interpretation will be very difficult and controversial.

Given our politicians' current habit of entering "moral" debates at the high-ground end, I wonder, for example, whether photographer Bill Hensen's web site would be blocked. And what about online discussions of (currently) RC games? Any "independent body" will be lobbied mercilessly and will be splitting hairs down to sub-micron levels within months. Stupid, stupid, stupid policy.

Mind you, it ain't over till the fat lady sings and this has to get through both Houses of Parliament. These debates can split parties and Pollies will be agonising for months if suitably bombarded with emails and letters. I suggest targeting carefully - Libertarians on both the right and left will have real trouble with this. Hopefully the Opposition can keep its rabid conservatives in line long enough to oppose it "on principle". The Greens will be against it but Fielding will back it strongly. The key will be getting enough (7 would be enough) Labor Senators to break party solidarity in the party room, threaten to cross the floor, and have it "deferred" or sent to a Committee indefinitely. Attack!

Just be aware that for all the rabid opposition and cries of doom from netizens, this move is actually electorally quite popular. Look at the actually polling (not the online petitions).

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Aubrey:
An appalling announcement.

It's from an appalling incompetant, what else would you expect?


Quoting Aubrey:
This "independent body" to decide what gets blocked

Independant (cough) yeah I'd believe that. Anyone know where i could buy a bridge?


Quoting Aubrey:
I have no problem with bans on ......... but interpretation will be very difficult and controversial.

Interpretation manages to lack any sort of real standard or guideline. I too would like a little less filth on the net but only with realistic and accountable actions fron the censor. Hidden lists from (cough) independant bodies screams of idealogical censorship.


Quoting Aubrey:
Given our politicians' current habit of entering "moral" debates at the high-ground end

Which faux-god-bothering PM were you referring to?


Quoting Aubrey:
Any "independent body" will be lobbied mercilessly and will be splitting hairs down to sub-micron levels within months.

It appears Kev and Steve's bogus "independant body" will be hard to lobby, given it is destined to be unknown and unaccountable. Maybe this "independant body" is Richo, that certainly woult be advantagous to pardy (Kristina Keneally voicing) funding.


Quoting Aubrey:
Stupid, stupid, stupid policy.

Well if people vote for stupid, stupid, stupid, self-serving politicians what else do they expect?


Quoting Aubrey:
Mind you, it ain't over till the fat lady sings and this has to get through both Houses of Parliament.

Thanfully at some times in the last 100 or so years we have had politicians with a clue who ensured or governance was not at the whim of a single popularist madman.


Quoting Aubrey:
These debates can split parties and Pollies

we can only hope such debate will highlight the motivations of those attempting to enforce such lunacy.


Quoting Aubrey:
I suggest targeting carefully

I'd never suggest firearms, much as it would be a good outcome for the community.


Quoting Aubrey:
Hopefully the Opposition can keep its rabid conservatives in line

I was hoping for world peace, it's just as likely.


Quoting Aubrey:
The key will be getting enough (7 would be enough) Labor Senators to break party solidarity

Fat chance. Labor isn't a party of consience or personal opinion, it outlawed in pardy constitution. Check if you don't believe me.
I'd say your on hiding to nothing expecting labor pollies to risk comfortable positions to show a conscience.


Quoting Aubrey:
Just be aware that for all the rabid opposition and cries of doom from netizens, this move is actually electorally quite popular.

No what is popular is the facide that delivered. Kiddy safe internat with fluffy bunnies on every corner, the reality that will be this latest Rudd deception and Conroy balls-up will be far less popular.
Did you note the 12 month delay on implementation? Cant have a nasty reality causing grief at election time now , can we.


Quoting Aubrey:
Look at the actually polling (not the online petitions).

Loaded questions is some shopping mall poll would hold equall accuracy to an online petition.

There is only one poll that counts, so ask yourself folks if your prepared to give your vote to a party that promised broadband but after a full term and a lot of cost has delivered zero new connections. Worse they actually cancelled connection for thousands during their term, but still found time to impose an unpromised and ineffectual interuptions to communications based on some (you dont need to know) independant body.

Wake up Australia, you've bee voting for an imagined persona and it's cost you your lifestyle and quality of life. We want governments who who do what we elected them to do, not the bread and circuses we have at present. Wake up Australia!!

Aubrey (User):

Without being partisan, I don't believe that this is anywhere near being an issue that could bring down the government.

And if this "independent" body is really going to have to act on public complaints, I feel genuinely sorry for the poor sods who will work there. That's an open invitation to the Moral Majority to campaign on everything. Absolute madness.

I don't think the Libs are going to be any help at all. Look at the conservative (Murdoch) press today - almost no real criticism and some cuddly "human interest" pieces about protecting kids from the evil of the internet. And Telstra, Optus and iiNet have given their blessing. Liberals with liberal principles are in very short supply right now (and will be even rarer after the next election as so many are in very marginal seats). I predict they'll take some easy swipes at the policy but won't actually say what they'd do - as seems to be their tactic on, well, everything really.

As for the ALP being a party of strict discipline, I agree - that's why the battle must be fought firstly in the Party Room.

I admit that I had not picked up on the deliberate one year delay. That pisses me off even more.

Bizarrely, the reporting also seems to have a "wink, wink" element to it by saying that anyone with any 'net or 'puter savy will be able to get around the filter. WTF?

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Aubrey:
I don't believe that this is anywhere near being an issue that could bring down the government.

I'll be quite happy for them to simply be voted out. If it was stuff of dreams, I'd be happier for them to be held accountable.


Quoting Aubrey:
Look at the conservative (Murdoch) press today

shouldn't that be "look at the conservative popularist (Murdoch) press today"? I don't need Rupert or a Packer or Fairfax to have my opinions for me, I can only hope others begin to analyse what affects their futures too.


Quoting Aubrey:
about protecting kids from the evil of the internet.

Mankind always has its luddite element. Similar concerns were raised about the mobile phone, the phone, the car, the computer, penicillin, fire etc. All technologies that can be used or used badly.


Quoting Aubrey:
Liberals with liberal principles are in very short supply right now

What you mean is ELECTED liberals with liberal principles are in short suppy. The result of the same apathy that has a developers and big business(man) lobby acting under the guise of a representing Labor principles.


Quoting Aubrey:
and will be even rarer after the next election as so many are in very marginal seats

Those seats only remain marginal while there is no real choice.


Quoting Aubrey:
I predict they'll take some easy swipes at the policy but won't actually say what they'd do

Ah the Bracks principle, election surity through inaction. An annoying trend sadly adopted by a NSW Liberal party of late. But a tactic that would not work yet at a federal level.


Quoting Aubrey:
As for the ALP being a party of strict discipline, I agree - that's why the battle must be fought firstly in the Party Room.

Recent events within NSW labor has shown Labor has no prace for individuals with principles. Thankfully what it has also demonstrated is that partys contempt for the public electorate that elected them on badge before policy.


Quoting Aubrey:
Bizarrely, the reporting also seems to have a "wink, wink" element to it

Bizzarely or dissapointingly? It a standard KR tactic, litter your speach with a popularist topic and mask your intents and actions. Rather than climate debate we have a PM offering self answered questions about caring for the future of grand childern. Of course the answer is folks care for their offspring, but it does not interpret to a mandate for a tax and policy of do nothing but count the dollars.

The know this filter won't work, they know it's only real influence will be as a bottleneck, and they know its another oportunity to push the envelope of public gullibility. And it becomes another diversion to take attention from all those unfullfilled election promises. Your busy spending the dollars Conroy, where are all those fibre connections you promised? If you've delivered nothing in three years, whats the odds that there will be twice that if your were given a go at six.

Australia if you vote without thinking, you'll get what you get now? Ask yourselves a few simple questions.

Did I mandate this with a vote?
Did I see any of the promises actually delivered upon?
Was there any event/s that changed between now and the last election and now that create an sudden need for this divergence of communications policy?

This policy is a crock and it's the insidious end of a very dangerous wedge. Anyone who supports a hidden ban list and doesn't see the value of absolute transparency of policing or policy, has not really thought the issues through.

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Aubrey:
I admit that I had not picked up on the deliberate one year delay. That pisses me off even more.

The public is assumed to be stupid enough, not to pick up on these tactical manoeuvres, just like we are supposed to miss the deliberate near Christmas timing of the announcement. Nothing like some Christmas cheer diversions to keep the water cooler dissent to a minimum. NSW government makes all of it's toll price increases on public holidays as an example.

Do the public want government that considers them as fools?

Jeff (New user):

Quoting Raindog:
Well if people vote for stupid, stupid, stupid, self-serving politicians what else do they expect?

Mind suggesting a politician that isn't a self-serving? Hell, I'd settle for one that doesn't lie through their teeth every time they open their mouths...

...

Didn't thin so.

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Jeff:
Mind suggesting a politician that isn't a self-serving?

And the solution is? (raindog plays the thinking music for you)

The solution is to hold them accountable! Simple really!!

The apathy that says "they are all the same" is the reason we have so many politicians we'd all rather not have.


Quoting Jeff:
Didn't thin so.

Whatever you thin or don't thin or even what you think, Australia has had a few excellent and public spirited politicians. Acceptance of those who are not is a recipie for a whole messload of the public being ripped.

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Refused Classification also includes games that fall victim to the lack of R18+. Which means we could watch videos of the same content if we're over 18, but if it's about a game, the site could be blocked.

This is not a solution to crimes. Sexual abuse, drugs, violence, etc has all been happening on it's own for centuries. Filtering websites containing this sort of thing will not change the fact that some people commit crimes. The solution to crime is policing, not filtering.

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

I was promised a fibre and look set to get a filter.
I was promised pollution reduction and look set to get a huge tax instead.

Can anyone spot the developing theme?

Phred (User):

Quoting Raindog:
Can anyone spot the developing theme?


A tax on free thinking next

petert (Senior member):

FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, Petrol Commissioner, squandering of billions on a supposed "Education Revolution", squandering of hundreds of millions on housing thermal insulation, ETS/CPRS, Internet Filtering etc etc etc. Australia, you got the Government that you voted-for!

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Quoting petert:
Australia, you got the Government that you voted-for!

I take offense! I'm Australian, and I made sure I put Labor and Country Labor last on my ballot papers!

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Tin:
I made sure I put Labor and Country Labor last on my ballot papers!

then your vote was invalid, for it to count one would have to be more invalid than the other.

The Big Baboo (Cornerstone member):

Quoting petert:
Australia, you got the Government that you voted-for!

I never voted for them "petert" Despite the fact that I've never agreed with Liberal policies,they're usually the only party that get my vote and perhaps the odd independent as well :)

plutonium210 (Cornerstone member):

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!! :[

Pauly (User):

I'd be more concerned with what happens if the new ultra conservative opposition got even more conservative, eventually got elected and then decided to change the independent panel to suit their voters (by then they will have changed their name to the APIA party)
I cant believe that anyone from the left faction of Labor isnt deeply worried about how easily this legislation could be abused (if its not from the start anyway)

Raindog (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Pauly:
I'd be more concerned with what happens if the new ultra conservative opposition got even more conservative, eventually got elected and then decided to change the independent panel to suit their voters

But manipulation of the panel by your team is OK? This whole approach is so flawed and open to political manipulation it stinks. Politicians figure they can vet the replies on their blog sites, who shouldn't they attempt to manipulate the entire internet. Their ineptitude and ignoring of all sensible advice, never once suggesting to them that such outcomes are not possible.
This flawed proposal is open to false positives, where is the comeback for net business incorrectly targetted? Who foots the bill for the costs and the damage done?

K (User):

Print, radio, movie and packaged electronic media content has been regulated by the government for quite some time. Perhaps it was only a matter of time until internet content was covered by the same umbrella.

Arguments for internet filtering acting as a 'thin edge of the wedge' leading to restrictions on free speech aren't really new. You could argue that the same applies for print media as well. I suppose the issue is how the process is implemented and how it will be accountable.

Aubrey (User):

Quoting K:
I suppose the issue is how the process is implemented and how it will be accountable.

I totally agree. Some level of censorship is inevitable and (probably) supportable. It is the mechanism and control of it that is of lasting importance. It took decades to wrest control of film and book censorship from the Moral Majority because politicians hid behind the "independence" of the classification board - and then went on appointing the same types of people to the board. It becomes a political payoff for support.

We need transparency and accountability and some way to ensure against scope creep. It would be dead easy to get a majority in favour of banning some form of porn or depictions of an anti-social or violent act, especially if you use children as some sort of benchmarking device. But once the mechanism is in place, it becomes so much easier to add stuff at the margins. "Discretion" by Ministers or appointed boards is a very dangerous thing in areas that infringe on individual rights (ask that Dr Haneef bloke).

I am tending to believe that this is mainly political sleight of hand anyway - Conroy doing the Party's dirty work with the "family values" brigade and demonstrating Labor's credentials as a party of the great majority. If it ever happens, it'll be tokenistic and avoidable. But the principle remains. Bad policy should not be tolerated.

Jammit (User):

Yay Christian Nazi Net is HERE!!!!!

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.

The Big Baboo (Cornerstone member):

Geeeeeeeeee You talk pretty Dammit er I meant Jammit :)

Jammit (User):

Rock On Conroy (you tool)