It seems that no matter how many FTW’s Senator Ludlam drops in his press releases, the Labor government is like a stubborn mule when it comes to filtering the Internet. Or, perhaps a more apt simile is a stubborn ass. PM Julia Gillard told an audience at the Queensland Media Club in Brisbane that implementing the filter is a “moral question”.
When asked by a student why pushing through filter legislation is in the country’s best interest when the policy has a 90% disapproval rating, Gillard responded:
My fundamental outlook is this – it unlawful for me, as an adult, to go to cinema and watch certain sorts of content. That’s unlawful, we believe it to be wrong – you know, content that is child abuse, incredibly violent pornography. We say that’s wrong and we don’t show it in Australian cinemas. That’s unlawful and we all accept it.
If we accept that, then it seems to me the moral question is not changed by the medium that the images come through, so if I cannot properly go and view such things in a cinema, and certainly I don’t want to, but if no-one in this country can lawfully go and view such things in a cinema then I don’t believe it should be lawful to view such things over the internet, and in those circumstance I think the internet filter is appropriate.
So, it’s the same old bullshit rhetoric about child porn, and completely fails to address the issue of RC content that isn’t actually illegal. At this point in time though, there’s not too much to worry about with both the Libs and the Greens stating they’ll block the legislation in the senate. We just wish the government would open its eyes to the stupidity of its endeavours.
matt
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:50 AMshould have responded: “ok, so if everything should be treated equal, like the movies, then WHY IS THERE NO R18+ RATING FOR GAMES!!… GET OFF THE STAGE!”
I would be really interested to know exactly which of the room full of labor puppets were pulling the strings on this one… because clearly it makes no logical sense to continue to pursue it.
Sam
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:01 PMThanks to everyone on Giz pre-election that convinced people to vote Labor + Greens. We can blame the filter on you.
If the greens were serious about this and wanted to stand up for us, they would hold Labor to ransom… the problem is they wont, because they are spineless puppets.
Ludlam FTL.
Snoopy
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:31 PMExactly. No one be surprised when this filter goes through. Greens were given seats by labor in their backroom
Deals they’d be expected to show a bit of flexibility on labor policies.
Justin
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:08 PMAdam Bandt, the recently elected Greens MP for the seat of Melbourne, was actually elected on Liberal Party preferences. That would suggest he owes more political favours to the Libs rather than to Labor.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDop-15508-228.htm
Gorhob Perkins
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:23 PMGod dammit, I thought we’d finished with this retarded idea.
The government manages to put a downer on the day yet again.
James Mac
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:29 PMFollowing that logic… they don’t prosecute you for going to that movie.
They prosecute the cinema for showing it, and the distributor for selling it… shouldn’t their focus then be on the market and not the consumer?
Luffy
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:07 PMYour few words hold the nub of it. Thank you.
gk
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:59 PMNobody is denying that there is a problem of kiddy /violent porn etc. But just because the problem can be compared with the film industry doesn’t mean the solution can be. Otherwise the solution would be to have a national regulatory body that hands out a rating for each and every website on a case by case basis (don’t forget that it needs to be revisited each and every time an update to the site is made). The proposed solution of a blanket, automated rating system is half baked and raises more issues than it solves, even if it were to work as they expect it to (which it won’t).
I don’t believe that the person at the head of the country can’t work that out for herself.
Jon
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:05 PMwe need to start working on ways to sabotage the filter once its in.
get 4chan, blocked, for one.
and swamp the ACMA with a thousand submissions a day.
Anonymous
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 7:25 PMNo one be takin’ Mah 4chan.
OB
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:36 PMThank you Giz for continuing to cover this important issue.
Don’t give up the fight.
Keelback
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:43 PMWhat a lot of whingers, you all are. The web is being used to distribute child porn. We need this filter to stop that. This is the only practical way to do it and most of you would know that. So get real! Its not the end of the world!
Reality Check
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:56 PMNice goal, but this filter will NOT stop it.
It is not even close to a practical way to stop it, and anyone who understands how the internet actually works knows that.
There is much, much more to the internet than firing up a web browser to check facebook updates.
someguy
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:57 PMGranted it may not stop it, but then the fence in one’s yard won’t stop all burglars, neither will the lock on the door, neither will the alarm system, etc. A burglar that is technical/skilled enough may have a pick to unlock your door and skills to disable your alarm. But not all burglars will.
Don’t you think?
Indra Lott
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM@someguy,
yes you are right fences don’t stop all burglars..
But the filter won’t stop ‘ANY’ burglars. Plus the ridiculous amount of money it costs to implement. So i would think it is not worth it?
don’t you think?
Reality Check
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:38 PM@someguy,
The filter as described so far is not a fence, it’s more like a line of chalk dust.
It might scare off a really timid field-mouse, but not burglars.
matt
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:58 PMthe filter is akin to setting up roadblocks everywhere to stop something primarily smuggled via Air… while implementing NO measures at airports…
Peter Simpson
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:00 PMBut it doesn’t stop anything, its child’s play to get around, wastes taxpayer dollars and ignores p2p. Not to mention the China situation. It’s akin to putting your head in the sand.
klaw
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:01 PMKeelback, the filtering scheme proposed by the Gillard Government will have virtually zero effect on CP being distributed via the internet. This is because it’s restricted to filtering WWW content, and not P2P networks, email, instant messaging or private networks, to name just a few.
Get educated, and get real yourself.
Corteks
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:08 PMUmmm you obviously don’t understand much about the mindless sensationalism involved when saying the filter needs to be there to block child porn. As has been stated over and over and over the filter won’t block child porn, as it isn’t distributed over the HTTP layer. If it was it’d much easier for law enforcement to find it and shut it down.
Screaming “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” At the top of your lungs doesn’t make you right and isn’t helpful to anyone. There are FREE filtering options out there that work better, can be tailored to the individual user and can’t be subverted secretly to block whatever the person who holds the governmental power deems “immoral” and these should be promoted to people more thoroughly then trying to implement an inefficient, broken system that will impede access for EVERYONE!
Oh and if you think a secret blacklist won’t be abused you must have been living under a rock your entire freakin’ life.
Indra Lott
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:56 PMNice try Keelback. I would agree with you. If the filter does it’s job.
There are ways around it; hell Google it and it will tell you how. The filter shows how much those in charge (and those who are ‘pro’ filter) knows about the internet. Which is, not much. Additionally, it does not filter P2P traffic which is where all your illegal material gets distributed.
So tell me why we are spending this much money on something that does not actually work?
ozoeocean
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:30 PMThat’s idiotic. Your logic only works if you are the one interested in child porn and you need that filter to help stop you looking at it.
99.9999999999% of us normal Aussies aren’t into child porn so that rationale is meaningless. All the filter will do is get in the way of our legitimate internet usage. The few freaks that ARE into child porn can find it easily anyway. That’s the problem- the moronic filter impacts all normal use of the net without doing anything to stop the methods that paedophiles actually use to trade their filth.
Tim Blane
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM>> The web is being used to distribute child porn. We need this filter to stop that.
Ok, let me get this straight, the Australian Government knows the sites which are distributing Child Porn (they need to know the URL to block it), rather than use their power to co-operate internationally to STOP the site from existing, they simply stop us from potentially looking at it. So the abusers can keep on abusing but we just need not worry about it because we blocked it here? Is this the solution?
Child Porn is illegal and should be stopped at it’s source, not filtered or blocked. Shut down and the people responsible arrested.
Use my tax dollars to get these people behind these sites arrested, not to hide it from our home grown perverts. Of the current known child porn sites, has the government done anything to shut them down?
Adam Meehan
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:01 AMThe filter will completely fail at the filtering of child porn and will have other harmful side effects. Please read my site on the matter http://filterfolly.com/.
Simon Reidy
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:47 PMWho cares if Gillard is committed? They simply don’t have the numbers. The Greens will never let it through.
I’m sure Labor will remain as vigilant about the filter as ever until it’s death in the senate. That way they can at least say “we tried”.
someguy
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:51 PM“completely fails to address the issue of RC content that isn’t actually illegal”
forgive my ignorance but what is “RC” content?
Indra Lott
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:15 PMRC = Refused Classification.
It is the pool of sites the government deems we should not see. This can technically be used to censor what we see. Blocking sites that is not illegal, but govt does not want us to see.
Reality Check
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:39 PMRC = ‘refused classification’, ie not given a rating.
Nigel
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:27 PMIts interesting they play the movie thing again. When a movie is given a RC classification its added to a PUBLIC database (at OFLC) with the reasons why it was RC. However with the filter, there is NO PUBLIC Database (for obvious reasons) so should banned movies games and books be removed from the public database.
According to our government the answer is YES.
Victor
Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 1:34 AMI believe this filter has far reaching implications. Essentially the government is trying to control the internet…which is unlike anything the world has seen before. Rather than shut down the source of things they deem illegal they see it as easier (cheaper) to block the user from seeing it by blocking it server side. Personally I am mainly against the fact that they have to have a SECRET BLACK LIST so not even the media can scrutinies what they block. This is just so Animal Farm it’s comical. “I would like to trust the people, but what if the people where to make the wrong choices” said the proverbial dictator. To me the internet is a double edged sword. Here you have this entity which has evolved how we consume content in a huge way. If the government had complete control of the internet then Napster would never have happened…Torrenting would be shut down completely..Usenet..too risky…we would not have had any pressure on the music industry to move forward. IMHO the fact that the internet is so hard to control can be a good thing…but then on the other side of the coin you have people using various aspects of it for child porn. If only I trusted the government enough to believe they would just focus on the negative and not use that power to shut down just about everything else which is cool. I am a musician and I am glad the internet has taken power away from the labels. If the government gets control we lose something very special. It’s a tricky one…
Europe
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 2:06 PM@gk: why do Australians have so much problems with “violent” porn? Violent porn is still acting like any other porn. So one can act some things but can’t act other things?