Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Anyone who's pro filtering should install this on their computer or stfu: http://www.download.com/China-Channel-Firefox-add-on/3000-11745_4-10900446.html?tag=mncol;txt

 

[chicky_pie]

Hmm whoever voted for Rudd where he 'promised' we would get faster internet, LOL at you. He's not here to make our ISP faster, he's here to make it communist ISP.

 

[withoutaface]

Any ISP that volunteers to test these filters is going to get slaughtered in the marketplace.

EDIT: Tbh they should trial it in Conroy's electorate office.

 

[Trefoil]

Unless you guys have some inside information about the Liberals planning to support it, I don't see why this discussing need continue?

 

[withoutaface]

Unless you guys have some inside information about the Liberals planning to support it, I don't see why this discussing need continue?

Just because certain Senators don't support it in its current form doesn't mean that the ALP's not going to try and come to a compromise solution with them. Further, it's important that this gets as much publicity as possible so that Labor/FF/Xenophon don't find themselves with a Senate majority after the next election.

 

[stazi]

tsup.

 

[Trefoil]

Just because certain Senators don't support it in its current form doesn't mean that the ALP's not going to try and come to a compromise solution with them. Further, it's important that this gets as much publicity as possible so that Labor/FF/Xenophon don't find themselves with a Senate majority after the next election.

Assuming this financial crisis doesn't change things too much (and I don't think it will by 2010), I imagine a best case scenario for Labour/FF/Xenu would be they keep their current lot of seats. Similarly a best case for Labour would be that Greens keep their current lot of seats (instead of stealing 2 more from Labour as projected). So as long as Liberals don't lose seats next election we should be OK.

But you do have a very good point.

 

[jb_nc]

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- Indonesia's parliament passed a bill banning pornography Thursday, ignoring opposition from lawmakers and rights groups who worry it will be used to justify attacks on artistic, religious and cultural freedom.

More than 100 legislators stormed out ahead of the vote saying that -- while the bill's final version removed contentious clauses regulating dress and social behavior -- it went against the country's tradition of diversity.

Ninety percent of Indonesia's 235 million citizens are Muslim, most practicing a moderate form of the faith. But many of its islands have large Christian and Hindu populations and some women in tribal regions, like Papua, still go topless.

A small group of hard-line Islamist parties argued that globalization was chipping away at the country's moral fiber and dusted off an anti-pornography bill originally drafted in 1999.

They were forced to revise it several times, dropping a ban on bikinis at tourist resorts, for instance.

The version that eventually passed Thursday focuses instead on the dissemination of material that contains pornographic images, gestures or even conversations. Violators can be sentenced to up to 12 years in prison and fined up to $750,000.

"We're worried it will be used by hard-liners who say they want to control morality," said Baby Jim Aditya, a women's rights activist, noting that the bill allows ordinary people to play a role in preventing pornography. "It could be used to divide communities."

Minister of Religious Affairs Maftuh Basyuni insisted that the bill, which must be signed by the president before taking effect, would protect women and children against exploitation.

Members of two parties -- the second-largest Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and the smaller Christian-based Prosperous Peace Party, which together have 20 percent of the 550 seats in Parliament -- disagreed.

They walked out ahead of the vote in protest.

"The public strongly opposes this bill," Cahyo Kumolo from the PDIP told lawmakers, pointing to street rallies in recent weeks that have drawn thousands. "We don't want to be involved in the process of adopting it into law."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/30/indonesia.pornography.ap/index.html

A step in the right direction, if you ask me.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If you want to allow the government to prevent citizens engaging in free speech and access to information, I'd say the burden is on you to prove that it does actually curb violence.

Indeed. Proof has to come from experience. Let us try it here and see how it goes. It's not like we'll be missing out on much. Only things that'll be banned are child porn, bomb making and liberal party websites.

Both of those things are already illegal

so? this is meaningless. prevention of crime rather than prosecuting after the event.

This kinda stuff is always going to be at the whim of the legislature, and once you start doing it an evolutionary growth of the criteria for what makes content offensive is inevitable.

slippery slopes are a fun thing to play with. but thing is, like, they're not always true, you know?

Hay guys, all I'm saying is that preventing kiddy porn and bomb making is hardly a bad thing. It might not work, in which case I clearly wouldn't be for it (and would admit being wrong), but I think it's worth a go.

 

[jb_nc]

so? this is meaningless. prevention of crime rather than prosecuting after the event.

have I got a film for you it's called minority report and its about preventing crime

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

have I got an event for you.

it's called 9/11

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Oh Jimmy.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh No!
(lan)

lol.

 

[Trefoil]

Indeed. Proof has to come from experience. Let us try it here and see how it goes. It's not like we'll be missing out on much. Only things that'll be banned are child porn, bomb making and liberal party websites.



so? this is meaningless. prevention of crime rather than prosecuting after the event.



slippery slopes are a fun thing to play with. but thing is, like, they're not always true, you know?

Hay guys, all I'm saying is that preventing kiddy porn and bomb making is hardly a bad thing. It might not work, in which case I clearly wouldn't be for it (and would admit being wrong), but I think it's worth a go.

No.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Tinky Winky

 

[xONBROKENWINGSx]

this will put us on par with iran, north korea and cuba in terms of censorship. Theres no reason for it, its juts another way for rudd's govt to tell people what to do

 

[jb_nc]

Neb is a virgin, no suprise he'd support blocking images of people having sex that are younger that himself.

 

[Will Shakespear]

if it was hoWARd doing the same thing the outrage would be 10x as bad

 

[Will Shakespear]

That might be true if the system cost nothing to implement and it were put in place only as a trial and not something that is likely to become a dangerous fixture.

The potential benefits, which you concede "might not work" must be weighed against:

*The monetary cost
*The cost to consumers of reduced speeds
*The cost to consumers and business of not being able to access legitimate material because of inaccurate filtering.
*Possibility of children being exposed to more harmful material because the system gives parents a false sense of security, when in reality it can be easily circumvented.
*Loss of utility to adults who wish to access pornography. Remember; the plan is now to censor "X rated" material from everyone, not just child porn.
*The risk of abuse of the system by the government to censor unfavorable material or material that certain politicians (e.g. loony senators like family first as part of political deals) happen to dislike.

Since any benefit at all is speculative and likely to be small, weighed against these costs, many of which are unavoidable even for the best system, it seems pretty clear that the proposal is a massive net loss to our society.

i wonder if you could show that rape would increase if this was brought in as a result of reduced porn access

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Rape would increase 15000%