4)Publishing the titles of banned books and DVD’s is considered to be a fair and reasonable part of transparency in the operation of government. After all, we need to know what the government has decided that we can’t read, don’t we? Or else how can we object if they go too far?“The Refused Classification Content list cannot be made public because if it was, it would simply be a catalogue to direct people to specific URLs that are Refused Classification. “
And yet, the government have argued that publishing banned URL’s is different, because consumers can use the URL to look up the content itself – that it is more than merely the ‘title’ of the work concerned. So we are asked to just ‘trust them’ and allow this list to be secret.
It is impossible to avoid the logical fallacy here!
If the ISP filter worked, then the list of filtered URLs would be safe to publish in public… because if the filter worked, nobody could access the linked content!
Fact: The government doesn’t even believe that technical filtering of Internet content works (or, surely, they’d be happy to publish the banned URL list because it’d be safe to do so, because… the filter works, right?)
Thanks for the interesting link, captain black.
The more I hear about this nonsense, and the more Senator Conroy fails to answer such obvious criticisms as "if a URL is banned/filtered out, how could publishing the list be any problem???", the more I am becoming convinced that this whole proposition is not at all to do with protecting children, but is a backdoor way to allow the government to censor politically unpalatable material.
If it was really about protecting children, they'd use the considerable dollars invested to employ more Federal police and other valid measures to actually reduce child abuse/pornography.
It seems a thought too far that the government would actually devise a whole policy that's a nonsense in order to introduce a measure which will allow them into the future to decide what we may access in terms of purely political content.
Perhaps I'm getting paranoic in my thinking here? Anyone agree that it could be so?
Thanks for the interesting link, captain black.
The more I hear about this nonsense, and the more Senator Conroy fails to answer such obvious criticisms as "if a URL is banned/filtered out, how could publishing the list be any problem???", the more I am becoming convinced that this whole proposition is not at all to do with protecting children, but is a backdoor way to allow the government to censor politically unpalatable material.
If it was really about protecting children, they'd use the considerable dollars invested to employ more Federal police and other valid measures to actually reduce child abuse/pornography.
It seems a thought too far that the government would actually devise a whole policy that's a nonsense in order to introduce a measure which will allow them into the future to decide what we may access in terms of purely political content.
Perhaps I'm getting paranoic in my thinking here? Anyone agree that it could be so?
Yep good artical there Captain. Out of all the stuipid nonsense that this filter involves this one is the biggest concern,
Heap of other good points in that article. when are the main stream media going to pick this nonsense up??
Thanks for the links, alwaysLearning.Yeah don't be fooled by Conjob and krudd. This filter is nothing more than a waste of tax dollars.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/c...rences-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=cleanfeed
http://openinternet.com.au/
# Don't Sign the GetUp petition, Be careful about donations to GetUp! Things are not as they seem: GetUp!? GET ACCOUNTABLE – Dont' steal money from Anti-Censorship Donors
Conroy is making us an International laughing stock
a) he is commited moralist
b) sucking up to the boss
c) insufferably arrogant and cant bear to back down
d) all of the above
I hope you're right. Hard to see why they won't drop it in the face of the massive voter outrage against it. If the Libs actually have the courage to come out and say they won't support it, then that would be the end of it, no question.He is an idiot. This stupidity will (like the ETS) be shelved before the election.
Thanks for the links, alwaysLearning.
I'm interested in the following extract from the Whirlpool link:
At the time of the last election, GetUp was extremely active with some online 'advice' which purported to be without bias toward either side.
I can't now remember the details, but later it became clear that GetUp was a quasi subset of the Labor Party.
Does anyone know any more about this organisation?
KEVIN Rudd has put another election promise on the backburner with his controversial internet filtering legislation set to be shelved until after the next election.
Another one of Labor's children out the door.Well at least that didn't get off the ground yet
Another one of Labor's children out the door.
In that sense the ETS is too.Hmmm not just yet it's just on hiatus.
Abbott said they will wait for the legislation before deciding but also said they have concerns with the proposal.Hmmm not just yet it's just on hiatus. Anyone know what liberals position is on the filter?
The Christian lobby party is also pushing very hard on getting this through and demanding a date for when it will come into effect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?