Net Censorship in Australia
Whenever the “control freaks” gain some ground it’s always for “good” and their measures are pitted against the “greater evil” and/or couched in innocuous “feel good” phraseology. But bottom line, next year Australians will be a little less free. Because net censorship has reared it’s ugly head in Australia. Shouldn’t it still be the parent’s responsibility to keep kids away from adult content? And why saddle “third parties” with the added expense of monitoring content? Isn’t a “free and open”internet (The way things ought to be) a great way to track down the “bad guys” and wouldn’t the “added expense” involved be another “barrier to entry” for the small business? With all the new snooping and spying (in Australia too I would imagine) why do governments feel the added need to “outsource” additional responsibility to private businesses? And why do so many conservatives rely on “central authority” to decide what to be concerned about and what not to, especially when the media conglomerates, the “conservative” radio and TV don’t even have a dog in this fight?
Heraldsun NEW restrictions on online chatrooms, websites and mobile phone content will be introduced within a month to stop children viewing unsuitable material.
From January 20 new laws will be in effect, imposing tougher rules for companies that sell entertainment-related content on subscription internet sites and mobile phones.
It is the first time content service providers will have to check that people accessing MA15-plus content are aged over 15 years and those accessing R18-plus and X18-plus content are over 18.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.
But ACMA chairman Chris Chapman said adults will not be affected by the new laws.
“In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism,” Mr Chapman said in a statement.
Providers of live services, such as chatrooms, must have their service professionally assessed to determine whether its “likely content” should be restricted.
Personal emails and other private communications would be excluded from the new laws and so would news or current affairs services.
Link doesn’t work.
http://tinyurl.com/2b8f7z
EFA was unable to find any indication that any country broadly comparable to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has, or intends to introduce, Internet censorship laws as restrictive as the provisions of the NSW Bill, nor as restrictive as existing Commonwealth legislation.
http://tinyurl.com/2gc4sv
Bill: Why do you insist on restricting a community’s ability to make and enforce decisions for itself? Is it just so you can claim fidelity to your “free market” ideology?
The probem with your appoach is: IT DIDN’T WORK.
Lefthook
Australia and Great Britain make excellent examples of what to watch out for with restrictive legislation, since we don’t have the “language barrier”. Not sure Australia qualifies as a “community” though. And since I’m NOT a pervert, and am someone who enjoys freedom, I feel free to talk about this subject or any other. Do you?
(I’m not trying to imply that you’re a pervert)
You’re not a pervert but you think it’s OK to make hardcore bestiality photos 2-clicks away from our children? To have them piped into our homes with no controls?
Would you allow hardcore pornographers to market themselves by mailing extremely graphic and explicit flyers to homes and post them on telephone poles around town?
Why would you stand in the way of a community refusing to allow that?
(You don’t think Australia is a community? What the heck else is it?)
Bill
I’m with you. If people don’t want their kids looking at this stuff, it’s up to them to assure they don’t see it.
We don’t need the government telling us what we can and can’t see.
Sorry Lefty. I see your point, but allowing the government to decide things that are MY responsibility doesn’t cut it in a free society.
Every time you enact new laws, you lose a little freedom.
A more apt description of Australia would be a Country or Nation. And although I’m no expert on this I’m all for using the internet (like with sting operations) to track down all types of predators and extreme perverts. And like you I wonder how some of this stuff is apparently on the web. Stop the source. (if it’s illegal)
Bill: It’s not illegal, that’s the point. It’s completely unregulated. And you want to keep it that way.
And countries and nations are communities of people too. What else are they, mountain ranges?
I think by using the word “community” you’re possibly setting up an obstacle course with “community standards” which would be impossible for the internet to comply with.
SgtMac: “Every time you enact new laws, you lose a little freedom” may well be the most foolish thing I’ve read on this blog, and that’s saying something.
Some laws may erode freedom, but would you say laws that forbid dumping poisons into our water supply erode our freedoms? Do laws that regulate driving practices (speed, stop lights) erode our freedoms? Don’t the laws that establish our court systems actually increase our freedoms? (You know I could go on all day.)
Stop thinking of the government as an evil corporation and instead think of it as the will of the people.
Rejecting government because of its mistakes is like outlawing guns because some fools commit crimes with them. You wouldn’t support outlawing all guns, would you?
If kids go to adult sites they should probably be spanked or grounded or have their BMW taken away.
Or better yet, since I’m for parental responsibility, once again here’s the top 10 net filters.
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/
Personally I think “mom and pop” do a better job than “big brother”.
Lefty
I’m talking about enacting laws that limit our GUARANTEED FREEDOMS such as free speech under the first amendment. Regulating the internet is tantamount to limiting free speech and I don’t think it passes Constitutional muster.
And to your question about guns, I happen to be the proud owner of a number of those….also a GUARANTEED right under the second amendment.
[...] Original post by Bill [...]
If this was about Bush and the Patriot Act Lefty and Sgt Mac would be on opposite sides!
LeftHook,
Surely Sgt didn’t mean every law and you know that.
When you say “Stop thinking of the government as an evil corporation and instead think of it as the will of the people”., are you implying that every corporation is evil?
Also, are you so sure that today’s federal govt. (USA) is the will of the people?
Our federal govt. is actually the will of the elites who have engineered the election process to assure themselves continued power, and that is the bottom line truth.
Polls and surveys like to tell us that the American people favor this or that program and support the Dems or GOP depending upon how much they get from Uncle Sugar. I have yet to see a poll properly designed that accurately reflects the totality of what people want from their govt.
Due to the immense power the elites have accumulated, they are able to dupe the voters and pursue their own agenda for America. That agenda on both side of the aisle is to eventually integrate America into the new world order promoted by Papa Bush.
The trick to stay in power is to convince the voters they have no other choice and to keep the sheep divided into liberal/conservative camps that are in strict opposition to the other. When confusion reigns, the elites gain more power.
All of this I carefully explain on my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Check it out.
Are the elites evil Joe?
Or do you think that they think they know what is best?
Perhaps they do know what is the best?
I’m not convinced that the American public is any better qualified to set a foreign policy direction. In fact the average American is barely qualified to decide what show to watch on the boob tube. The dumbing down of America is a completely voluntary process.
The wolves are guarding the sheep and you’re telling the sheep to revolt against the wolves. Not likely.
Governments are slowly getting themselves involved into issues of the cyberspace (see also the china-yahoo and TorrentSpy-MPAA issues). But I think the cyberspace has proved that it is self-regulated. No central control is needed. Remember the declaration of independence of cyberspace (Barlow, 1996)?
[...] Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted: [...]
Capt,
Are the elites evil is a motivational question I cannot answer, but they are interested in power first. The lesser of two evils is rhetorical and not literal in any case.
Do they know best? I don’t think so, they simply happen to have the power to set their own agenda and we have allowed them to accrue so much power that they no longer fear being held accountable to the people. If they lose one election, they expect to win the next for their party. What the people actually care about is not addressed.
In the meantime, we are duped into believing that we have no other choice, nowhere else to go. We are kept in liberal vs. conservative camps vehemently opposed to each other, and in the resulting divisive atmosphere the elites maintain power.
As for the dumbing down of America, you must recognize that they have taken over our educational system. An educated populace is the biggest threat to their positions of power. The basic founding principles of our nation are ignored in favor of all the diversity and feel good stuff. The discussion of education has been going on for a while now, but one thing is sure, the system has failed our kids and it seems everyone is unhappy with education these days.
You are correct that the wolves are guarding the sheep, so does that mean we continue to accept those conditions? Due to the unique opportunity we have in this coming election and the fact that we can now communicate with each other through internet sites like this one means we have a chance to seize the day and bring about a restructuring of the power base in Washington. We simply cannot afford another elite from the two major parties as President.
Whether you would consider voting for me or not, you are going to have to work hard at explaining how once again voting the lesser of two evils will generate new thinking and innovation in our governing process. You are also going to have to work hard at proving that if we do elect another elite, Dem or GOP, how this will not add to their belief in their own invulnerability which allows them to continue to be the deciders.
Is it time for a revolution? Absolutely, we need a revolution at the ballot box in 2008. An independent President is the first thing we need as a tool to breakup this virtual lock on power by the elites, Nothing else can do that, and unless you prefer the 2 party system of continued control, how else could you effect real change?
The post John put up this morning about the greater good is relevant here.
[...] Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted: [...]
“What the people actually care about is not addressed.”
I wish I knew what the people cared about.
re:
“The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.”
So the way I read this is (if we were in Australia) if I linked to an adult site here it would be this site’s responsibility to delete it? And if they don’t? Do they drag John Konop out in handcuffs?
Bill
That’s a good question. They could either drag him out in handcuffs or drag him to a Ron Paul rally.
[...] Meanwhile a debate has risen in the slashdot community, in digg as long as in the controlcongress community. Should the government regulate the content children should have access to, or is it solely the responsibility of the parents to control what their children are allowed to see? As slashdot user, thegnu noted: [...]
Again I’m no expert but “nationally” (in the U.S.) aren’t there some “barriers to entry” already with adult sites? (You need a credit card usually) and you’re probably breaking a law if you “certify” that you’re 18 years old right? Remember “protecting kids” is one of the old standbys with socialists and other assorted “control freaks”. And the end result is more state control over kids, and less freedom for us adults (and small business)
So what does “the state” like to do with increased control of children?
http://tinyurl.com/3a9r48
And who monitors THEIR content?