Comments on: Who supports compulsory Internet filtering, exactly?

By: credulous

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

Let’s see now. Conroy wants to maintain a secret list of blocked sites. We can’t be trusted to know what is being withheld from us, and are therefore unable to challenge the decisions.
So, someone who doesn’t trust us wants us to trust him. Well, why not? After all, he’s only going to block “unwanted material”, and if Mr. Conroy doesn’t want it, then surely no other right thinking person could want it either.
I mean, its not like he, or anyone who comes after him, is ever going to abuse this convenient arrangement, and equate “unwanted” with “politically embarrassing”, is it?

By: Simon Rumble

Simon Rumble — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Fake Stephen Conroy: because the pro-filter crowd are trying to portray themselves as representing the “mainstream” of Australia. The National Church Life Survey says that only 19% of Australians are regular churchgoers (once a month), so who’s representing the minority here?

By: Fake Stephen Conroy

Fake Stephen Conroy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Stilgherrian; numbers, and the reliability of Get Up’s “online” petition, aside; why did you feel the need to point out that the pro-filter signatures were gathered primarily at churches? Both the pro- and anti-filter crowd have sourced their signatures from within echo chambers of true believers.

By: Stephen Graham

Stephen Graham — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This article was not worthy of publication. I'm appalled that something so biased is sent to me in a subscription that I pay for. I really hope the poor judgment you have used here is rarely repeated. I can read a number of other tabloid papers to get rubbish like this.

On the point of internet filtering. I am generally in support of such a scheme, however I do believe it should be optional for individual households. There is no doubt that filtering will slow down internet access speeds, so I think it is only fair that those who do want filtering - such as myself are willing to accept that there will be side effects like this. Meanwhile I think those who want an unfiltered feed should be able to get it without having to opt-out of filtering. i.e. The filtering should be opt-in.

I don't understand why anybody could object to an opt-in filtering scheme.

By: Christian Soldier

Christian Soldier — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It was good to read that Jim Wallace is not against legal pornography.

By: DJ

DJ — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

verity is you out there?

By: Verity Pravda

Verity Pravda — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Simon Rumble, if you follow the blog you'll note that I was motivated to create the blog by the Government's Digital Economy blog on which I was trying to constructively engage. In those comments I was hardly a Conroy plant. I'm getting a bit tired of this insinuation which I have dealt with on the blog.

DJ I'm here, what did you want? The item from Stil covers old ground, effectively about whether anyone actually wants the filter. I mintain that the filter was part of ALP policy for the election, so mandate theory says we want it. Democratic theory says if we don't the Government will pay! Heck Kevin Rudd is as much poll driven as JWH was so if it is hugely unpopular, don't worry it will go away.

As for the concerns of Greg Angelo that we are simply providing the tools for a "future despotic Government", if we ever get such a despotic Government I don't think it would take them long to build the tools themselves - do you? You know I can cut all of Australia off from the Internet in about six points (soon to be eight I guess)? If I was a despotic Government with control of the police and military it would take me how long to take control of the traffic flow?

By: Simon Rumble

Simon Rumble — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And who is this “Verity Pravda”? A blog created in December 2008, but who seems to have an uncanny ability to mouth the same talking points as Conroy…

By: Matt

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

Stephen Graham: I don't understand why anybody could object to an opt-in filtering scheme.

The fact is, objections are being raised because it is not an opt-in scheme. I think most people would agree to an opt-in scheme, but that is not up for debate.

And I found the article worth publishing - this is an issue I care very much about. Thanks Crikey for keeping me informed.

By: Greg Angelo

Greg Angelo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Conroy is the Kevin Andrews of the Labor Party. Can you imagine what Kevin Andrews would do with this type of control if the Liberals got back into power. Free speech is the essence of democracy.

I fear that the Labour government is pandering to the religious right rather than protecting our democratic freedoms which the Labor movement has fought for over a century. Conroy's duplicity in relation to these matters is an utter disgrace and a reflection of the arrogance of the Rudd government.

The tools that the government is apparently putting in place are no different from controls use by despotic governments in China, Burma, North Korea, and less repressive but similarly obsessive governments in countries like Malaysia. If we allow this ISP filtering control to proceed we are potentially facilitating “Big Brother” controls for a despotic future government.

We must preserve a democratic right of access to information, ideas and images no matter how challenging. Internet filtering in the children's section to libraries and schools where parental supervision is not possible is quite acceptable but mature adults should have the right to see what they want.

By: Simon Rumble

Simon Rumble — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Stephen Graham: What’s being discussed here is not an opt-in filter. Nobody objects to that. In fact, we had a government-provided opt-in filter option until Conroy canceled in December.

What’s being forced on us here is a filter that blocks _perfectly legal_ material, and that you cannot opt out of.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Just being penickity but Greg Angelo, you’ve got your Labor and labour mixed up! Labor is the party, labour is the movement.

By: David

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

I am interested to know who or what is driving Conroy as he persues this rediculous agenda. He surely must realise the vast majority of the country do not want his Governments censorship of the internet. Is this part of Rudds close association with China and that country’s disgraceful imposition on its citizens internet browsing. The PM has been very silent on this matter, usually he can’t stop himself sticking his nose into every portfolio, but on this unpopular proposition he takes on the mantle of a Trappist Monk. It will do nothing for the Govts popularity and for the first time I agree with Sen Minchin, God help me!!!!

By: Tristan

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

This article fails to mention an extremely important point in relation to the “key petition supporting the current policy, with 20,646 signatures”. That petition DOES NOT ask the government to employ a mandatory filer for all Australian internet users. The petition simply asks that ISPs be required to OFFER such a service. To use that petition as an indication that a significant proportion of Australians support mandatory filtering is completely underhanded.

The petition and the exact wording can be found on the Parliament website here:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2006-10-19%2F0007%22