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

Yeah true Julia the old "anyone who does not support the internet filter supports child pr0n" worst part is voters may not see through the irrational garbage.
Not sure about lobbying ISP's but iinet have already been rather vocal on the issue. I know back when the filter was first conceived iinet signed up to the trial to demonstrate how ridiculous it was but they later pulled out due to the scope of the filtered content altering to content other than child pr0n.
 
Telstra support the filter

I guess they have bigger fights on their hands at the moment.
 
Julia said:
In the time it would take to make a post on this thread, you can send a clearly worded objection to the filter to the Shadow Minister.
Click to expand...

Done. Emailed Abbott as well, and emailed Rudd asking him to tell Conroy to pull his head in

POinted out to all three that they should consider searching Google for the phrase "how to beat an internet filter" to see how easy it is, and also mentioned that often the most tech. savvy people in the house are the kids, so the legislation is a complete waste of time.
 
Wysiwyg said:
But the concern here goes beyond crime and into the moral arena. Let's uphold good morals and create a better society.
Click to expand...

Like those excellent upholders of morality, the hierachy of Catholic priesthood, who witheld from public knowledge those of their number that abused their calling?

Freedom of thought and expression please.

If you break the law, you can be prosecuted.

Or if morality is your concern, let God be your judge.

(If you are a non-religious moralist, then you will have to make up your own mind!)
 
I cannot believe that this ridiculous idea is even still on the agenda, the Labour party are really sinking if this is all they can come up with in an effort to be seen to be doing something. And how can the media critisise China for censoring the internet and yet support this!.
 
Not sure if they ever did a trial or not, but for a while I had problems with certain sites "disappearing" and iiNet is my ISP. Some of those pages were on ASF - I'd be able to access page 1, 3 and 4 of a thread but not page 2. Not sure if it was due to a filter or not, but it did happen for a while.
 
Nobody had access to the internet at home when I was in primary school. That didn't stop pr0n magazines appearing at school.

The legal age for smoking was 16 when I was at high school. That didn't prevent the easy availability of cigarettes to 14 year olds.

The legal age for drinking is 18 in Australia. Show me a 17, or even a 15, year old who has never drunk alcohol.

Prohibition doesn't work. Never has and never will. All it does is create a new challenge - to get around the restrictions. Hence there's still an attraction in smoking especially whilst underage and to a significant extent alcohol as well - it's attractive because it's not allowed.
 
Julia said:
There's a political risk in opposing this for the Opposition, in that the government will be quick to label them 'unwilling to protect our innocent children" and more nonsense like that.
Click to expand...
That risk is minimised by them having a policy of their own and using it to go on the attack. Hopefully Tony Abbott will be a little more up to the task there than he was with the recent health debate.
 
$20shoes said:
The vast majority of the sub-categories of RC material are not illegal to access/possess under Commonwealth law, nor under the laws of 6 of the 8 Australian States/Territories.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, $20 Shoes. So the above comment is directly contradicting what Conroy is stating in that he says only illegal sites will be blocked.
Or am I now so confused with all the changes and complicated statements that I'm misunderstanding this?
Under the previous governments families could access free of charge an anti-pr0n filter which they could apply to their own computers.


Obviously you're an aware and responsible parent and if your kids did accidentally access some undesirable sites, you will probably have established sufficient level of trust with them that they will discuss it with you, or just move on.

Really, this whole stupid idea of Conroy's is nothing less than insulting to parents throughout Australia, implying that they don't have sufficient sense of responsibility to properly supervise and talk with their children.

drsmith said:
That risk is minimised by them having a policy of their own and using it to go on the attack. Hopefully Tony Abbott will be a little more up to the task there than he was with the recent health debate.
Click to expand...
Yes, let's hope so. He cannot claim he hasn't had enough time to think about it. There's probably a concern, though, that his own moralistic views could lead him to be silly enough to support it.
 


This is a matter of interpretation, and Conroy would be looking at it from the view of delivering or selling RC material, which is a no-no for the most part.

However, as I understand it, there is a subset of RC classification which makes it illegal for persons to view or own such RC material which includes child pornography, violence ( I think a Clockwork Orange had a hard time with this sub category for many years) and now I believe, material that could incite terrorism plus several other items.

For all other RC material outside of this subset (in most states), it is illegal to distribute and sell RC material, but it is not illegal to possess such material for personal/private use (seemingly incongruous, I know).

Even then, there is "Category 2 Restricted" Classification where such material is subject to conditions of sale such as ensuring that children cannot enter the area of the shop which sells such material) which might apply to moving images but perhaps not still images. I think this is how you get to access those websites that ask if you are you over 18. Click yes and there you have it...

It is messy and confusing.
 
Julia said:
Some of the letters of outrage from Australian citizens:
...
Click to expand...

We worry about Internet censorship, but we don’t worry that this site :
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums

is heavily censored even without touching on subjects that would make Chief Mr Cornroy concerned.

Is there any place we can complain about that?

Or gagged people have to find another Forum to voice concerns about run over religion and forced immigration issues?
 

This site is privately owned and when you joined you agreed to the rules, terms and conditions. If you dont like it you then you are welcome to go elsewhere or if you cant find somewhere to suit what you want, why not start your own site in which you can make the rules.
 



I am more concerned that people fool themselves about their perceived future massive loss of in my opinion virtually non existent freedom anyway, with examples everywhere.

Might is right !
 
Happy said:
I am more concerned that people fool themselves about their perceived future massive loss of in my opinion virtually non existent freedom anyway, with examples everywhere.

Might is right !
Click to expand...

Going off topic, so this will be my last reply on this issue.

So you would walk into a private place and deliberately break the rules if it meant you were exercising what you think are your rights? Would you walk into a property that said 'do not enter' and then get angry at the owners if you were hurt? Would you walk into a shop and go behind the counter or into the staff areas if you felt like it? etc etc
 
There has been plenty of discussion on ASF on issues which Mr Conroy wants to censor, e.g. euthanasia.
Might be more constructive to direct your criticism to Senator Conroy for yet another way he intends to misuse your tax dollars. I doubt that ASF receives any financial assistance for its presence from the taxpayer or its members. Therefore the owner is entitled to control the content of the site.
 


Yes. You can lodge complaints with www.acma.gov.au/hotline. I myself have never seen any content on this site that contravenes the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

As was mentioned, this site has rules within the broader internet regulations and adherence to such rules is required for participation. You can't post anything you want on the internet, indeed as in general life. What you deem as censored may or may not be within the regulations.

Common sense (although not that common ) prevails in such circumstances while stupidity is oft scorned.

I think Julia also has a good suggestion about directing complaints.
 




I have to tread this response carefully, but why posts regarding some religion and some boat issues keep disappearing?

Do you remove them because they contravene the Broadcasting Services Act 1992?
 
Happy said:
I have to tread this response carefully, but why posts regarding some religion and some boat issues keep disappearing?

Do you remove them because they contravene the Broadcasting Services Act 1992?
Click to expand...

Either the moderators or I remove posts that violate ASF's Terms of Use or Code of Conduct.

This from the Code of Conduct:

3. Obscene language and the use of language that is hateful, sexist, racist, harassing or threatening is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

...and this from the Terms of Use:

You agree not to use this website to post anything which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Click to expand...

Quite simple really. I will not let racists or hatemongers use ASF as a soapbox for their views. They can start their own forum and post whatever they want, but they wont be doing it here. I'm all for reasoned, robust debate on almost any topic, but those who wish to promote hateful views or ideologies can do so elsewhere.
 
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...