Rusti
24-12-2009, 10:47
In my never ending quest for rage worthy items and arguments, I'm hard pressed to go past my favorite topic lately, the Australia Governments plans to implement an internet 'filter' (read: Censorship) to protect Australian's from the big bad boogy-man that is 'RC' content. RC Content is content that is 'Refused Classification'.
In this search, I came across a brilliant, well presented and compelling article on ZDnet by Brendan Molloy (http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/security/soa/Conroy-s-filter-just-the-beginning/0,139023764,339300141,00.htm).
I rage [and rant] but Brendan's commentary about the proposed incoming internet farce...err...filter... is absolutely required reading by anyone interested in maintaining a free and open Australian internet.
Interestingly enough, yesterday Senator Stephen Conroy (or as I like to call him Satan's newest Hitlerite) posted a public reply (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/23/stephen-conroy-dear-crikey-heres-why-youre-wrong/) to an earlier article on Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/net-filtering-wont-work-so-what-is-conroy-up-to/) explaining why Crikey were basically full of shit (he doesn't use those words, but that's the gist of it).
Some quotes of interest:
The government has been clear that mandatory filtering will only be implemented for RC-rated content. This content is illegal to display, distribute, sell or make available for hire under existing Australian law.
Firstly - note the use of the word 'mandatory' and keep that in mind, we'll get to that in a bit.
Secondly, RC-rated content... being defined as illegal to display under existing Australian law... that's interesting.
Lets look at some terminology here:
SEDITION.
Wikipedia defines sedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition) as:
a term of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) which refers to overt conduct, such as speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_communication) and organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization), that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection) against the established orderWikipedia even has an entire wiki page dedicated solely to Sedition Laws in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law), specifically to the amendments made by the Howard government in 2005 (amended again in 2006).
Why is this important to the present debate about the Australian Internet Filter? Simple. Under present existing Australian law, it is illegal to "urge disaffection against [...] the Government of the Commonwealth."
Soooo, basically this whole article can land me in jail. As can all other articles which urge Australians to protest against the Government and it's policies.
It also means that, as it is illegal under existing Australian law, it therefore meets the definition of RC-Content and is able to be blocked by the new Internet Filter.
ANY website which speaks against the government is in the same boat and under the present definition of RC-Content by mien fuhrer Conroy, can be 'filtered' or, more honestly speaking, censored.
Many families may be prepared to accept so over-blocking to have a wider range of material blocked. This is a choice for the family or individual.Well no Senator Conroy - it's not a bloody choice when you're forcing it on us!! Go find a dictionary and look up the word. Remember I said to remember the word mandatory? It's kinda the polar opposite to the word choice.
Oh and note the use of the word 'may'... Well, many families may not want to accept over-blocking if it means the government may end up using sedition laws to restrict sites which speak out against the government.
Senator Conroy goes on to reply to allegations made by many people including myself (I'm not mentioned, and I don't flatter myself that I'm that important or well known!) and more notably Stilgherrian of Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/21/the-swift-takedown-of-stephenconroy-com-au/), that the stephenconroy.com.au domain was 'made inactive' by auDA (http://www.gotrage.net/showthread.php?t=37) as a result of urgings from Senator Conroy's office.
Basically he says (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'I didn't do it, my office didn't do it, no body saw anything you can't prove a thing.'
Forgive me, but whilst he may be telling the truth, I find it really really hard to trust politicians when they repeatedly mislead the Australian people.
Stay tuned for more....
In this search, I came across a brilliant, well presented and compelling article on ZDnet by Brendan Molloy (http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/security/soa/Conroy-s-filter-just-the-beginning/0,139023764,339300141,00.htm).
I rage [and rant] but Brendan's commentary about the proposed incoming internet farce...err...filter... is absolutely required reading by anyone interested in maintaining a free and open Australian internet.
Interestingly enough, yesterday Senator Stephen Conroy (or as I like to call him Satan's newest Hitlerite) posted a public reply (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/23/stephen-conroy-dear-crikey-heres-why-youre-wrong/) to an earlier article on Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/net-filtering-wont-work-so-what-is-conroy-up-to/) explaining why Crikey were basically full of shit (he doesn't use those words, but that's the gist of it).
Some quotes of interest:
The government has been clear that mandatory filtering will only be implemented for RC-rated content. This content is illegal to display, distribute, sell or make available for hire under existing Australian law.
Firstly - note the use of the word 'mandatory' and keep that in mind, we'll get to that in a bit.
Secondly, RC-rated content... being defined as illegal to display under existing Australian law... that's interesting.
Lets look at some terminology here:
SEDITION.
Wikipedia defines sedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition) as:
a term of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) which refers to overt conduct, such as speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_communication) and organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization), that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection) against the established orderWikipedia even has an entire wiki page dedicated solely to Sedition Laws in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law), specifically to the amendments made by the Howard government in 2005 (amended again in 2006).
Why is this important to the present debate about the Australian Internet Filter? Simple. Under present existing Australian law, it is illegal to "urge disaffection against [...] the Government of the Commonwealth."
Soooo, basically this whole article can land me in jail. As can all other articles which urge Australians to protest against the Government and it's policies.
It also means that, as it is illegal under existing Australian law, it therefore meets the definition of RC-Content and is able to be blocked by the new Internet Filter.
ANY website which speaks against the government is in the same boat and under the present definition of RC-Content by mien fuhrer Conroy, can be 'filtered' or, more honestly speaking, censored.
Many families may be prepared to accept so over-blocking to have a wider range of material blocked. This is a choice for the family or individual.Well no Senator Conroy - it's not a bloody choice when you're forcing it on us!! Go find a dictionary and look up the word. Remember I said to remember the word mandatory? It's kinda the polar opposite to the word choice.
Oh and note the use of the word 'may'... Well, many families may not want to accept over-blocking if it means the government may end up using sedition laws to restrict sites which speak out against the government.
Senator Conroy goes on to reply to allegations made by many people including myself (I'm not mentioned, and I don't flatter myself that I'm that important or well known!) and more notably Stilgherrian of Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/21/the-swift-takedown-of-stephenconroy-com-au/), that the stephenconroy.com.au domain was 'made inactive' by auDA (http://www.gotrage.net/showthread.php?t=37) as a result of urgings from Senator Conroy's office.
Basically he says (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'I didn't do it, my office didn't do it, no body saw anything you can't prove a thing.'
Forgive me, but whilst he may be telling the truth, I find it really really hard to trust politicians when they repeatedly mislead the Australian people.
Stay tuned for more....