The Case for Censoring The Internet

[koberulz]

Shadowgrin, ever heard of voting?

Koberules, an outdated and worthless document written by slave owners is not a death pact.

How exactly is the Constitution 'outdated'? Specifically, the first amendment, since that's the one you seem to have some sort of problem with.

[Laxation]

I have nothing against child porn censoring

Thing is, though, most child pornography is distributed through p2p and private networks, not websites, and preventing people from accessing it is going to do nothing to prevent it being produced, thus having zero effect on child abuse. Once it's been made, it hardly matters if nobody in this country can see it, the crime has already been committed.

Less time and money on restricting my freedom, more time and money on stopping the actual problem.

You're right. Also, even if they do put a filter in, anyone who is serious about getting porn won't have a problem just bypassing the filter. No matter what the government does, it will be stupidly expensive, outdated by the time its implemented and be circumvented in a matter of minutes by some geek somewhere.

Also, you can't do a whole lot to prevent the actual crime being committed because it doesn't happen on our shores (for the most part, I would think/hope) I always assumed child porn was made in eastern europe, asia or other undeveloped areas - and there isn't much Australia or US govts can do to prevent it happening.

Good post Benji, there are plenty reasons to make sure the internet does not become overrun with lies and hate speech along with this violence you noted. I have heard that some countries block the entire internet and simply provide an internal internet that does not have these problems, that sounds like a sensible policy and one that would be easier than tracking down and prosecuting all the people violating the internet.

The only reason you dont want hate speech is because for some reason people are always abusing you, right?
Well this post is WHY.

You fucking moron, are you fucking serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c ... c_of_China

Couple of points from that article:

China-based Web sites cannot link to overseas news Web sites or carry news from overseas media without separate approval.

websites and blogs with politically sensitive content ... have been blocked

In addition, a connection containing intensive censored terms may also be closed by The Great Firewall, and cannot be reestablished for several minutes. This affects all network connections including HTTP and POP, but the reset is more likely to occur during searching.

The firewall is largely ineffective at preventing the flow of information and is rather easily circumvented by determined parties by using proxy servers outside the firewall

How is that going for them? Shit, I'd fucking love to live somewhere where I'm arrested when I voice my opinion over the government, that sounds a treat doesn't it.
Sarcasm may be the lowest form of humour, but you just came up with the lowest form of argument.

One of the big things that separates the good countries from the bad is the ability to voice our opinion over the government and complain when they fuck up. Its why everyone loves Australia, USA, England, etc. and why people want to keep moving there. Im guessing there isn't a big problem with illegal immigrants in China or North Korea.

[koberulz]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 974827.htm

Coalition vows to block internet filter

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the Coalition will not back the Government's proposed internet filter.

The Government announced the filter two years ago as part of its cyber safety program to protect children from pornography and offensive material.

The plan has been criticised by internet users who claim it will slow download speeds and lead to unwarranted censorship.

Mr Hockey has told triple j Hack's Kate O'Toole that if Labor wins the election the Coalition would not vote in favour of the filter.

"We believe the internet filter will not work and we believe it's flawed policy," he said.

"It is not going to capture a whole lot of images and chatter that we all find offensive ... that are going through email."

He says the Coalition would stick to the plan of "giving parents more control".

"The ISP filter-based system does not work, therefore it creates ... an assumption of trust that cannot be met by the technology."

He says the Coalition will make more comment on the issue in future.

Last month the Government announced an independent review of its filter policy.

The review, which could take up to a year, will look at what makes up "refused classification" rated content.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the review had nothing to do with criticism of the proposal from the likes of Google and the US government.

Senator Conroy had originally intended to introduce the legislation in the first half of this year but then deferred it to later in 2010.

Electronic Frontiers Australia, which monitors online freedoms and rights, has welcomed Mr Hockey's stance.

"We call on Minister Conroy and the Gillard Government to now admit the mandatory filter policy is dead, and to move on to a debate more grounded in reality," EFA chair Colin Jacobs said.

"The Government must now listen to the experts and get back to working on giving Australians access to better and faster broadband."

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the Coalition's announcement is "excellent news".

"The Liberal Party should be congratulated for finally declaring their hand," he said.

"The ALP should drop the censorship proposal rather than fighting what now looks inevitable."

[J@3]

Think they might have just won themselves an election.

[benji]

Mr Hockey has told triple j Hack's Kate O'Toole that if Labor wins the election the Coalition would not vote in favour of the filter.

And if they don't?

[koberulz]

Think they might have just won themselves an election.

Can Labor get it through with both the Greens and Coalition against it if Labor wins the election?

[Laxation]

Go Liberal.

[Andrew]

Weird to think a party led by Tony Abbott is making a stand against censorship.

[Andrew]

Weird to think a party led by Tony Abbott is making a stand against censorship.

[koberulz]

Indeed, the combination of Abbott and that filter was a major reason I didn't want him in charge. This hardly makes up for 'virginity is the greatest gift', 'I'm intimidated by homosexuals...like most people' and whatnot, though. Not to mention that the claims of his lack of economic knowledge are rather backed up by his plan to cut taxes, pay off the debt and introduce a paid parental leave scheme, apparently without printing any extra money.

[shadowgrin]

Weird to think a party led by Tony Abbott is making a stand against censorship.

You can say that again.

[Andrew]

Don't worry, there's still ample time for him to lose his temper and offend enough people to cost him the election. Gotta hand it to his campaign team though, they've done a decent job ensuring that he doesn't act like...well, himself.

[benji]

Finally, America is attempting to join the civilized world:

phpBB [video]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/c ... age-online

Senator Patrick Leahy yesterday introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

...

We note that the DMCA already gives copyright owners legal tools to remove infringing material piece-by-piece, and to obtain injunctions requiring ISPs to block certain offshore infringing websites. The misuse of the existing DMCA provisions have had a tremendously damaging impact on fair use and free expression. By comparison, COICA streamlines and vastly expands this; it would allow the AG to shoot down a whole domain including all the blog posts, images, backups, and files underneath it. In other words, it's not just possible but probable that a great deal of legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement.

[Andrew]

The last line of "Blame Canada" from the South Park Movie comes to mind. "We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming us!"

Because really, who wants to monitor what their kids are doing? That's someone else's job, surely.