Internet Censorship in Australia - it won't give up!

[The Beautiful Darkness]

(lolimmigration)...

Been considering it for a while..

[Kanabia]

Just thought I'd share; this is for all those who think that anti-freedom laws are permanent.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 77,00.html

The anti-bikie laws are notoriously unconstitutional, in much the same vein as this internet censorship deal is. And as you'll undoubtedly duly note (should you read the article), the former are having a very, very difficult time sticking around.

Just saying. The censorship might pass the first time; that doesn't by ANY means dictate that it's here forever.

Well it depends on who is presiding on the supreme court at any one time. Our constitution doesn't have a bill of rights guaranteeing us freedoms we take for granted (although previous rulings have stated that there's "implied" freedoms). We can't really rely on the judicial system to be able to repeal such a law requiring Internet filtering, although it is a possible recourse.

[New Chalcedon]

Just thought I'd share; this is for all those who think that anti-freedom laws are permanent.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 77,00.html

The anti-bikie laws are notoriously unconstitutional, in much the same vein as this internet censorship deal is. And as you'll undoubtedly duly note (should you read the article), the former are having a very, very difficult time sticking around.

Just saying. The censorship might pass the first time; that doesn't by ANY means dictate that it's here forever.

Well it depends on who is presiding on the supreme court at any one time. Our constitution doesn't have a bill of rights guaranteeing us freedoms we take for granted (although previous rulings have stated that there's "implied" freedoms). We can't really rely on the judicial system to be able to repeal such a law requiring Internet filtering, although it is a possible recourse.

A point in response to that: The judicial doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand) means that even if a given judge disagrees with the ruling on a previous, precedent-setting case, he/she is unlikely to vote to reverse it unless it's a pet peeve of theirs. It's been known to happen, but the nature of the Australian Constitution is such (being heavily based off of British common law) that the concept of implied freedoms is fairly widely accepted, at least among judicial circles. Which, when it comes down to it, are the only circles that count in rendering HC rulings.

Thank the Mother for a Court insulated from politics......

EDIT: The Nationwide News Pty Ltd v. Wills (1992) case was one of the benchmarks of the "implied rights" doctrine in Australia, and was decided 7-0. The Australian Capital Television v. Cth (1992) case was another, being decided 5-2 on one point, and 4-3 on the other.

[Sun Aut Ex]

STILL waiting for the report on the filter.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/securit ... 726,00.htm

It's obviously been a disaster, and the govt. is deliberately holding it back or doctoring it.

[Kanabia]

STILL waiting for the report on the filter.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/securit ... 726,00.htm

It's obviously been a disaster, and the govt. is deliberately holding it back or doctoring it.

Yes, I suspect they are anticipating attaining the balance of power in the senate in the next elections, and wish to push it through unopposed. This is possible considering recent developments in the Liberal Party.

[Blouman Empire]

STILL waiting for the report on the filter.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/securit ... 726,00.htm

It's obviously been a disaster, and the govt. is deliberately holding it back or doctoring it.

Yes, I suspect they are anticipating attaining the balance of power in the senate in the next elections, and wish to push it through unopposed. This is possible considering recent developments in the Liberal Party.

That would be why and the dumbass general populance won't even think about it and just vote the ALP in without thinking.

The Australian people are like a battered wife, they get abused and told what to do because it is best for them and they continue to love the government.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Well, the wowsers have won. I guess we get to enjoy the steady decline of Australian democracy, followed by the inevitable bloody revolution.

[Cameroi]

censorship is the price we're all paying for having allowed bizdroids to turn the library into a shopping mall. i'm not in oz, but in the belly of the even bigger beast, and speaking in general.

if it were up to me the only thing i'd censor on the internet is marketing.
and that completely.

with exception for extremely rural areas that have to mail order everything anyway.

[Nordicus]

In short, a completely biased, one-sided article designed to tell as little of the truth as possible, whilst achieving a maximum of political mileage for Rupert Murdoch.

We're talking about News Corp, the same company that owns Faux "News." All that goes without saying.

[Hamilay]

tyranny go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8413377.stm

[Lackadaisical2]

tyranny go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8413377.stm

Its a bit surprising how little condemnation the BBC put on the plan. I mean, they even put censorship in quotes...

[Blouman Empire]

In short, a completely biased, one-sided article designed to tell as little of the truth as possible, whilst achieving a maximum of political mileage for Rupert Murdoch.

We're talking about News Corp, the same company that owns Faux "News." All that goes without saying.

LOL so you don't read many Australian newspapers owned by News Corp?

[Ardchoille]

Updater: The Government is asking for submissions. Closing date is the close of business on February 12, 2010. Submission form is here.

They're not asking the big question, ie, "Do you want a compulsory internet filter?"

They're asking about who should draw up the blacklist of sites, how much of the process should be visible to the public and how answerable the decision-makers should be.

For example, should the public be asked to nominate sites for blacklisting? If so, how do you ensure balance when interest groups mount campaigns against specific sites or types of site?

If you've got an opinion on that and you want it to be heard, best to do some research and write your own original letter, because what they describe as "campaign-type material" is likely to be just counted for numbers opposed, not read for opinions.

Can't say I blame fhem for that, really: I wouldn't want to read 100,000 copies of the GetUp points, either. But it's useful if you just want to be counted.

[Pwnshop]

This article detailing the most recent developments:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html

The worrying aspect of the situation is this: All the Rudd Government has to do to gain the votes in the Senate that it needs to succeed is wait until the next election. Under the Australian system, those Senators elected in 2004 will be up for election next year. Given that 2004 was a good year for the Liberal-National Coalition, I project (on the basis of the polls to date) that the Coalition will lost at *least* four Senate seats.

Current Senate: ALP 32, Coalition 37, Green 5, Ind 2. In order to get the vote through, Labor must get either the Coalition to support it (Read: Buckley's chance), or get the Greens *and* both Independants to go for it (ditto). Under the current Senate, the bill is dead.

Projected Senate: ALP 35, Coalition 33, Green 7, Ind 1. Still apparently Buckley's, but all it takes is three defectors on this vote (whom Labor would be happy to guarantee a political future in exchange, since the Senate vote is on a Party line, not for individual candidates). Further, this is an *optimistic* scenario. Given Rudd's considerable political skills, it is not beyond possibility that the Coalition will be sufficiently emasculated to cede an outright Labor majority in the Senate.

We're in serious trouble here in Oz, folks......some help or ideas would be appreciated.

IT stock and job losses required.

[Ardchoille]

I think Conroy has said he'd bring it on before the next election -- gonna have to wait till tomorrow to hunt that one up, too tired now.

[Sun Aut Ex]

I swear, first site I find that's censored, I'm going to VPN it.

[James_xenoland]

I love when they say that only illegal content is going to be banned, and then point out CP or rape etc. But it's a funny thing, those Australian laws under this. Because legal = only what the Government explicitly says you could view/own/buy. Everything else is illegal. Not just content forbidden by law. (CP etc.)

Web filters to censor video games

The Federal Government has now set its sights on gamers, promising to use its internet censorship regime to block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for 15 year olds.

Australia is the only developed country without an R18+ classification for games, meaning any titles that do not meet the MA15+ standard - such as those with excessive violence or sexual content - are simply banned from sale by the Classification Board, unless they are modified to remove the offending content.

So far, this has only applied to local bricks-and-mortar stores selling physical copies of games, but a spokesman for Senator Conroy confirmed that under the filtering plan, it will be extended to downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard.

This means that even Australians who are aged above 15 and want to obtain the adult-level games online will be unable to do so. . It will undoubtedly raise the ire of gamers, the average age of which is 30 in Australia, according to research commissioned by the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia.

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the Government clearly went far beyond any mandate it had from the public to help parents deal with cyber-safety.

He said Australians would soon learn this the hard way when they find web pages mysteriously blocked.

"This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping," said Mr Jacobs.

"Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

Senator Conroy's spokesman said the filter would cover "computer games such as web-based flash games and downloadable games, if a complaint is received and the content is determined by ACMA to be Refused Classification". All games that exceed MA15+ are deemed to be RC.

The filtering could also block "the importation of physical copies of computer games sold over the internet which have been classified RC", the spokesman said.

Mark Newton, an ISP engineer and internet filtering critic, said the move to extend the filtering to computer games would place a cloud over online-only games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life, which aren't classified in Australia due to their online nature.

Nine ISPs are trialling the web censorship plan, which will block all content that has been "refused classification" by ACMA. Results of the trials are due to be published in July.

[Zeppy]

Epic grave dig.

[Ardchoille]

Epic grave dig.

No, it ain't. That's been raised twice in Moderation, and each time I've pointed out that it's an ongoing live issue in Australia.

It woke up again this time because the government pulled a swiftie on December 13 -- at a guess, they hoped everyone was too busy to notice -- and released the report referred to in the November 26 posts.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

So I guess now the Australian government is going to ban everything that is violent on the internet? What on earth are they are thinking about: do you think they are treating us like school children even though, now 20, I know now what the rules of thumb are?

[Blouman Empire]

So I guess now the Australian government is going to ban everything that is violent on the internet? What on earth are they are thinking about: do you think they are treating us like school children even though, now 20, I know now what the rules of thumb are?

Yes the ALP and Krudd do see themselves as the parents of Australian who will decide what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot say.

[Helgrin]

Australia officially fails. I've found out 2 bad things about it in 2 days.

I wanted either sympathy, or ideas. I did *not* want pointless criticism of my country. I'm aware that Australia has its warts - we're Australia, not Utopia, after all.

NOT UTOPIA!!! What is this heresy you speak!?

[Helgrin]

So I guess now the Australian government is going to ban everything that is violent on the internet? What on earth are they are thinking about: do you think they are treating us like school children even though, now 20, I know now what the rules of thumb are?

Yes the ALP and Krudd do see themselves as the parents of Australian who will decide what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot say.

That's Kruddie for ya. Don't get me started on the education system.

[Blouman Empire]

So I guess now the Australian government is going to ban everything that is violent on the internet? What on earth are they are thinking about: do you think they are treating us like school children even though, now 20, I know now what the rules of thumb are?

Yes the ALP and Krudd do see themselves as the parents of Australian who will decide what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot say.

That's Kruddie for ya. Don't get me started on the education system.

Don't get you started? Don't get me started on a lot of shit that our dispshit state governments have done and will continue to do thanks to the majority of the population being dipshits.

As well as some of the stuff that Krudd et. al. wants to do to us. All for our greater good you understand as well as pretending to do anything. Krudd is all style and no substance.

[F1-Insanity]

Lefties: *must ban sites that may offend someone*
Religious folks: *must ban sites that insult religion*
Commies: *must ban sites that say communism was bad in 20th century*
Nazis: *must ban sites that denounce reich III*
Family values types: *must ban porn sites*
China/Iran: *must ban sites criticising our government*