Here’s another reason to want to kick Senator Conroy in his manjunk – According to a report by Asher Moses in the SMH, he’s apparently decided to turn his already stupid compulsory web filter against gamers by blocking websites hosting or selling games that are rated above the maximum MA15+ for games in Australia.
Highlighting the stupidity of the current lack of an R18+ rating for games is the fact that even though games can only be rated to MA15+, pages on the internet itself can be rated R18+.
According to the SMH piece, the filter will block sites selling or hosting games that are RC (which is anything above our MA15+) based on a complaints system to the ACMA. The scary part is that this could mean sites like Amazon, which sell games restricted to adult purchase in the US, but might be RC here in Australia, could be blocked. It also puts question marks over online games like World of Warcraft and Second Life.
As always, you should feel outraged by the Government’s plans to filter the internet. Rather than being a tool to fight child pornography, this is quickly becoming an Orwellian crusade to control the freedoms of Australians everywhere. Make sure the government hears your voice denouncing their plans – it’s the only way we can hope to overcome this idiocy.
[SMH]
Freddie
June 26, 2009 at 9:47 AM
And ebay..?
Report PermalinkRuairi
June 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM
This is stupid. We don’t want your daft religion, your daft morals or your daft internet filter. Take yourself, your bible and Michael Atkinson and fuck off to Texas.
Report Permalinkblindasabat
June 26, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Write to your local MP and tell them what you think. Little point complaining here. Alternatively do what I do. My MP follows me on twitter, and I’ve let her know exactly what I think of this stupid plan. Backbenchers in marginal seats like mine put a lot of pressure on dumb-ass ministers when their political careers and superannuation is at stake.
Report PermalinkBjorn
June 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM
here here!!!
Report PermalinkTony
June 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I guess there goes eBay as well.
Report PermalinkAnyway, they said they were going to do it and people voted for them, and that’s how Democracy works. Don’t count a change of Government to fix it either; once Governments gain a power they rarely give it up.
Next election Conroy might float his ‘Pre-Crime Division’ idea.
Big Al
June 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM
ahhhh… you do know the liberals started this filter right???…
Report Permalinklabor is just following through because all parties voted for it , included the independats in the senate dont blame one party for this everyone is to blame mate, if you want it fixed you need to Veto and a complete change of senate.
EMC2
June 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Ok… so how do we get rid of this guy?
Report PermalinkHamish
June 26, 2009 at 10:31 AM
A shotgun perhaps?
Report PermalinkSam
June 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
While I might agree with this as an American the Aussie part of me refuses to entertain the idea. Mostly because they’ve already effectively outlawed guns here. :(
Report PermalinkJona
June 26, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I dont like the idea of internet filtering anymore than you do – but calm down mate. I’m sure you dont really believe that they are going to take it to that extent. The saddest truth is that I suspect all of the really dodgy stuff is happening via secure p2p or anonymous proxies anyway – unaffected by the firewall.
Report PermalinkNick Broughall
June 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM
This government might not. You’re right. But if the filter is put in place, then 10 years down the track, who’s to say what the government will try and filter?
Look at other countries with compulsory internet filters – they’re used to block political content. And as soon as that happens – as soon as a handful of people have the right to decide what’s good for the majority based purely on their political agendas – then freedom is lost.
If we don’t act now, the future does look pretty bleak.
Report Permalinkmeh
June 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Just as a correction this firewall does effect p2p, although it will not be able to filter p2p content it does limit its speed this is something that some ISP’s in other countries are already doing and they plan on doing it in this stupid firewall as well.
Report Permalinkmatt
June 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM
bahahahaha! limit the speed! that way they can only watch a bit of child porn a day! thats like saying, “well rather than policing firearm offences, lets just leave them to their own devices but make it so they can only buy a limited amount of ammunition a day”. so what? they can only murder a few ppl a day?
Report Permalinkiwashere33
June 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM
this has got to be the stupidest thing i have ever heard. was conroy struck by a retard in a car when he came up with this idea “what if amazon sells R18 games? well then, i will just ban amazon”
what happens tommorow when he says he doesn’t like ebay. what about when/if conroy doesn’t like gizmodo – what will people do. I think it’s time for someone to have a little talk with him, explain that just because he doesn’t like something doesn’t mean he gets to bury it.
If the goverment wanted to stop child-porn then instead of stopping the internet, stop the pedos – if we started shooting convicted child molesters, i Strongly believe that there will be a sharp decrease in child-porn offences in australia.
the internet filter will be used time and time again for reasons like this. All goverment departments will put their hand up to get something stopped. The ATO might want all references to swedish bank accounts stopped.
Something must be done, conroy has now become a bigger annoyance than gang-raping muslims.
Report PermalinkEd Robertson
June 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM
yea there really going to do that…yea what about ebay??? good luck blocking that
man this guy has really got to get his out of the sand
Report Permalinkchris
June 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM
you know what that bull**** how about the public make a new internet run by the people lol
Report PermalinkLief
June 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM
If decent, upstanding governments such as China and Iran can restrict/block the internet, why not Australia?
Seriously though, on what basis does any human think that they own or can control what any other person can read/see/feel/think? They do not own us, or our minds. What if I was to get into power and ban access to all Christian sites because I find them offensive? Methinks outrage.
Report PermalinkY C Liong
June 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Come on, freedom is not “everything is acceptable” it is responsibility. Freedom can be terribly restrictive.
Report Permalinkmichael
June 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Keep the internet free and unfiltered, allowing the government to filter the internet is just a means to control what you view and then inturn control you.
Conroy has no clue to what he is doing with game and website censorship.
Keep the internet free!
Report PermalinkY C Liong
June 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM
What is the difference, Lief? To be controlled by the “government” or by what you see?
Report PermalinkEkfud
June 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Freedom is the ability to make your own choices. If that choice is to avoid something, it is still choice and still a form of freedom. Not having the choice is restriction.
Report PermalinkTheo Tsourdalaksi
June 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM
As a parent, I am seriously concerned about the damaging content that children are exposed to on the Net.
What I would like to see is a family friendly internet which is regulated such that I can let my kids loose on the net without fear that they will be exposed to images and ideas which are clearly destructive and detrimental.
In the physical market place there are rules which govern what can be displayed. A similar principal on the net is highly desired by many parents.
I have even thought of a name: “Family net”.
Report PermalinkI would certainly subsribe.
poedgirl
June 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM
And believe it or not, you can do that now. Just install one of the many filters already available, it’s really not hard. Besides, that’s not the part we’re annoyed about. There are 2 parts to the filter, the one for children and the one for adults. We do not want the adult one, no-one does.
Report PermalinkFreddie
June 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM
@ Theo:
Report Permalinkhttp://download.live.com/familysafety
mmci1525
June 26, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I can understand something being subscription, but not enforced on everyone. I don’t have children, I’m not planing on having children I just don’t want my life filtered or limited.
Report PermalinkChillin
June 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM
It does exist
It’s called an Internet Filter and it’s been available for free download for years.
Report Permalinkmatt
June 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM
the government already offers free filtering software, i’m not sure if they still do because nobody used it. our biggest problem is that they are making this MANDATORY which is not only not unnecessary, but is pointless, if ppl don’t want it, they will find a way around it.
Report PermalinkSteve
June 26, 2009 at 1:58 PM
So basically Theo, you want the government to do the job you should be doing as a parent.
Report PermalinkSam
June 26, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Theo, how about you actually do your job as a parent and learn about technology so you can filter what your kids see in your own home.
You notice the end of that sentence? In your own home. I don’t have a right to tell you what to do in your home with your children. Why should you have a right to tell me what to do in mine?
Get off your butt and get educated about the technology that your children already know how to use. It’s really not that difficult and your life experience will be better for it.
Report PermalinkOptimus Prime
June 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Freedom…is the right of ALL sentient beings
Report PermalinkRalph Moyo
June 27, 2009 at 12:44 AM
bahahaha classic
Report PermalinkMarc
June 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM
No wonder the chinnese call Australia new China!
Report PermalinkLief
June 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Y C Liong:
A big difference, on one hand I get to make my own mind up about what I see. On the other hand an unknown person/persons with unknown education, morals and religion is making my mind up for me.
Theo:
The internet is full of people. You wouldn’t let a child walk through a city alone, don’t let them browse alone. Take some responsibility for yourself. This sort of thinking is why we end up with R18+ games blocked. And yes, I am well and truly over 18, so why should I be blocked?
Report Permalinkchris michael
June 26, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Theo Tsourdalaksi their are few family internet programs my cousins use, for their little kids, kids log on to their account which is aministrated by the parents which blocks out and filters all those porn sites and any other ones related to it.. probs bout 100 bucks but thats better option than filtering the internet for EVERYONEEE
Report Permalinkpoedgirl
June 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM
So I guess piracy will start to go up. Seriously, if you remove our only method for buying these games, you make us resort to the only other method to play them.
Report PermalinkMark
June 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM
umm i dont know why anyone mentioned religion in this debate? Since its not about religion…?
Secondly, while youre all addicted to pornography, and while you all have the “right” to look at it, males(& some females) who sit at home getting their porn fix each day is not condusive to a healthy society.
Google the amount of studies that show links to porn and rape, the links to porn and marital breakdown, the links to porn and antisocial behaviour, the list goes on.
That doesnt mean you cant look at it, it does mean the government has the responsibility to deter future generations from being addicted to what is clearly not real, especially if there is sufficient evidence to show the negative and often criminal effects.
In regards to gaming, the same rule applies. Excessively violent and graphic material in the context of a role playing game is not condusive to good mental health or good social values. The reasoning is that any game that falls above MA15+ is in this category. You can whine all you want, but there are very few games that dont meet that requirement. Im a gamer, always have been, imho any game that gets barred because its too violent or graphic is most likely a game thats relying on shock value and not quality gaming.
Report Permalinkattila
June 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Fallout 3 was banned because it showed morphine, not because of violence. That’s it. Nuking a city – fine. Graphic headshots, no problem. Reference to a real life drug – banned.
GTA4 – banned for showing *gasp* sex. Shooting or running over a hooker – fine. Having sexual intercourse with a hooker – banned.
Don’t try and argue that there is any logic or consistency between what is an “okay” MA15+ title and a RC title.
Report PermalinkBig Al
June 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM
mark that would be no different then prohibition,
porn will not be filtered by the gov filter,
religion was raised, as religion sets moral values that individuals choose to live by, and those often choose to press those morals on to others.
not everyone chooses to live by these morals and it is their God Given Right to live how they choose as long as they do not hurt others.
porn and prostitution are in fact proven to reduce rape as they give those who are sexually frustrated and are unable to court a woman “for what ever reason” the ability to release those frustrations and i think if you decided to look at the other side of the coin you would find many more studies that support this,
thou I do not this prostitution is right nor do i chose to use it nor do i think it really has anything to do with porn I did decided to use it as a relational topic to prove a point,
thank you.
Report Permalink[\rant]
i do hope this does not turn into a flame war ;-P
Sam
June 26, 2009 at 5:58 PM
World of Warcraft, Age of Conan, and Second life would all be banned under this proposal, because the online portion of the gameplay makes them impossible to catagorize under the Australian rules.
Report PermalinkGrif
June 27, 2009 at 10:11 PM
My friend, Look at the amount of studies that link porn to successful marriage, porn to the police force, porn to successful teachers. There are none, but exactly the same link exists.
Report PermalinkJuzza
June 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM
How about a LAN party on the front lawn of Parliament house as a protest?? I’ll bring a bottle of Coke & some Pizza…
Report PermalinkPaddy Grattan-Smith
June 26, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Im down for that, would be a very enjoyable protest.
Report PermalinkPeter
June 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Have you seen how much sex & violence there is in the bible? Its time for Senator Conroy to start blocking online access to St James.
Where’s my nanny?
Report PermalinkJarryd
June 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM
What the hell does mature games have to do with child pornography?
Also @Theo, your kid(s) are going to get exposed to the same amount just from being at school. If you don’t like it, buy a filter yourself if you are so concerned.
Games are for detaching from reality, not for enabling murderers and molesters. >_>
Report Permalinkattila
June 26, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I almost hope they do block ebay and amazon – as that would bring the matter to the attention of a huge segment of the electorate, whereas if it is just play-asia or similar blocked it will just annoy people (i.e. gamers) who are already outraged at the stupidity of the whole scheme.
Report PermalinkDominic Bui
June 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM
so much for freedom =/
Report PermalinkMichael Quinn
June 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM
@theo
You shouldn’t ‘let your kids loose’ in any circumstance, douche.
try parenting.
Report Permalinkmatt
June 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM
obviously, the biggest problem is that this list is kept secret. why is it secret? if they were so confident that their filter will work, they could publish the list confident that even if they were publishing the address to a sight that when visited ,blows up the world, they’d know no one could access it
not publishing the list is a clear sign that they themselves are not even confident that the filter will work
Report Permalink