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

[HisNameIsChris]

I think this potential violation of net neutrality is a travesty. We have to fight for net neutrality while we still can - it's really one of the less noticed (especially by the less technological-literate) issues that need protecting. Here I was hoping that it would only be a problem for the US and other countries due to the power private companies have there, and here I see our own Government doing it.

Internet filtering has been a liberal party policy... the liberal party is socially authoritarian, they don't really respect personal freedoms. There isn't a party with any political influence that really does

I think someone just broke your sarcasm detector. :rofl:

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

What a pointless vote.

Depends on the seat and the preferences, you silly lady.

 

[Trefoil]

What a pointless vote.

False.

9% in the Senate (with 5 seats) and 8% in the House (with no seats) is a pretty important third party if you ask me - especially that senate power. Look at their growth rate. These days it seems fairly illogical to take a nihilistic stance and vote ALP instead of Greens if you believe in their policies. I suspect their position in the House will change soon, too.

I don't know if you noticed, but the Western world has been trending back towards the centre lately. I think it's fair to say the Greens's high growth rate will only continue into 2011, making a vote for them anything but pointless. Australia might not have proportional representation, but don't think that weakens a vote for the Greens by mistaking preferential voting for plurality voting.

 

[HisNameIsChris]

What a pointless vote.

I would like to add to what others have already said:

People who (for example) hate the current government, yet hate the Liberal Government more, have quite the reason to vote for the Greens and shift their preferences to the party they dislike yet would rather see beating the other party.

In other words, protest votes can have quite an effect. It sends a message to the winning Government that people dislike what's being done. Too many protest votes and suddenly they've lost a seat either to the Greens or to the opposing party.

 

[jb_nc]

I would like to add to what others have already said:

People who (for example) hate the current government, yet hate the Liberal Government more, have quite the reason to vote for the Greens and shift their preferences to the party they dislike yet would rather see beating the other party.

In other words, protest votes can have quite an effect. It sends a message to the winning Government that people dislike what's being done. Too many protest votes and suddenly they've lost a seat either to the Greens or to the opposing party.

Vote Malcolm.

Remember Bill Henson?

He was like: WHO CARES NIGGA. WHERE MY TOPHAT AT.

 

[Graney]

I think someone just broke your sarcasm detector. :rofl:

What? that metaphor is shit.

There was no, no sarcasm there.

 

[Captin gay]

this is going to be so fucking hilarious if they stop BT. i couldnt care less if they blocked the entire internet, but left BT..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You cannot repeat 'no' for emphasis. It just doesn't, doesn't work.

I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

 

[Kwayera]

What I was getting at was that as far as I know, the Greens have no intention of voting against this policy.


Dudes, I was scruting at the Ryde local council elections, and I saw the massive Greens protest vote against Labor. I'm not that blind

 

[Graney]

You cannot repeat 'no' for emphasis. It just doesn't, doesn't work.

Actually it's a popular technique used by many critically acclaimed authors.

 

[HisNameIsChris]

What? that metaphor is shit.

There was no, no sarcasm there.

I was referring to

I sure hope the freedom loving liberal party moves to block this in the senate.

While I'm not going to insert my opinions of the Liberal Party here, I don't think anyone here could rightly agree that the Liberal Party stands for freedom. Although as you said, the Labor Party doesn't exactly stand up for freedom anymore either, my point is that I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic about the freedom part there.

Either way, I didn't mean anything against you, just a bit of light humour.

Edit: Disregard comments about Liberal Party. I do however believe that the Liberal Party's members (of Parliament) certainly don't stand for freedom.

 

[Kwayera]

While I'm not going to insert my opinions of the Liberal Party here, I don't think anyone here could rightly agree that the Liberal Party stands for freedom. Although as you said, the Labor Party doesn't exactly stand up for freedom anymore either, my point is that I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic about the freedom part there.

Either way, I didn't mean anything against you, just a bit of light humour.

As a member of the Liberal Party, I'd have to sadly agree with you, but with some caveats - the PARTY stands for freedom, but many of the (mostly religious) bigots within and high-up do not, much to many members' frustration.

Regardless, one would hope that we move to block it just to piss Labor off.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Actually it's a popular technique used by many critically acclaimed authors.

I don't, don't want to hear about it.

 

[HisNameIsChris]

As a member of the Liberal Party, I'd have to sadly agree with you, but with some caveats - the PARTY stands for freedom, but many of the (mostly religious) bigots within and high-up do not, much to many members' frustration.

Regardless, one would hope that we move to block it just to piss Labor off.

I hope they move to block it, too.

Though I must say, the Liberal Party only believes in freedom of enterprise - despite the deceiving name (it is pretty far from 'liberal' in the political sense), freedom of enterprise is not necessarily freedom for the people or for the little guy.

In addition, while I'm a proud agnostic, please do not put the blame on religion. It is one's character that is to blame for any problems in society, not their religion. Why should one's religious beliefs have any effect on one's actions or personality?

While many of the menaces of society have been religious, there are plenty of religious people who are perfectly fine and are unfairly discriminated against. Just try to keep it in mind, please?

 

[Graney]

While I'm not going to insert my opinions of the Liberal Party here, I don't think anyone here could rightly agree that the Liberal Party stands for freedom.

Part 2- Objectives

2. The objectives of the Organisation shall be to have an Australian nation:-

(a) dedicated to the political liberty and the freedom and dignity of man;
...
(d) in which an intelligent, free and liberal Australian democracy shall be maintained by:-
i) a Parliament controlling the Executive and the Law controlling all;
ii) independence of the judiciary;
iii) freedom of speech, religion and association;
iv) freedom of citizens to choose their own way of living and of life, subject to the rights of others;
v) protecting the people against exploitation
vi) looking primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as the dynamic force of progress'
vii) developing to the fullest extent a national spirit in Australia

www.[B]liberal[/B].org.au/about/documents/constitution.pdf


From page 2 of the liberal party constitution. Seems pretty concerned with freedom, above all else.

I don't think anyone here could rightly agree that the Liberal Party stands for freedom.

The first objective outlined in the party constitution "political liberty and the freedom and dignity of man;"

my point is that I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic about the freedom part there.

I disagree, or if he was being sarcastic, he is naive and misinformed. The liberal party does not stand for what you think it does.

 

[HisNameIsChris]

Part 2- Objectives

...

I disagree, or if he was being sarcastic, he is naive and misinformed. The liberal party does not stand for what you think it does.

Thanks. Finally a Liberal Party supporter who knows what he's talking about. My misinformed beliefs have been completely and utterly proved wrong, at least about what the Party and its constitution stands for.

I can't say the same about parliamentary members, though, but I respect that you went to the trouble to more properly inform me on this matter.

 

[Graney]

I can't say the same about parliamentary members, though, but I respect that you went to the trouble to more properly inform me on this matter.

Absolutely, I agree a lot of the senior parliamentary members have adopted the liberal party to stand for conservative social values and liberal economic policy, something which in practice I believe is often contrary to the values outlined in the party constitution.

 

[Captin gay]

Bring out the liberal liberals then

 

[sam04u]

The internet is a resource much like any other.

What's brilliant about the internet is it gives people a gateway to all the information in the world.

Moreso, you can discuss these issues with people of the same or similar intellectual level, having bridged the space inbetween you and the rest of the world. Prior to the internet you might feel you have a lot to express, yet no venue to express yourself, or make yourself heard. The internet allows these people to communicate in real time in ways never before possible.

The internet can not be regulated. The government has no right - they should be able to monitor internet activity to these sites they have suggested should be banned (I can outline how) and THEN act on it. Rather than what they're suggesting which is outright blocking them

That's just just plain wrong.

 

[Graney]

The government has no right -

I think the government has as much right to censor the internet as any other medium.

If anything, by not censoring the internet, and allowing free reign of what used to be, and the community expects to be, restricted material, they undermine all other forms of censorship.

It's a farcical situation where the government is banning the sale and possession of material in print form, when this material is available instantaneously to anyone with an internet connection.

Just the other day, I was delighted to find this highly controversial, banned literature available for free on Google books http://books.google.com.au/books?hl...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1

I think if print media were invented today, in a post-electronic world, people would laugh at the idea of censoring it, without equal censorship being applied to the electronic media first.

If the government has the technological ability to censor the internet, it would seem only fair and consistent in line with their other, existing censorship policies, that they do so.