Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (1 Viewer)

[Silver Persian]

I dunno, I swear I read something like that last night but I can't find it now so maybe you're right.

Well, he was leader of the faction the supported Nelson for leadership, which suggests to me that he does have a socially conservative edge - given Turnball's interest in gay rights, republicanism, apology, kyoto etc...

 

[jawrgy]

Who cares with the american economy failing and the labour government having no clue they will soon b out.

+ when they ban 1 site another will pop up banning sites wont b the soloution

P.S didnt rudd promise spending on faster internet speeds i havent seen it yet?

 

[bigboyjames]

banning 1 site may allow the government elite to abuse the system. consequently this will lead to a dangerous precedence.


fuck governments. fuck democracy. its a fucking con.

 

[Captain Hero]

banning 1 site may allow the government elite to abuse the system. consequently this will lead to a dangerous precedence.


fuck governments. fuck democracy. its a fucking con.

You're reading another excellent and informed post by BigBoyJames.

 

[Graney]

You have nothing to fear from internet censorship if you have nothing to hide.
Opponents of this bill want our children to have access to all sorts of sick, violent, obscence, pornographic material. We have to ask, what sorts of people are opposed to this bill, and what are the reasons behind their agenda against traditional families?

 

[Kwayera]

I'm sorry, but that's fucked, dude. I shouldn't HAVE to "hide" it; whatever I do on the internet is my business, as long as I don't pull up child porn or whatever (which is illegal anyway; let it stand as that!), and the government has NO right to tell me what it thinks I should be "consuming" as an "internet consumer".

My reason for my opposition to this bill is the fact that it is a slippery slope. From illegal porn (isn't most porn illegal?), to political websites they don't like, to censoring Wikipedia. What next?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm sorry, but that's fucked, dude. I shouldn't HAVE to "hide" it; whatever I do on the internet is my business, as long as I don't pull up child porn or whatever (which is illegal anyway; let it stand as that!), and the government has NO right to tell me what it thinks I should be "consuming" as an "internet consumer".

My reason for my opposition to this bill is the fact that it is a slippery slope. From illegal porn (isn't most porn illegal?), to political websites they don't like, to censoring Wikipedia. What next?

Yeah I don't think that'll happen in this country. Your slippery slope logic is fallacious.

And they already do censor (read: edit) wikipedia. keep up!

 

[Azurie]

You have nothing to fear from internet censorship if you have nothing to hide.
Opponents of this bill want our children to have access to all sorts of sick, violent, obscence, pornographic material. We have to ask, what sorts of people are opposed to this bill, and what are the reasons behind their agenda against traditional families?

Having this view of everyone that opposes this is "such and such etc etc". Is what disgusts me, maybe some people don't want break down of internet security, or the power to not voice opinions. There should be education about proper use of the internet, not money spent on a filter, where someone can decide, what they deem appropriate, or not appropriate. The internet is not some evil place, unless you choose it to be.

 

[Captain Hero]

Yeah I don't think that'll happen in this country. Your slippery slope logic is fallacious.

And they already do censor (read: edit) wikipedia. keep up!

Sorry sunshine; but it's not. We cannot trust the government with the keys to the internet. They will do whatever is politically expedient, not what is best. There should be no control.

The internet is the tool that has brought the greatest amount of liberty to the greatest amount of people and censoring it in any way is a crime against humanity of staggering proportions.

 

[Graney]

From illegal porn (isn't most porn illegal?)

X-rated = anything showing explicit, non-simulated sex, "Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, golden showers, bondage, spanking and fisting are not permitted", "no depictions of violence".

So pretty much every porn ever made is illegal to possess or sell in all the states of Australia.

But, X-rated porn is legal in the territories, and it is legal to trade and import porn by mail order from the territories.

Our censorship is so fucked up, impotent and inconsistent.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.

 

[Kwayera]

Yeah I don't think that'll happen in this country. Your slippery slope logic is fallacious.

And they already do censor (read: edit) wikipedia. keep up!

We still censor books. Still think there's no slippery slope?

 

[Gay Captain]

We still censor books. Still think there's no slippery slope?

the worst western country for censoring books, i think

video games too

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

We still censor books. Still think there's no slippery slope?

I don't follow.

On a side note, I have no problem with classification of books, websites and magazines, etc.

 

[Iron]

If government controls healthcare, then that's just an extra layer of bureaucracy between YOU and the doctor. If they control a military, then it's only a matter of time before they kill you and everyone you love.
Government can NEVER make decisions about how a society should be run. They have NO RIGHT to make me do stuff. How dare they even exist! Wah wah wah

 

[Iron]

It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Obey!

 

[Empyrean444]

I think that the filtering of child pornography sites would be a commendable act - it would prevent both people who want the material from getting it and also prevent accidental findings of it.

 

[Graney]

I think this is the case where you have people starting threads about things like "do we EVEN need an ARMY?",

You seem to glorify blind nationalism an awfull lot. Why? Haven't enough atrocities been commited in the name of nationalism?

The future (perhaps even the present) is an emerging global ethical conscience.

 

[Empyrean444]

This post on Whirlpool really addresses this garbage well:

"Now this child porn filter rubbish. If the government was serious about stopping child porn they'd invest the hundreds of millions they have in netfilters in proper policing initiatives to cut down on the production of it in the first place.

Simply blocking it is akin to pretending it isn't there and letting someone else deal with it. Child porn is already illegal. Using expensive and inefficient filters is not going to stop those who really want to get it and it's not going to stop those who are making it."

Also, I think the odds of stumbling across child porn accidently a pretty slim. At the very least you would have to be looking for hardcore pornography in the first place. If it ever happens, simply click the cross in the top right corner of your screen. A much simpler solution than spending billions and slowing down the internet for everyone.

I take your point, but your suggestion would have to incorporate Australia participating in a global initiative, as most is produced overseas.