NET FILTERING: Conroy pleads ignorance on US govt protest

Renai LeMay
30 March 2010, 12:51 PM


Send to a friend Print

Communications minister Stephen Conroy says nobody from the US government has voiced their concerns over internet filtering to him, contrary to reports.


Communications Minister Stephen Conroy tonight said he had not had any direct contact with US Government officials over Australia’s controversial internet filtering plans, despite reports the US had raised the issue directly with the Federal Government.

News Ltd blog The Punch has reported that US State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the US has raised concerns on the matter with Australian officials. The US has been broadly critical of countries implementing internet censorship regimes.

“Well, I’ve seen those concerns, [but] I haven’t had any direct contact with the US State Department,” Conroy said on the ABC’s Radio National Australia Talks program tonight.

“I saw the reports in the morning papers. My department I don’t believe has been directly contacted. They maybe are speaking to the Department of Foreign Affairs — but I was unaware until I saw this morning’s news reports of any approaches at all at this stage.”

Conroy said Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith hadn’t raised the issue with him. “It could be that it just hasn’t been passed through,” he said. “I haven’t had a briefing from the Department of Foreign Affairs.”

The news comes as Conroy has increasingly appeared in the media — on TV and radio shows particularly — in recent weeks to talk about the filter issue.

Legislation on the matter has been postponed, and some, such as Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, believe the associated bill will not be introduced into Parliament until the next Federal election.

Labor Senator Kate Lundy has been attempting to convince Labor figures to back an amendment to the bill that would make the filter opt-in instead of mandatory.

However, Conroy appeared to pour cold water on the idea tonight, saying the Government didn’t provide opt-in measures to other forms of media, and that the internet was not a special medium.

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

 RSS feed Email alert

TV Bis (New user):

Who gives a dam about what the US Government thinks. Here is a country who allows anything (sex, violence, horror, gore, destruction, mutilation) in their cinema releases but will not allow a simple bum shot on Television without pixilation. What prudes these US officials are.
Because the US has uttered a few words about filtering in Australia does that mean Australia has to obey what the so called world police wants? If the situation was the other way around do you think the US would listen to Australia - I DON"T THINK SO!


30 March 2010, 1:05 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne (Regular user):

The US is rallying -against- the filter though. (I agree, quite perverse paradoxes in their social policy that you point out, but they're on the side of Australian freedoms on this one.)

30 March 2010, 1:20 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Who gives a dam about what the US Government thinks.

Well I certainly do not and I am quite offended that the USA is yet again interfering in Australian politics.

As for the filter, Australia you voted for it! The filter was Labor policy BEFORE the election. If you voted Labor, then you voted for the filter.

30 March 2010, 1:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

BrownieBoy (User):

Quoting petert:
As for the filter, Australia you voted for it! The filter was Labor policy BEFORE the election. If you voted Labor, then you voted for the filter.

That's bull.

Labor's policy before the last election was for an optional filter. They only changed it to be mandatory once they got their grubby hands on the levers of power.



30 March 2010, 3:02 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

BrownieBoy, the filter was never, every going to be optional. It was fairly obvious that these left-wing, Christian rat-bags would make it mandatory, irrespective of their election promise to make filtering optional.

Rudd had a lot of other policies that were obviously transparent lies - "I will never knowingly tell a lie", he said. "We won't reduce the private health insurance rebate for high income earners", he said. And so many more. This is not a case of 20/20 hindsight. To anyone with an open mind these were obvious lies at the time he made the promises. Rudd had every intention, and still does, of telling any worthwhile lie to the voting public to get elected and now to get re-elected. That doesn't mean that other politicians do not also lie; however, members of other parties have not reduced it to such a fine art as Rudd.

The real issue is that some of us are not as gullible as others. Filtering was never going to be anything but mandatory!

30 March 2010, 3:51 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne (Regular user):

Quoting petert:
It was fairly obvious that these left-wing, Christian rat-bags would make it mandatory, irrespective of their election promise to make filtering optional.


Better than the right-wing Christian rat-bag that is Tony Abbott though. I certainly do not want the internet filter imposed on us via Ruddco, but I absolutely _cannot_ vote for Tony Abbott with his whack-o Catholic morality that he wants to impose on all Australians. If Malcolm Turnbull was still the leader I would vote Liberal in an instant over Rudd+Conroy and their internet filtering BS. But I simply can't bring myself to vote for Abbott.

30 March 2010, 6:07 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Dan, I somewhat tend to agree with you, which is why don't vote for either of the major parties or certain Senators. Having supposed Christian values imposed on me when there is supposed to be a separation of State and Church makes me very nervous.

31 March 2010, 7:48 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting petert:
Dan, I somewhat tend to agree with you, which is why don't vote for either of the major parties

what is the alternative, handing Labor a vote via the greens, or voting in some crackpot independent with more dubious leanings than even Conroy.

While I can understand some of the concerns with Abbott, it appears most of the criticism is aimed towards a "what he might do" despite his protestation that it would be the case. It's a bit dumb to support ignore what is really happening for what might be happening.

PeterT you state that Conroy's filter was an election promise, but you did not mention it was one of the small print ones hidden away 40 pages back in the documents.

Australia clearly does not want this filter and yet we have a Senator and Prime minister with an attitude of "you'll get it anyway and you damn well like it."

There is nothing wrong with our party system there is a lot wrong with apathy and ignorance allowing it to be hijacked. The best message Australians could send would be to turf Rudd's inept management, it would send a clear message that government is not a free ride for personal agendas.


31 March 2010, 8:46 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting Raindog:
but you did not mention it was one of the small print ones hidden away 40 pages back in the documents.

Life experience should have taught you that the most dangerous clauses are buried in fine print deep within any document :-)




31 March 2010, 10:25 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

I'd learnt that one long before 2007. If you'll recall I'd warned the dreamers at the time that Rudd Co was an almighty con.

31 March 2010, 10:34 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting petert:
when there is supposed to be a separation of State and Church makes me very nervous.


Australia is not USA - We don't do that.
And why do people insist it's "the church" trying to push this filter? There's plenty of "ungodly" people pushing it just as hard... Mostly overprotective parents who can't figure out how to move the computer to the loungeroom.

31 March 2010, 6:21 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Direct contact? Who does he think he is? The PM?

Conroy sounds like he knows more about this contact than he's directly saying. He avoided the discussion of it by saying he had not had a "briefing" or "direct contact" - that sounds like he's heard things unofficially, and maybe even seen the actual complaint in writing, but not yet officially had a meeting about it.

30 March 2010, 1:45 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Tin:
Direct contact? Who does he think he is? The PM?"

Don't give the megalomaniac any further ideas!

Stephen Conroy says nobody from the US government has voiced their concerns over Internet filtering to him"

Spin, spin, spin, the US may not have expressed anything to him but they have expressed concern about him. And you can bet the weasel is well aware of the criticism. In Conroy's eyes The US are wrong, google is wrong, ICT professionals are wrong, Electronic Frontiers are wrong, and the Australian public is wrong. Conroy is the only one out of step.

This is the many that wants $43bn of our tax dollars to spend in a manner he refuses to account for.

Anyone who mandated this with a vote should feel very ashamed, anyone who will vote for it again either directly or via green preferences has no one to blame but themselves.





31 March 2010, 9:02 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Zoidbergmerc (User):

The US are just scared that we're going to turn into a communist country.

30 March 2010, 2:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (User):

Quoting Zoidbergmerc:
The US are just scared that we're going to turn into a communist country.

well the change of mind from optional filter to mandatory to an internet filter that is going to "protect" us from roughly 1000+ websites with content refused classification(now im going to have to limewire russian and Asian skin flicks) and despite protest from the majority of internet based companies and communities(exception noting the MINORITY of religious fanatics who would have me not use a 'dom) is very undemocratic. i could say it is kind of communist in principle.

i honestly am not bothered that much by America's protests. they can join the queue of other "developed" countries.

Also Stephen Conroys argument for classifying online material is flawed- since he is referring to our "fair" classification system which doesnt recognise content in games as being suited to adult gamers.

So i am kind of wondering now- how far is this farce going to go?

Kate's motion for an opt- in filter is still an insult, but i would prefer that to what is coming towards us at the present moment.



30 March 2010, 3:33 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting apt.pupil:
Also Stephen Conroys argument for classifying online material is flawed- since he is referring to our "fair" classification system which doesnt recognise content in games as being suited to adult gamers.

A point along that line raised by someone calling the radio show - porn in Australia is often edited versions to meet the Aussie rules. If they block RC content, the downloadable versions would be therefore blocked.
Now I don't particularly care about that (I don't agree it's right either) but does that not mean the list, on porn alone, would be in the tens of thousands of entries, not the under 1000 Conroy keeps quoting?

30 March 2010, 5:09 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

apt.pupil (User):

Quoting Tin:
Now I don't particularly care about that (I don't agree it's right either) but does that not mean the list, on porn alone, would be in the tens of thousands of entries, not the under 1000 Conroy keeps quoting?


another thing to consider.
I chose the classification point to bring up my primary concerns- and that is classifying EVERYTHING on the internet as classifiable on an already flawed and unfair system. I also want my Asian porn thank you very much.

there should be a second operation titstorm methinks.lol


30 March 2010, 6:00 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

joelcocks (User):

Quoting Tin:
A point along that line raised by someone calling the radio show - porn in Australia is often edited versions to meet the Aussie rules. If they block RC content, the downloadable versions would be therefore blocked.
Now I don't particularly care about that (I don't agree it's right either) but does that not mean the list, on porn alone, would be in the tens of thousands of entries, not the under 1000 Conroy keeps quoting?

Wrong. Most porn is not RC - it's rated X or NVE.... Even if most states don't allow it to be purchsed, it's still actually legal to have it in your possession.

It's only really stuff like fetish movies and bestiality that is RC as far as porn goes....







01 April 2010, 1:00 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Not signed in
anonymous user Anonymous user