During the 1950s Spain, under Generalissimo Franco had the most draconian censorship laws in the world. (he was a devout catholic) Now Spain has one of the most liberal censorship conditions on earth, and Oz, saturated with religious bigots-on either side of politics- is heading back to Spain of the 1950s.

Unfortunately we, who are against rabid censorship, are far less organised than the bigots. By speaking loudly yet doing little we forfeit the right to fight for a civilised nation. How is it the religious people are so well funded?

This is where I would be asking the question ‘Why?’ Why are we allowing it to happen?

If you type “https://vtunnel.com” into your browser’s address box, and the address of the blocked web-site into the vtunnel address box, you will have by-passed the filter, and it is perfectly legal.

If you don’t want your web browser to keep a record of where you have been on the internet or what you saw, you should tell your browser to start a private browsing session:
Internet Explorer 8 > Tools > InPrivateBrowsing >
Firefox > Tools > Start Private Browsing >

http://boingboing.net/censorroute.html

C’mon, how much clout can a political action group possibly have?

Were you aware that during their ’07 electioneering for the Christian vote, John Howard and Kevin Rudd committed 189,000,000 tax dollars to an anti-pornography scheme during in a live simulcast that was organised by the Australian Christian Lobby? At the last election the Managing Director of ACL, Mr. Jim Wallace told ABC TV’s Lateline program he expected the Christian vote to have a big impact on the coming election. Unsurprisingly, it was at this event that the politicians revealed the $189 million anti-pornography initiative. The same evalgelical lobbiest Jim Wallace: “To be truly effective, it is important that the list of sites to be blacklisted be continuously updated and that the parameters for blacklisting sites and material are similarly continuously reviewed,” he said [ACL Press Release, February ‘08].

This from Senator Christine Milne, “The Australian Christian Lobby is a private company, it’s a lobbying company, and like every other lobbying company it lobbies on behalf of its clients and it was not clear to us who’s funding the Australian Christian Lobby and where they were coming from …before we see this incursion of really fundamentalist religious right into Australian politics, people need to know where it’s coming from, and I think Mr. Wallace could clear that up by actually saying who’s funding the Australian Christian Lobby [www.abc.net.au Nov ‘07]

Senator Allison says the separation of church and state is becoming blurred: “The Prime Minister this morning said that there were a great number of Members of Parliament in Coalition ranks with very strong ties to the Christian church … I know this is a Christian country but people with very strong religious views are heavily over-represented, if I can put it that way, in the Parliament,” she said.

Does it particularly matter that the scheme and the technology is a completely lame duck? “Yes Minister” Kevin Rudd is intent on blindly going where no leader outside of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia has gone before - in full knowledge it is totally ineffective. Holly Doel-Mackaway with Save the Children, the largest independent children’s rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users. Doel-Mackaway noted the claims by the internet industry that the filters would be easily bypassed, would not block content found on peer-to-peer networks and chat rooms and would be in danger of being broadened to include legitimate content such as regular pornography, political views, pro-abortion sites and online gambling.

If you check the facts as put forward by Senator Conroy you’ll discover Internet filtering is ostensibly set in place to shield children from ‘child pornography’ - which is an absolute sham. I’d like to see an amnesty of, say, 24 hours whereby any decent Australian might attempt to find a single image of true child pornography on the Internet - just to prove how ridiculous this assertion from groups like the Australian Christian Lobby [ACL] and the Rudd camp actually is. If you wish to have groups like the ACL dictate what you can see on the internet, that is entirely your prerogative.

Of course, you are well within your rights to OPT-IN to a private or Government funded ‘Net Nanny’ type service. I personally don’t wish to have a man that eats his own ear wax - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8 - telling me anything … especially a Prime Minister who kowtows to a right-wing political action group that decries everything from Darwinian ideas of human evolution to homosexuality, and indeed anything they decide is un-Christian.

What does “appropriate content” constitute precisely? You already have a filter in your operating system that will do a better job. Are you prepared to allow a public servant decide what you do or do not see? If we all sit back and allow back-room bureaucrats and the ‘idiot fringe’ to decide what we are entitled to see online at the ISP level, as opposed to OPT-IN filtering, we’re going to Hell courtesy of born again ‘let-me-shove-my-views-down-your-throat’ clowns. If a family chooses to opt-in to this filtering, no problem - at least the rest of us will not be subjected to mandatory censorship.

JOIN the millions of moderate, sane Australians who give a %$#@. Write to your MP now - because this goes before parliment this month. Let politicians know in no uncertain terms that those that elected them can just as easily un-elect them.

http://www.internetblackout.com.au/ & http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/

It seems alittle strange you advocate debate on these subjects yet lead a campaign to block access to information on the subjects.

The recent SA electoral reforms raise some interesting questions, just how seriously do Australian politicians take the constitutional right to freedom of political speech?

Also the decision in the iiNet case seems to indicate that the end user is solely responsible for how they use the internet, how does an ISP level internet filter fit into this equation? I wonder how the High Court would view ISPs being forced to filter content to all end users?

I found this statement particularly telling.

Chewbacca Politics.

Frowned upon by a screeching minority? Yes.

But illegal? No.

You can head on over to amazon.com and buy yourself a copy of “The Peaceful Pill.”
http://www.amazon.com/Peaceful-Pill-Handbook-Revised-International/dp/0978878825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260883024&sr=8-1

Or Ken Park (available on a region-free DVD, just right for us Aussies):
http://www.amazon.com/Uncut-Uncensored-Region-Larry-Clark/dp/B001AZKB8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265204293&sr=8-1

Or Bais Moi (region-1 and region-4, again, just right for us Aussies):
http://www.amazon.com/Violame-Baise-Moi-America-English-Options/dp/B000Q2JP1W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265204332&sr=8-1

… or all sorts of other RC material which adults in other jurisdictions are deemed to be mature enough to view without psychological harm, even as the pantywaist hair-shirted tut-tutters in our Parliaments declare that we Australians are too fragile to be trusted with them.

(read the reviews, see what citizens of other nations can enjoy without government interference)

These books and films are legal to buy, own, read, watch, give away to other Australians, debate, and ponder. They’re illegal to sell or display publicly within borders patrolled by Australia’s quivering, terrified politicians and bureaucrats, but you weren’t going to do those things anyway, right?

As Crispin Harris said above, the Rudd Government wants to move us to a world where it’s perfectly legal to buy hardcopy and DVD versions of these publications and films, but where we won’t be able to see them on our Kindles and iPads.

Does that actually make any sense?

- mark

Yes it is indeed illegal to distribute RC content in Australia, but with respect to the Internet, the distribution comes from the servers overseas (which don’t have such restrictive censorship laws as we enjoy in Australia), making the distribution similarities void. The *only* valid comparison is whether the content is legal to possess and view, and practically everything in the RC category is legal to possess and view - distribution is irrelevant in this censorship debate.

That would make it illegal to distribute on the internet as well?

The legislation also states that some types of RC content are also illegal to own. Have a read.

So if some forms of RC are illegal to own, and all forms are illegal to distribute or show to others, what’s the legal problem with RC being put on a blacklist? The law supports it. Get the relevant law changed if you want internet users to be able to view RC content in Australia in the future and the matter is resolved.

You can argue forever whether it will work or not, that has rarely if ever stopped legislation.

Leader Rudd actually has mentioned the policy: In particular, he explicitly mentioned it as one of the topics he said he’d discuss during his youth webchat on 22 October 2009.

Turns out he actually lied about that, and wasn’t really interested in discussing it. When chat participant jamincanberra challenged him on it, Rudd palmed him/her off to Kate Ellis’ “national conversation” website and otherwise refused to engage.

Cowardice, much?

- mark

They also know that internet censorship in any form is deeply unpopular. All polls conducted to date show an overwhelming majority of Australians opposed to mandatory filtering.

Yet they persist.

Why?

Either Conroy and Labor are just being dumb and/or stubborn, or there is a hidden motive we have yet to work out.

What I also find interesting is how Rudd has avoided mentioning the filter - not one word, not a single peep - so even Rudd knows that if he begins talking about it, the masses will be fully alerted to Labor’s disgusting plans and the public will revolt, just like they did this week in South Australia.

So why, I ask again, is Labor persisting with a policy that is not only unpopular but is also a complete dud?

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/

This is offensive and derogatory to all Australians!

Our poor, demented Minister said:

As Keane points out there are many videos on YouTube “about euthanasia and suicide, some offering instructions or recommending it”. Euthanasia has long been a hotly debated and divisive issue in Australia but the fact remains that instruction in self-harm in Australia is a crime and therefore content containing such instruction is deemed Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme guidelines.

The Minister has answered questions in Parliament about this, so he knows full well that the Refused Classification material he’s described in this paragraph is 100% legal for people to read, view, buy, and debate.

This is the content he wants to ban online.

The Minister justifies this by saying (as he did last year) that “Most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilized society.”

Where he falls down is by going on to assert that the Refused Classification category describes that content.

It clearly doesn’t — Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate about it!

Now, I’m not sure that even he believes the words that come out of his mouth anymore. He’s just punching the clock now, and the only reason the policy is proceeding to legislation is because he told us it’d proceed to legislation. There’s no real reason, justification or demand for this policy. The only reason it still exists is because it’s the policy. Censorship isn’t a means to an end for this Government, it’s the end itself.

- mark

“but the fact remains that instruction in self-harm in Australia is a crime and therefore content containing such instruction is deemed Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme guidelines. A time may come where instruction in self harm is no longer a crime under Australian law and such content would therefore not be deemed Refused Classification. People who object to this content being included in the filtering policy should turn their focus to changing the laws”.

I would challenge this idiot to allow a national referendum on the subject as I understand that over 80% of Australians do not class voluntary euthanasia as “self harm” , but see it as a rational response to pain and suffering, especially for the terminally ill and infirm aged for whom a peaceful release from their suffering would be a blessing, and one that would be sanctioned by a merciful God.

Unfortunately right wing godbotherers like Conroy, for some perverse reason enjoy making others suffer for the sake of their own perverse dogma.

The controls that he is proposing to introduce a similar to those practised in China Burma and Malaysiato nominate three jurisdictions involving significant censorship, and these tools once created can play into the hands of despots. The thought of Tony Abbott with these controls fills me with despair. Freedom once forced it is very difficult to regain.

This proposal is the thin end of the wedge for censorship of any media content that “Big Brother” decides is not for our general consumption. This infrastructure will facilitate censorship of any topic at the window government bureaucrat or politician. If you want an example of how this censorship power is misused look at China. Imagine what Tony Abbott as the “Chief Information Minister” as the head of the “Ministry of Truth” (Apologies to George Orwell)

Some 50 years ago narrow bigoted religious minded individuals were trying to stop us from reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and it took a tremendous amount of public backlash and protest for this censorship problem to be resolved. The situation we have now is even more pernicious. Secret lists of topics and subjects will be prescribed at the push of a bureaucratic button without any recourse as you will not know what you are not allowed to see. Topics such as euthanasia in relation to which politicians pander to right-wing lunatics could easily be suppressed without our knowledge. Whilst ostensibly these controls are designed to control internet pornography, it is more likely that this is a more pernicious project to control the political landscape in terms of discussion. Nothing short of a complete and open disclosure of the banned information will ensure that these proposed controls are being used for the appropriate purposes. It should be necessary to get a Supreme Court judge to issue a formal order in relation to the banning of the information, and this information published in the daily law lists, with the opportunity for objectors to be heard.

However as it is reasonably well-known that “porn freaks and geeks” are able to get around these controls one is forced to the inescapable conclusion that these people are not the prime target, but that this is an excuse to allow corrupt politicians to control the information landscape. The recent response from Sen Conroy’s office does nothing to dispel any concerns in relation to potential political censorship.

Add the YouTube address of Terry Pratchett’s speech on euthanasia to the secret black list. Add the address for the relevant comments on the Discworld web site. Add any page anywhere that mentions it. Including this one, and other bits of Crikey.

Go on. I dare you.

“Keane’s speculation of whether Google will comply with the laws of the Australian Government is interesting, however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years. It also abides by the laws in Thailand requiring it to filter from its search results any criticism of the Thai king and filters Nazi propaganda content from its German search results.”

Outstanding stuff! This is actually a vote-changer for me; especially with the blacklist being kept secret.

m

… but as the whims and fancies of public opinion and morality change, along with ACMA’s sense of taste when it comes to classification, what then?

… and when another Minister is responsible for Communications, whether Labor or Liberal, what then?

I understand that the Minister may feel vilified or threatened by the outpouring of (immature and unproductive) bile against him… but as those fighting this policy all know: The true risk is not what Minister Conroy might do, but what this may tempt his successors to do.

Leaving aside the massive technical issues with the filter when will hear the Senator admit that the RC classification contains content that is perfectly legal for people to consume and view? The fact of the matter is that until there is a major overhaul of the classification system in this country it can not in any way be properly applied to the internet and its myriad of content.

Is it to stop people accessing content on the blacklist? No, its dead easy to bypass.

Is it to protect children from inadvertent exposure to maybe 1,000 - 10,000 URLs?
No, stumbling upon RC material is not a problem and the Minister still has not provided any evidence it is. Remember “Evidence based approach”
If it were to block 10,000 URLs out of possible millions upon millions that could fit under the broad category of RC it will not even block 1% of such content.

The Minister would like us to focus on semantics rather then actual substance.

If its not a silver bullet, then what is it?

So much for bringing the Internet into line with other media. Other media was already all over the place for classification.

It’s odd that the Minister said “Keane criticises the Department’s website for pointing out what RC-rated content is, but it is very clear from the opponents of the policy that either they do not know or are wilfully misleading the public.”

I’ve lost count of the number of times Senator Conroy has described Refused Classification in the media as “Includes child pornography, bestiality and pro rape sites” but leaves it there. If the government is determined to educate the public on what RC really is, I’d love for the minister to stop short at only mentioning the worst subset of RC when defending this policy.

I’ve had a complaint on a youtube clip of some guys spray painting a train come back RC (was referred to the classsification board). I guess the sound bite is less punchy if you say “RC includes child pornography and kids spray painting trains”

In the meantime some parents seem to think Labor is about to make the Internet safer for their kids. The opposite is true if parents are tempted to relax their supervision because of this.