Australia's compulsory internet filtering 'costly, ineffective'
THE Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Australia's level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.
If anyone is wondering, Australia doesn't have constitutionally guaranteed rights. We adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but even so, each clause must be individually ratified by an Act of Parliament, and much of it never was. Including the bit about free speech. Basically our constitution just sets out how the government will function, but they don't even adhere to that any more.
So that's what's happening. We don't have protected freedom of speech, and now our government wants to silence us under the guise of protecting us.
Ray D wrote:I am astounded that you have no bill of rights, especially since Australians are among the most blunt and outspoken people in the world.
Australians generally just assume we have something similar to the USA's Bill Of Rights. I know very few people who have actually read our constitution. And our politicians NEVER mention it. They don't like to draw attention to what we don't have.
Moving on to new lurking grounds. Have fun, folks.
Now, while I don't want to silence free speech and believe that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, I do see the point in and believe that their should be internet censorship of some kind.
Now, before anyone gets me wrong, I don't think that we need the level of internet censorship that China etc has, people should be able to speak out about the government etc, but I do think that we should have internet censorship against racist sites, those with child porn, ones that link to sites saying anorexia is good, or self harming is good etc. Its been shown that many radicalist websites do influence people badly, and in an age where if you know where to look you can find practically everything on the internet, it needs some form of censorship to stop people being influenced by extremist religions fanatics, racists, getting weapon and bomb plans etc.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." ~ John Stuart Mill.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky.
A right absolutely necessary for the existence of liberty is free expression. The people, all people, must be absolutely free to say or express their beliefs without hindrance or penalty, as long as it does not directly and physically harm another citizen.
Ideas expressed verbally and in writing by citizens should never be restricted in any way. But, you might say, if someone publishes a newspaper article advocating terrorism? What if someone publishes an article advocating child abuse, or rape, or murder? The simple answer is that free speech does not exist unless it also protects the most unpopular opinions and beliefs. Should the government silence all unpopular or politically inconvenient opinions? Perhaps we, as responsible, thinking beings, can simply exercise our own right to not read the things we find offensive.
Unfortunately we can never guarantee that all our opinions and beliefs will be in accord, unless we somehow lose our individuality completely. That being the case, how can we ensure that any government agency entrusted with the authority to allow or disallow certain ideas, opinions, or even words, will exercise that authority in accordance with our (the people's) wishes? We can not. And I guarantee you that among the words or beliefs you might wish banned will be some ideas I wish to be expressed aloud, far and wide. Why should your desire to silence my beliefs be any more important or valuable than my right to express such beliefs? How can anyone rightfully deny any of us the right to express our thoughts?
The one and only limit to freedom of expression should be that our expression of ideas should not physically impact others. In other words, your belief in the right to swing your arms around wildly should not allow you to punch my nose. Your belief in the sanctity of blood sacrifices should not allow you to take life.
Free speech must apply to every member of a society, and must protect all their ideas, including the unpopular ideas, or the free speech doesn't exist at all. The moment you have one idea restricted or its proponent silenced, free speech is non-existent.
It is an unfortunate trend among the champions of "political correctness" these days that they wish to silence the voices of those of whom they disapprove. For example, various words considered rude or unkind have been targeted for suppression by those moralistic crusaders, words which tend to carry negative connotations regarding ancestry, religion, gender, physical capabilities, et cetera. Their political lobbying has been so extensive and successful that governments and businesses have actually created laws for suppressing those terms. This is, of course, a form of fascism, silencing unpopular opinions. It is an example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, for in their zeal to stamp out opinions and words they consider harmful, these people have pitted themselves firmly against freedom of expression, and have done serious harm to the fundamental liberties our society claims to hold dear.
Moving on to new lurking grounds. Have fun, folks.
Bear wrote:Now, while I don't want to silence free speech and believe that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, I do see the point in and believe that their should be internet censorship of some kind.
We're going to get that in the UK soon if Jacqui Smith has her way. There have already been talks about extended the already controversional extreme porn laws they've introduced, and along with that they want to ban all such sites.
The sentiment is reasonable enough, but the problem is once the measures are in place, it's unlikely to be long before the measures get expanded, slowly eroding our freedoms.
So while it may start out as the nasty stuff - child porn, terrorist materials etc. - I can't imagine it will be long before less unpleasant stuff gets removed too, until the government controls what you see. Also depends how against 'thought crime' the government will be.
The only problem is that these measures will only end up criminalising those too stupid or careless to cover themselves, or those who did it by accident. Those lowlifes who want to view unacceptable pictures, or commit acts of terrorism have other ways to communicate.
Bear wrote:Now, while I don't want to silence free speech and believe that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, I do see the point in and believe that their should be internet censorship of some kind.
Now, before anyone gets me wrong, I don't think that we need the level of internet censorship that China etc has, people should be able to speak out about the government etc, but I do think that we should have internet censorship against racist sites, those with child porn, ones that link to sites saying anorexia is good, or self harming is good etc. Its been shown that many radicalist websites do influence people badly, and in an age where if you know where to look you can find practically everything on the internet, it needs some form of censorship to stop people being influenced by extremist religions fanatics, racists, getting weapon and bomb plans etc.
When I say this, bear in mind that I am white, but that I also grew up in a black neighborhood (it was the only part of New Orleans with property values my folks could afford). It was a particularly run-down neighborhood, but we got the best security system in New Orleans - we lived just across the street from a fence. NO crimes were committed on our street by anybody who retained full use of their fingers the next morning. I've seen racism in its ugliest forms, racism both performed against blacks and performed by blacks (and yes, there are more than whites and blacks in the world, but until I was six I saw only the two).
I say this to underscore the importance of what I have to say: To deny racists the right to speak their mind is no better than forcing anybody to listen to them.
It's equally bad for almost every other form of censorship (child pornography I take exception to on grounds that it is a depiction of rape, and viewing such forms of "pornography" as that re-victimizes the original victim). Extremist faiths have a right to speak - indeed, it is the attempt to suppress an extremist denomination of an otherwise-upright religion that led to the clusterf*$# in the Stans we have today. National secrets are one thing, but one doesn't even need to be a physicist to know how to build a nuclear explosive (I can do it because I paid attention in AP physics). Having the means to do it is another thing - that level of industrialization is beyond most people's reach. The same is true of poisons, aresol or otherwise, zip guns, etc. The knowledge to perform these things is just that, knowledge. While some knowledge falls under national security (obvious example: launch codes), the excuse that "it's the means to build a weapon" is a bad one, especially given that denial of knowledge of a weapon denies knowledge of how to avert the use of that weapon.
The only value to censorship is to render us unprepared for something that is already there regardless of if we are aware of it or not, and it validates the views of extremists that they are being oppressed. I'd rather hear what they have to say and know the ways in which they are dangerous (if they are dangerous) than be simply told by some agency that they really were dangerous so now I'll never have to know how dangerous. In the latter case, I'm left naked and defenseless when that danger presents itself, and I guarantee you that danger will wait until I'm least able.
I went to New Orleans a few months before hurricane Katrina, and thoroughly enjoyed the place. Great food, great local beers, great people, and of course great old houses and stuff.
And to build further on what Scaramouche and Arantor said..
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
How long do you think that it'll take before viewing material related to homosexuality becomes illegal.
After all, some folks also find that morally abhorrent. And let those people just be the ones who are usually in power...
No right is absolute. There are some reasonable limits on free speech that should be enforced. Speech that causes physical harm (the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and setting off a stampede trope) is one exception. Libel/slander is another. Advocacy of criminal behavior is also a reasonable exception. Saying "Slovenians suck" should be protected free speech, but saying "burn the Slovenians' houses, take their stuff, and drive them from our midst" should not.
There is a right to free speech and it must be protected, but it must also be balanced against other rights. Yes, we must guard against unreasonable restrictions on free speech (punishing students for a "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner was stupid and unncecessary even if one accepts the notion that marijuana use should be illegal), but we shouldn't let fear of a slippery slope prevent us from enforcing those restrictions necessary to protect our other rights.
Makkabee wrote:No right is absolute. There are some reasonable limits on free speech that should be enforced. Speech that causes physical harm (the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and setting off a stampede trope) is one exception. Libel/slander is another. Advocacy of criminal behavior is also a reasonable exception. Saying "Slovenians suck" should be protected free speech, but saying "burn the Slovenians' houses, take their stuff, and drive them from our midst" should not.
There is a right to free speech and it must be protected, but it must also be balanced against other rights. Yes, we must guard against unreasonable restrictions on free speech (punishing students for a "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner was stupid and unncecessary even if one accepts the notion that marijuana use should be illegal), but we shouldn't let fear of a slippery slope prevent us from enforcing those restrictions necessary to protect our other rights.
I absolutely disagree, for the reasons already stated. And right here we see why free speech much be absolute. You want some things banned. I don't. If you had your way, I'd be silenced. So no thanks.
Moving on to new lurking grounds. Have fun, folks.
I have no objection to having limitations on my rights; I agree there are limits and that no right to free speech is entirely free, whether for protection of state secrets, or whatever.
What I object to, though, is that my rights are being eroded without demonstrative reason, and in a way that twists everything.
E.g. Jacqui Smith wants to extend detention rights of suspected terrorists to 42 days without charge. Why? Because we're in the grip of a terrorised nation? No. It's so the police can dig up your life enough to build a case against you.
The extreme porn law is another very nasty piece of legislation. Some of the things it covers, yes, are rightly illegal and banned under this. That's not my objection. My objection is the two very nasty clauses that come with it:
1. Some acts, such as breath play, or being made up to look like a zombie or corpse, really turn people on. Performing these acts is legal (the first is risky, granted, but unless any harm occurs, it's legal) but taking a photo of it will not be. The participants can own a copy because they're in it, however the photographer will be criminalised and risk a jail sentence of up to 3 years.
2. Imagine the photo is part of a series, e.g. a still from a film. The police can - at their discretion - consider the entire series, not just the individual photo, as part of evidence. So it is possible to own a photo that is itself legal, but because it is part of a series that you may not own, it can still criminalise you.
With the above, you could assume that the UK is a bunch of sexually rampant, unrestrained monsters. But the basis for this law, and its sole justification as far as anyone can tell is that one person with a mental disturbance viewed such sexually violent pictures and went on to murder one person in a sexually violent way.
As a result, we obviously need to usher in restrictive laws that will be used inappropriately. Another great example was the act introduced for surveillance of suspected terrorists without due cause. The same law was then used by a county council to see whether a family in their county was in the correct area for a local school.
As I'm - slowly - trying to say, I have no issue with sensible laws to restrict the rights of those who should be censored. There is some sick stuff out there, and we should do all we can do deal with it.
My issue is with laws that start off perhaps with the best intentions but are corrupted and taken out of proportion to suit, as if the rules apply to the common folk but not to those who made the rules.
My issue, more simply put, is with a government who is doing its best to criminalise people who aren't criminals. Inventing rules to make non-criminals into criminals. The latest one is that they're thinking about being able to back-date charges, where if it wasn't a crime before the rules were introduced, and the act was committed, they will be able to charge you with the offence when it is a crime.
Sorry, I've ranted on, but this country is going to the dogs. And they still want to issue ID cards to people without a referendum or anything (and make us pay for it, too), despite keep losing our data from their data centres.
