Mandatory Internet Censorship in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Rothbard]

p4rty v4n

 

[SnowFox]

p4rty v4n

 

[-Lemon-]

i seriously hope you're a troll. but yeah im totally like a cp obsessed pedophile you got me red handed man fbi on their way brb

are you thick or something? I was alluding to the point that you obviously garnered information about how to acquire child porn from normal web pages, thus the filter would be able to partially restrict the ability for unestablished child porn seekers to gain technical information.

(and I'm not a 'troll')

 

[Rothbard]

are you thick or something? I was alluding to the point that you obviously garnered information about how to acquire child porn from normal web pages, thus the filter would be able to partially restrict the ability for unestablished child porn seekers to gain technical information.

(and I'm not a 'troll')

You are a dumbfuck troll.

 

[SnowFox]

You are a dumbfuck troll.

 

[Lentern]

fuck you seem pretty dumb so I'm gonna lay it out for you.

Chinese Internet filter
-compulsory at the backbone level;

-blocking methods: keyword blocking, dns poisoning, ip/url blocking based on a secret blacklist maintained by the government; publishing of said list forbidden by legislation

-punishment for hosting, publishing etc content blocked by the firewall: severe sentence for political dissent; for all other topics, "re-education through labor", or merely "administrative fines" if the individual is well connected.


Proposed filter
-compulsory at the backbone level.

-blocking methods: ip/url blocking based on a secret blacklist maintained by the government, talks of a legislation outlawing the disclosure of the blacklist, additional filtering methods unknown at this point.

-punishment: prosecution and long jail term for child pornography; take-down notice and fines levied by the ACMA against the hosting isp for non-child porn RC content, $10000 fines for possession of non-child porn RC content in W.A and in "prescribed areas" in N.T.

What key difference? the punishment is substantial in both countries depending on the topic in question. I think you need to look up the definitions of "similarity" and "equivalence".

That which is in bold is irrelevant. The relevant content relates to how offenders will be punished and by Comparison the Chinese government is extremely harsh, grossly sadistic and overzealous.

Did you even read the National Classification Code you fucking moron?
As according to the Code, All films, publications etc are RC when they

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters
of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime,
cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent
phenomena in such a way that they offend
against the standards of morality, decency and
propriety generally accepted by reasonable
adults to the extent that they should not be
classified; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to
cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person
who is, or appears to be , a child under 18
(whether the person is engaged in sexual
activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime
or violence


topics like abortion/anti-abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia are offensive to a lot of people, especially Christians and Catholics.

In fact, those are not the only things that are likely to be filtered. Any games rated above MA15+ are RC. Any pornography containing explicit dirty talking and sexual fetishs such as bondage, squirting and even spanking are RC. Even mainstream feature pornographic films such as Pirates are RC since they contain "sexualised violence" ie. pornstars with fake breasts fighting with fake swords on a fucking boat. What makes you think that the Code and the current Guidelines which govern the classification process in Australia will not be applied to content on the internet?

No government is going to deem homosexuality or euthanasia sufficiently offensive to add to the list. This is precisely what I refer to when I cry 'paranoid hysteria'.

Plus euthanasia is illegal in Australia and therefore a crime.

Not necessarily but thats just the quibbling of a law student. If and when it finally got to the courts and became possible that someone would actually face some kind of legal reprimand for something so outrageously innocent do you know what would happen? There would be a national debate opened up with Euthanasia being the topic and most probably it will see the laws softened which I am inclined to think is a good thing.

Yeah it is weak, but your feeble attempt at ad hominem, questioning my political empathy, or lack therefore, for an issue that I do not feel as strongly about with the hopes of invalidating my points did not give me much to start with anyway. I can't believe I even entertained that.


Cut the crap, you're just another homosexual-burning freedom-hating religious nut job, why don't you come right out and say god hates fags

?

You have accused me of being some rich kind, spoiled, champagne socialist, you have accused me of homophobia and have suggested I have some amoral hatred of freedom. Just consider that someone who gets up at 4am so he can work a four hour shift each week morning before going to uni afterwards, someone who was mocked and derided as a "fag" and a "homo" at a catholic highschool for my outspoken support of gay marriage and who donated money to the legal campaign of Mohammad Haneef and who volunteers at the office of House of Welcome might be slightly offended by such charges. Particularly if this person had actually stated on numerous occasions an opposition to the filter but a frustration at the hysteria that is generated about it.

Yet for all of that the only thing I really care about is being called homophobic, . call me whatever you like but if it you would be so kind, don't call me racist, homophobic, sexist or sectarian.

 

[ibbi00]

LOL @ SMH poll.

Poll: Should the government filter the internet?

Yes 1%
No 99%

Total votes: 44902

 

[murphyad]

Not necessarily but thats just the quibbling of a law student. If and when it finally got to the courts and became possible that someone would actually face some kind of legal reprimand for something so outrageously innocent do you know what would happen? There would be a national debate opened up with Euthanasia being the topic and most probably it will see the laws softened which I am inclined to think is a good thing.

The HC is way too formalist to ever consider the creation of a common law right to euthanasia. Plus I think that the issue lacks the mainstream support that would be required for the legislative amendment enabling such a right.

 

[SnowFox]

That which is in bold is irrelevant. The relevant content relates to how offenders will be punished and by Comparison the Chinese government is extremely harsh, grossly sadistic and overzealous.



No government is going to deem homosexuality or euthanasia sufficiently offensive to add to the list. This is precisely what I refer to when I cry 'paranoid hysteria'.

Not necessarily but thats just the quibbling of a law student. If and when it finally got to the courts and became possible that someone would actually face some kind of legal reprimand for something so outrageously innocent do you know what would happen? There would be a national debate opened up with Euthanasia being the topic and most probably it will see the laws softened which I am inclined to think is a good thing.



?

You have accused me of being some rich kind, spoiled, champagne socialist, you have accused me of homophobia and have suggested I have some amoral hatred of freedom. Just consider that someone who gets up at 4am so he can work a four hour shift each week morning before going to uni afterwards, someone who was mocked and derided as a "fag" and a "homo" at a catholic highschool for my outspoken support of gay marriage and who donated money to the legal campaign of Mohammad Haneef and who volunteers at the office of House of Welcome might be slightly offended by such charges. Particularly if this person had actually stated on numerous occasions an opposition to the filter but a frustration at the hysteria that is generated about it.

Yet for all of that the only thing I really care about is being called homophobic, . call me whatever you like but if it you would be so kind, don't call me racist, homophobic, sexist or sectarian.

Four hours a day?

Pussy.

 

[Rothbard]

Thing is lentern is a fucking homophobe, we all know this.

 

[Lentern]

Four hours a day?

Pussy.

I get offered six or eight occasionally but about 7 times in a fortnight they just give me four hours. I have ten am classes on Monday and Tuesday so I couldn't accept the longer shifts then even if they did offer them but I'm not pretending to be a nose to the grindstone steel town disciple I just reject the suggestion I'm one of those arts students who don't work, whose parents give them a car and pay their uni fees and will give them a bit of pockey money each week to get drunk with their friends.

 

[Chemical Ali]

No government is going to deem homosexuality or euthanasia sufficiently offensive to add to the list. This is precisely what I refer to when I cry 'paranoid hysteria'.

The year is 2020, or thereabouts.

Lib/Lab wants to get through major tax reform, or other highly significant changes to how the country is run.

Nick Xenophon or someone like him MUST vote in favour if the reform is to get thru both houses

However, he'll only do it IF the government bans all online gambling, OR harm minimisation, etc. information from the net

What happens?

 

[SnowFox]

I didnt get a car

 

[Lentern]

The HC is way too formalist to ever consider the creation of a common law right to euthanasia. Plus I think that the issue lacks the mainstream support that would be required for the legislative amendment enabling such a right.

I think it will have the mainstream support for legislative amendment. In the cold calculated light of day maybe not right now but when some old granny is prosecuted for watching the video whereby Dawkins says he'd like to be euthanised and at least one high court judge rejects the prosecution (and I daresay Virginia Bell will) the issue will be electrified, they won't be able to rush an amendment through the parliament fast enough.

 

[Lentern]

The year is 2020, or thereabouts.

Lib/Lab wants to get through major tax reform, or other highly significant changes to how the country is run.

Nick Xenophon or someone like him MUST vote in favour if the reform is to get thru both houses

However, he'll only do it IF the government bans all online gambling, OR harm minimisation, etc. information from the net

What happens?

That's an unlikely situation which I think you know but I think your point is "we just don't know" which is fair enough. I don't think the online gambling loss is the end of the world although I certainly am not suggesting its desirable for it to be banned, harm minimization I suspect the government wouldn't cave and if they did I suspect the electorate would hold them responsible, I am a big believer in democracy.

 

[Existential]

Abbott won't become prime minister I promise you that. It's not a reflection on the liberal party but of the political cycle and this government is still in its first term and this opposition, far from being focussed and diligent has changed leaders and major policies three times since John Howard.

And why are we so sure it will come in anyway? 90% of bets say the next parliament will require either Green or liberal party support for a bill to pass the senate. Do we really expect a Hockey leadership to ascent an internet censor? The Greens (aside from Hamilton) have been the biggest opponents of the filter so they wont get support from them.

so abbott will be chucked out if/when he loses the election then?

i remember him saying he would be political roadkill if he loses.

 

[Lentern]

so abbott will be chucked out if/when he loses the election then?

i remember him saying he would be political roadkill if he loses.

I think so yes. While Hockey in his capacity as presumptive successor probably wouldn't mind Abbott hanging round for a year or so after the election and copping the flack from the post election swing to the government (which always happens in the polls) I suspect a great deal of the party room(the twenty five or so who voted for Turnbull in the first ballot) are at the moment holding their noses and will absolutely rip into Abbott post election. Frontbench resignations, criticism of Abbott on the doors, public advocacy of different policy, all that.

 

[Chemical Ali]

I think so yes. While Hockey in his capacity as presumptive successor probably wouldn't mind Abbott hanging round for a year or so after the election and copping the flack from the post election swing to the government (which always happens in the polls) I suspect a great deal of the party room(the twenty five or so who voted for Turnbull in the first ballot) are at the moment holding their noses and will absolutely rip into Abbott post election. Frontbench resignations, criticism of Abbott on the doors, public advocacy of different policy, all that.

Seems likely. If only we didn't have to wait 4 years for a credible challenge to ruddkip, though

 

[Lentern]

Seems likely. If only we didn't have to wait 4 years for a credible challenge to ruddkip, though

Alas the nature of the job that is Leader of the Opposition says to me that Joe won't actually contest the election. Its possible Malcolm will which would be nice but if things are still too poisonous for Turnbull they will look elsewhere and I don't like what I see. It's hard to imagine the party room electing Morrison, Robb, Pyne, Bishop or Mcfarlane now but if someone had said in mid 2007 that Hockey would be leader in a little over three years you'd have thought they were barking too. What about Costello, Downer, Turnbull, Nelson, Abbott and Bishop? But the cycle churned through all but one of those quickly enough and it doesn't take long for momentum to build in leadership bids.

 

[Existential]

I think so yes. While Hockey in his capacity as presumptive successor probably wouldn't mind Abbott hanging round for a year or so after the election and copping the flack from the post election swing to the government (which always happens in the polls) I suspect a great deal of the party room(the twenty five or so who voted for Turnbull in the first ballot) are at the moment holding their noses and will absolutely rip into Abbott post election. Frontbench resignations, criticism of Abbott on the doors, public advocacy of different policy, all that.

we have already seen this after the howard era ended, and it is quite obvious that the liberals have not bounced back hard enough. after another labor victory, a reshuffle of the opposition frontbench will be necessary... but the whole issue of who can fill the broad seat of opposition leader is still in the air imo.

and of course the whole 'julia gillard should be PM' issue seems fruitless. mind you, it didn't help when the speaker of the lower house mistakenly called her PM.