This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

Jump to new
marklar said:
Conroy's parliamentary term is up in 2011

Since I live in the great state of Victoria I just might have to assemble the 50 registered voters and $1000 required to run against him.

m.
Click to expand...
If you do, marklar, I will just about move to Victoria in order to support you.
I'd certainly be happy to make a contribution to your running costs.

The ideal position would be for Labor to wipe Conroy out and for the Libs to keep things even by getting rid of Kevin Andrews. They are two of a kind.
 
kitehigh said:
If Abbot has half a brain he will seize on this and go all out to oppose it.

The Coalition could really do well by opposing this and running on anti censorship / ETS ticket.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more....

It takes a lot to get my political barometer ticking, but censorship and socialism usually do it.....

The coalition could gain rediculous traction just on this one issue....The very fact the thread in here is so empassioned and popular is testament to the thoughts of a large part of society on the issue.....

Surely someone in here is a liberal party member and can start making rumblings in the Liberal branch meetings about this.

Not that I want Abbot as PM, but if a censoring bunch of economically inept extreme socialists is the option, I will take Abbot thanks...
 
Condog, and anyone else who feels similarly, here is Tony Abbott's email address:

Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

Send him an email with your suggestion. He and his party are probably pretty receptive to hearing from the electorate at present.

I have done this.
 
its also a mark of totalitarianism, that if you question a position, then you are "branded".

In this case, I clearly detect the broadbrush of "pr0n user" or even child pr0n peadophile, whenever I see that unctous git trying to justify this scheme.

Even though he is fairly careful not to directly say it, I definitely detect that he resorts to this old chestnut on any occasion.

The NBN is a joke..as has been pointed out on the TLS thread, NBN estimated cost $43b..TLS market cap = approx $43b...they could just as well buy part or all of TLS and save us all a lot of time, angst and money
 
Re: What if the internet no longer offered freedom of speech?

Wysiwyg said:
Prison planet as a site name would surely attract the conspiracy theorists of which there is a large following. New world order, 911 etc. is big business and creates income for the sellers of such (i.m.o.) nonsense.
Click to expand...

What people don't consider is that whack job conspiracy theorists actually provide excellent smokescreen for genuine conspiracies.

And that genuine conspiracy is the natural state of the world. If I plan a day out with my wife but don't tell my neighbours about it, that is technically a conspiracy.

A meeting behind closed doors among our rulers, when they keep us out of the loop (for the public's own good or not), is also a conspiracy.

If I was planning a real grab at power the first thing I'd do is leak a version of the plot to the whackos who are already screaming shrilly about lizard people coming to take over.
 

Tony Smith, Sen. Conroy's shadow, put out a press release a day or so ago supporting in principle the Government's philosophy. He didn't exactly oppose the filter but raised queries about the approach.

Given Tony Abbott's background, there will almost certainly be legislation for an internet filter in the next 12 months.
 
On the basis of Tony Abbott's personal views, I agree with you.
But - given their response to the thousands of emails against the ETS, without which they'd have gone along with Turnbull's agreement to vote for it - I'm hoping they may well be more attuned to what the electorate at large wants.

They have clearly demonstrated their capacity to form policy on the basis of voter preference, so imo it's well worth sending as many emails as possible to various Coalition members. There is nothing to lose and there could be a gain.
 
schnootle said:
Very true. Has Australia gone made, why do we have so many bat-**** crazy catholics running the show
Click to expand...

My first thought when he gained leadership of the Libs was that we'd all be subjected to his personal ideology if he should wind up as PM. I find the very notion of a person's religious beliefs dictating the entire country's legislation terrifying, but given Mr Abbott attended a seminary I feel it would be inevitable that his views would colour his politics. I shudder at the thought of Australia becoming a red-neck nation of anti-abortion, teetotalling, wowsers and god-botherers. Why should matters of personal choice that do no harm to others be legislated against because of our politician's personal beliefs?
 
awg said:
its also a mark of totalitarianism, that if you question a position, then you are "branded".

In this case, I clearly detect the broadbrush of "pr0n user" or even child pr0n peadophile, whenever I see that unctous git trying to justify this scheme.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same approach to both internet censorship and climate change. Anyone who questions the official mantra is branded as some sort of sociopath as though freedom of information and a sceptical approach to science were in some way a bad thing.

What's happening now with these two issues is very, very different to old-style activism, politics and general debate. It is nothing short of a fundamental attack on the foundations of democracy, independent thought, and a move towards outright government control of our lives.

Wait a few years and it won't just be pr0n that's filtered. Add economic statistics and basically anything government doesn't want you to know to the list. That's very, very dangerous in terms of the ultimate consequences...
 
If we had a viable alternative (ie not Abbott) this would be political suicide. This is one of those rare moments in politics were i am embarassed to be an Australian, and i think i am far from alone. I think there are a lot of people willing to change their vote over it, but to who, Abbott? i am voting Greens.

If Abbott wasn't such a god-botherer this would be election GOLD. It would be a fabulous base for an election campaign, nothing like attempted destruction of personal freedoms to get people to vote.
 

Well put Smurf. It should concern most people, but the lethargy of most to be concerned enough about the future ramifications of this proposal may not register.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Wait a few years and it won't just be pr0n that's filtered. Add economic statistics and basically anything government doesn't want you to know to the list. That's very, very dangerous in terms of the ultimate consequences...
Click to expand...
I don't even think we will have to wait a few years. The level of control via an internet filter will be irresistible and addictive to the government. More and more will simply be denied our access.

This from a government who loudly derided China's restricted access to the internet during the Olympics.

I agree with all that's been said above, but doesn't anyone consider Mr Abbott's desire for political ascension could override his personal views?
He has previously stated that he would not allow his personal morality to affect decisions made in government. I simply don't believe that, unless he had the attraction of power as a stimulus.

He has already demonstrated that his views are capable of change a bit like the wind. I think he has had three or four stated stands on climate change e.g. I don't care about that. He will never be Prime Minister.

But in the meantime, if his quest for power (and he is very clearly enjoying his currently elevated status) is going to be served by taking the attitude expressed by most Australians, I believe he will do that.

So I'll repeat my hope that as many ASF members as possible will email him and/or other Libs/Nats to suggest they oppose this filter.
 
I watched the 7pm Project on tv earlier tonight - they had a segment on the proposed internet filter. Apparently a poll on their website has registered more than 90% of respondants are against any filter. Whoever it was they had on the show (was only paying semi-attention) made the excellent point that if the govt is concerned about child pornography they could put the money a filter would cost to better use by funding more police to trawl through chat rooms etc and actually catch the creeps.

Surely if the results their poll got are indicative of the broader community (and I think they would be) then any opposition would be stark raving mad not to jump all over the issue??
 

So to protest the socialist policies of Labor (socialist countries censor the internet in this way, actually in more extreme ways... facebook is banned in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and in North Korea you're just happy if you have a cup of rice)...

...you vote for the more extreme socialist party, the Greens, which will jag the country even further left. Interesting strategy. All because Abbot goes to church.

A question for those of you who cite Abbot's religion as a reason not to vote for him. Your car breaks down one night out in the middle of nowhere. You would like the next car driving past to be driven by:

(a) a Christian
(b) a communist revolutionary
 
I was opposed to the Greens on the very issues that lead to the party's formation and still disagree with many of their views over the environment (to extreme to actually be implemented...), so I sure aren't a long term supporter there.

But credit where it's due and I'd have to say that the Greens' social policies in general are a decade or two ahead of the Laborials who are still prattling on with a few policies that are clearly linked to religion.

If we ever did end up with a Green government then I'm confident we'd be a lot poorer economically, possibly to the point of actual collapse. But with the massive debts this country incurred during the Howard years as the basis for its "growth", and the spendthrift ways of Rudd, I really can't see Bob Brown doing much worse.

At least he'd likely blow the money on hospitals and railways which are of some long term use rather than running up debt to pay more for the same house we already had or spending it on imported consumer junk from China, neither of which has achieved anything other than to saddle the next generation with unrepayable debt in order to fund present lifestyles.

Debt spiral to bid up the prices of the same houses we already have whilst we have national assets sold off while we implemented censorship of mainstream commercial radio during the Howard years?

Debt spiral to buy fancy TV's while we implement censorship of the internet under Rudd?

Or a debt spiral to build a few hospitals, trains and solar panels whilst retaining our basic freedoms and gaining back much of what's been taken over the past decade?

It really does worry me to say it, but the Greens are looking better than either Labor or Liberal to me right now. They'll all blow the money and send us broke, the only question is what else they do in the meantime.
 

Going to have to disagree with you. Brown is in the comfortable position of knowing he will never be in power to put money where his mouth is, or succeed in actually running anything (besides his mouth.) So he has a magic wish list of policies to please everyone. There's no indication he'd actually do what he says he'd do. With leftists it's a safe bet they won't. The wrapping paper is always pretty, but there's a turd inside. Ask Venezuala or any other socialist sewer.

You want a look at the greens track record of policies? Look no further than the VIC bushfire disaster. Know why there were so many trees inside the living areas of those Victorian small towns? Guess which party forbade cutting them down.

There are less dangerous ways to spend a protest vote, imo.
 
Can't really argue with your logic there and totally agreed about trees, fires etc - that's a classic example of Green madness.

But Labor under Rudd is so far to the left as to put them in essentially the same category. 99% Left versus 100% left isn't much difference.

And the Liberals no longer seem to support the notion of personal freedom, free enterprise etc as they drift into some sort of fusion of Leftist control and religious influence.

I'd vote for anyone actually supporting freedom in an instant. But with the possible exception of a small number of independents, we don't actually have any politicians supporting freedom these days. The options are essentially confined to what form of control we'll be under and who it is intended to benefit.

What we need is a "liberal" party in Australia. We have a party that uses that term as its name, but its policies don't come anywhere near something that could be described as "liberal". "Conservative" would be a better name for the present Liberal Party since that is what their policies are - conservative.
 
Part of the problem is that a lot of current freedom is used by general public for illegal activities that give authorities good excuse for totalitarian approach of fixing it.

Probably 2008 Olympic games in China gave our authorities first hand good ‘understanding’ of benefits that Government totalitarian censorship gives.

(Wander if this thread will be gagged and closed by this Forum Censorship as boat thread was?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Australia secretly censors Wikileaks Internet censorship list
Replies
2
Views
5K
doctorj
A
Proposed New Website Blocking Laws
Replies
4
Views
4K
Kimosabi
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...