Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Bill Henson

What

EDIT: I love how this Government labels anyone who disagrees with them on anything a paedophile.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

What

EDIT: I love how this Government labels anyone who disagrees with them on anything a paedophile.

Turnbull: We need tax reform
Rudd: Why? So we tax paedophiles less? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So you agree with censorship in general? You think books and the media and other literature should be censored?

You don't?

EDIT: I love how this Government labels anyone who disagrees with them on anything a paedophile.

I loved how John Howard demanded that the trashy filth that is Big Brother be pulled off the air IMMEDIATELY!

Point: Your beloved Liberal stooges are just as lame as K.Rudd, and would be equally as quick to take the populist 'ura pedo!' POV in this case.

 

[withoutaface]

You don't?



I loved how John Howard demanded that the trashy filth that is Big Brother be pulled off the air IMMEDIATELY!

Point: Your beloved Liberal stooges are just as lame as K.Rudd, and would be equally as quick to take the populist 'ura pedo!' POV in this case.

You see we have this thing called "freedom of expression" which you and your socialist mates can't seem to understand, especially when applied to views you disagree with.

EDIT: Further, John Howard expressed a distaste for Big Brother. He didn't legislate to have it taken off the air.

 

[Trefoil]

Fark off this has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with religious conservatives.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You see we have this thing called "freedom of expression" which you and your socialist mates can't seem to understand, especially when applied to views you disagree with.

EDIT: Further, John Howard expressed a distaste for Big Brother. He didn't legislate to have it taken off the air.

Freedom of expression should only be allowed insofar as it produces a benefit to society. In terms of "how to make a bomb in your bathroom for amateurs", I don't see any drawbacks in legislating to have that restricted.

BUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS IMPORTANT!

You have more in common with Socialist Alternative than I do. Are you anti-VSU as well?

 

[jb_nc]

Freedom of expression should only be allowed insofar as it produces a benefit to society. In terms of "how to make a bomb in your bathroom for amateurs", I don't see any drawbacks in legislating to have that restricted.

BUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS IMPORTANT!

You have more in common with Socialist Alternative than I do. Are you anti-VSU as well?

But the knowledge of how to make a bomb needn't be illegal because doing it is already a crime.

Furthermore, you and I would both know how to make something like nitroglycerine because it was taught at university. Should that be stopped?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Furthermore, you and I would both know how to make something like nitroglycerine because it was taught at university. Should that be stopped?

No, because the good that can come of educating chemists outweighs the bad of making a potential nutjob.

If people then use free speech to do something that harms others and therefore would otherwise be criminal behavior, prosecuted the for that.

Or take preemptive action on things that the absolute majority has no interest in protecting. How to make MDMA, bombs, child pornography and so on.

Free speech is a myth! Foolish libertarians.

 

[withoutaface]

Freedom of expression should only be allowed insofar as it produces a benefit to society. In terms of "how to make a bomb in your bathroom for amateurs", I don't see any drawbacks in legislating to have that restricted.

So basically the government should view all content before I do and pass judgement on whether or not that particular content is of benefit to society? What happens when someone like Conroy's in charge who despises any viewpoints that aren't his own?

Furthermore, if somebody's hellbent on blowing shit up, is the fact that it may take them an hour to find such information rather than a couple of minutes really going to make that much of a difference?

Sidenote: Chemical Engineering seems to have more Muslims than all the other engineering disciplines put together.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So if someone is enrolled in a Chemistry degree at uni they are probably a good guy with good intentions and we can trust them with this information.

But if they are just reading about it on the internet, they are almost certainly a nefarious criminal who must be stopped.

Didn't say that you daft cunt. What I did do, was weigh the benefits. In any case, I doubt Timothy McVeigh learned how to make a bomb from his B.Science.

Also, if information is available one way or another (e.g. to chemists) others will find a way to access it. It's not like terrorists will go "meh nothing came up on google, lets play a jolly game of croquet instead of killing people."

No, but that's not really much of a case against blocking it from the internet in an attempt (not proven so far, from what I'm aware) to curb violence.

Plus all Islamic terrorists are inherently smart and thus able to gain access to B.Science...Yes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO MAKE BOMBS AND LOOK AT NAKED CHILDREN! UNITE LIBERTARIANS UNITE!

So basically the government should view all content before I do and pass judgement on whether or not that particular content is of benefit to society? What happens when someone like Conroy's in charge who despises any viewpoints that aren't his own?

Then we get rid of Senator (?) Conroy. Wait, no, I mean, there won't be any checks on this sort of stuff. It'll be under control of one dude. :rofl:

Furthermore, if somebody's hellbent on blowing shit up, is the fact that it may take them an hour to find such information rather than a couple of minutes really going to make that much of a difference?

Works in China mang. They all believe their government is fantastic. We ought to be more like China.

 

[withoutaface]

PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO MAKE BOMBS AND LOOK AT NAKED CHILDREN! UNITE LIBERTARIANS UNITE!

Both of those things are already illegal.

Then we get rid of Senator (?) Conroy. Wait, no, I mean, there won't be any checks on this sort of stuff. It'll be under control of one dude. :rofl:

This kinda stuff is always going to be at the whim of the legislature, and once you start doing it an evolutionary growth of the criteria for what makes content offensive is inevitable.

Works in China mang. They all believe their government is fantastic. We ought to be more like China.

The Chinese government has murdered more people than every act of terrorism in history put together and multiplied by 10. You are a fucking disgrace.

 

[Trefoil]

The fact that this proposal is even on the agenda at all makes me feel a little ill.

No, it's actually a very good thing.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "trial by fire"? Basically by testing the Australian electorate with Internet censorship now, and as long as the Greens and Liberals shoot it down in flames, it hardens us against possible censorship in future.

A sort of example of this in action is New Zealand's stance on nuclear energy and weapons. Late last century, the anti-nuclear movement in New Zealand was fairly marginal. That all changed when the French government secretly scuttled an anti-nuclear Greenpeace protest ship (against French nuclear testing) at a New Zealand dock, killing two crew members. Suddenly, the people of New Zealand fiercely rallied against nuclear of all forms and it caused a permanent shift or reinforcement of the political temperament of the New Zealand electorate towards the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

 

[katie tully]

my internet is already slow

i'd die if it got any slower

fuckoff rudd

 

[Trefoil]

It's a poor analogy.

When shit gets blown up, people pay attention.

This is just another bill before parliament that most Australian's aren't really interested in or will just shrug it off with something like "I don't really like it but I suppose it could be good if it stops the pedos."

Whatever dude. It's a good thing that this kind of thing gets brought up now and shot down in flames.

The world around us seems to be shifting towards this kind of internet censorship (especially Europe), so doesn't it occur to you that if we set a precedent against it now, that makes it all the harder to adopt later? Otherwise it'd be easier for the government to say "Hey, look, Britain, Sweden and France have this in place and it works for them, so you're just making a fuss about nothing."

It brings this issue out in the open now and helps raise awareness of the benefits of net neutrality and transparency. The Australian electorate is certainly more open to net neutrality than you give them credit for.

 

[Trefoil]

even in sydney our internet is shit by international standards.

Actually, that's not entirely true. We have some of the slowest Internet in the Western world (in that we don't all have multimegabit/s speeds), but by the same token we have some of the highest broadband adoption and penetration rates in the world.

 

[Trefoil]

the penetration rate doesn't make it any faster.

and yeh, obviously i meant compared to the rest of the western world.

its pretty pathetic when you saying "hey at least we're not as bad as afaganistan"

Uh, I mean the Western world. We have one of the highest broadband penetration rates in the OECD.

And broadband speeds are fairly inconsequential for the important purposes of the Internet: transparency, openness, and interactivity.

Of course, faster speeds are desirable, but penetration should come first.

That sounded so dirty.

 

[jb_nc]

PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO MAKE BOMBS AND LOOK AT NAKED CHILDREN! UNITE LIBERTARIANS UNITE.

Protect our right to know how to make bombs.

 

[jb_nc]

It seems that Rudd isn't so much influenced by Dietrich Bonhoffer, but more by Kafka's The Trial.

 

[newmz89]

even in sydney our internet is shit by international standards.

try hobart.