Comments on: The world smirks at Conroy’s censorship plan

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It’s starting to look like “[after] millions wasted, it will be abandoned” might be the best we can hope for - or maybe they’re just setting up something ineffectual to placate the likes of Fielding. Of course, if it does actually “work” it could be much MUCH worse than that… what a total clusterf*ck.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The government doesn’t know most of the details yet, they are still in the process of working it all out. What they do know, is in the public domain. When they know, it’ll be released.

By: Gail

Gail — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

@Steve - If what is in the public domain is all the government knows, the proposal is even worse than incompetent. None of ACMA’s decisions now are public nor are any of those decisions now subject to any scrutiny by any independent assessment. The list is compiled in secret on the basis of complaints. There is no appeals procedure. ACMA don’t even have to submit internet decisions even to the stacked OFLC if they don’t want to.

Stephen Conroy has dissembled, engaged in ad hominen attacks or used witch hunt responses, when questioned on any aspect of this policy in Parliament. There is a heavy list of Questions on Notice that he has yet to answer. Every single Labor member of Parliament has provided the exact same response to questions from the constituents. To date, even the details of the hardware and systems have been kept secret. What sort of crap is “alpha”, “beta” type names of dodgy vendors looking for a bottomless pit of forced purchasing by private companies. The vendors are lobbying in secret. “Special” interest groups are lobbying in secret. The consultative group has no judicial or civil rights member. Open, transparent, I don’t think so!!!

Unless “Public Domain” has been redefined to “secret locked chamber” when I wasn’t looking your post is rubbish.

By: Bohemian

Bohemian — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I am glad to read this. I am not opposed to control of child pornography but I am opposed to the state gaining even greater control over what we can read and think. It isn’t such a great leap for the state to start to describe anti government rhetoric or risque slogans as pornography . Any legislation which allows for “flexibility” in interpretion of what it covers only needs a synpathetic judiciary to deny people their constituional rights. No thanks..the sleazebags have moved on anyhow, They are now using a different method of transfer - probably some “above the net” highway that a “dross” of their richer constituency have orchestrated..

By: fiona

fiona — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As Convenor of the Australian Sex Party I am particularly concerned that my party’s websites and those of our funding agencies may be blacklisted under Conroy’s plan. Maybe he never envisaged a political party based on sexual rights, sexual health and sexual equality when he framed this legislation but in the courts, political free speech has been guaranteed in this country. In the same way that unions fund the ALP and big business funds the Libs, my party is in part funded by adult industry traders - many of whom are online. Conroy’s filtering plan threatens to cut off this funding and also hamper the flow of information from a political party to its members. If you think this is scaremongering, it was only a few years ago that the Eros Association web site - an incorporated not for profit industry association with no explicit content - was blacklisted by Parliament House security. This meant that MPs and their staff were denied access to the industry’s policies and comments on the censorship debate. The Eros site is still blacklisted in some official areas simply because of its name and its political stance. How many more layers of censorship will Conroy’s internet filtering plans ad to this already bizarre situation?

By: Chris Johnson

Chris Johnson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Why governments dither and steer policies off course could be attributed to the politicisation of the public service. If you’ve ever been to a party meeting you’ll agree they’re manically boring so I’m presuming with all the last card louey’s turning up on ballot papers that party memberships have dried up. Which leaves only fanatics and toadies and a gene pool like the Murray-Darling to steer policy, media and admin. In this Crikey edition your article ” plumb jobs for wreaking bureacratic disaster” tells us the PM is fearful of stepping outside the mafiosa as he calls in the committed from safe outposts. No government, minister or department can deliver cutting edge policy using old tools …so to speak.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

@gail “even the details of the hardware and systems have been kept secret” - the government doesn’t know what they will even be yet, there’s a long way to go before they decide

By: Cathy

Cathy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Australia should tell the Rudd government to pack up its tent and go home on toying with the formulation of local internet censorship as a national policy until its engaged in national consultation. It can only be construed as a PR exercise by a new regime trying to raise its moral profile as the issue is sorted out at international level. Europe, the USA, UK and Asia all agree its an iternational topic demanding international concensus with national tweaking to tailor specific religious and moral confines. No wonder Oz is hailed as experimenting with the internet censorship without an idea of what it should purge. Its a time and money-waster at this stage for the sake of promoting political agendas we can well do without.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The Rudd Government slides in the direction that made the Bush White House ’ on the nose ’ with the American public…more influence on policy by the religious right. It is to be hoped intelligent influences such as Julia Gillard and her supporters in the Govt ensure Rudd and Conroy do not embark on a course designed to pacify their mates who regard picking ones nose and scratching ones bum as an affront to the Almighty. Over the top comment I appreciate but the intent is clear. To be in bed with Fielding spells trouble. Conroy in particular appears to be a carbon copy of the Liberals good ole RC Andrews. Some of my best friends are Catholics but…………………………..:-)

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This is yet another attempt at controlling the masses. What is it with democracy in this country? Don’t these idiots realize that they and their families have to live in the mess they create, the same as the rest of us? Don’t they cherish the freedom of speech, thought , association and belief that this country gives to its citizens? Why do politicians turn into narrow minded dictatorial bas#@ards in the moment they get to power?
Maybe they think that they and their families are exempt from the oppression they create. This government is going about it in the right way to be a one term outfit. The scary thing is the alternative is even more oppressive.
Welcome to modern day Australia. The land that had it all and let it all slip through their finders for a few dollars and a barbie in the backyard. The Romans had the Circus and white bread to control the masses, we have government handouts and footy. And all the while we loose a bit more of our freedom every day.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is indeed a ridiculous plan, and dented my hope that the Rudd government would break the head-slapping appointment of luddites to the post of Communications Minister. I remember Kate Lundy seemed to be quite switched on in that area back when she was shadow minister. Why she was shuffled out in favour of the clearly less qualified Conroy is beyond me.

While the short term political goals of this censorship escapade might mollify Fielding in the senate, the government should be very wary of upsetting the geeks. They don't ask for much, but two things are guaranteed to fire them up: 1) Telstra's infrastructure monopoly screwing broadband development in this country, and 2) Having to answer for embarassing IT policies set in motion by our federal government.

By: ben

ben — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

the idea that the Government can tame this beast is laughable at best. Years later and with god knows how many millions wasted, it will be abandoned. Plant trees instead!