Internet Censorship

[Angelmax]

Soon in Australia, where I live, we are going to be subjected to compulsory internet censorship.

I understand most of you will know nothing of the issue, so here are a few articles you may like to read.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html?autostart=1 - This is just the announcement today that the plan will be implemented.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html - This is a report on the punishments for circumventing the filter

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_18_Mar_2009 - This is the list of banned sites that was leaked a few months ago, which included the websites of pizza delivery businesses and dentists.
Obviously some of these are disturbing or illegal, so don't click on them without first finding out what they are!


My real purpose for making this thread was to find out what your opinion on this issue is.

Personally, I think that ideally censorship of child pornography and so on is fine, but technologically impossible. In China thousands of people work on internet censorship, and it is still relatively easy to bypass the filter there.

In Australia in particular our internet is very slow also, at most my speed is 5mb/s at websites in my home city. The filter the government is going to introduce will dramatically reduce this speed.

So, in closing, I'm curious to know what you think of this issue. Is censorship necessary to prevent people accessing illegal material, or is it an invasion of privacy and technologically useless?

 

[i heart str]

FUCKKKKK!!!!!
That's why i didnt choose kevin rudd

 

[Angelmax]

Tony Abbott would be the first to do it if he was elected.

 

So, in closing, I'm curious to know what you think of this issue. Is censorship necessary to prevent people accessing illegal material, or is it an invasion of privacy and technologically useless?

As with all 'political issues' it comes down to morality.

How much physical violence are you willing to use against me if I convey electrical and light signals down privately owned cables with the owners permission? If the answer is none, then you cannot have censorship.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

This has 100% to do with making the politicians look good in the public's eye.

It's bullshit.

 

[Denode]

Hah, I just heard about this from 4chan. Yes, 4chan is my source of news. In fact, I'm surprised it isn't on the blacklist.

I personally think for the time being, the censorship is fine if the material blocked is only illegal, but once the Government gets a taste of how easy it is to block sites, it's going to trip over itself at one point or another and block a perfectly fine site. It is at this point that a media uproar will occur, 4chan lasers will fire, and they will feel the hurt.

EDIT: Well derpa-freakin-derp, looky here.

Full censorship list:
http://88.80.16.63/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt

4chan is blocked.

Note: Supposedly the blocking does not slow down internet connection.
- A 16 year old cracked the trial filter in under a minute
- Some wikipedia links are included in the blocked sites
- There are online poker sites on there...Strike that, might be an outdated list.

 

[morttt]

It's definitely a good idea for Australia. I've read about the growing crisis of pornography addiction with young Australian males. The government is just trying to ensure there is a next generation of children to protect.

 

It's definitely a good idea for Australia. I've read about the growing crisis of pornography addiction with young Australian males. The government is just trying to ensure there is a next generation of children to protect.

How much physical violence are you personally willing to use against me if I convey electrical and light signals down privately owned internet cables with the owners permission?

 

[Schnell]

How much physical violence are you personally willing to use against me if I convey electrical and light signals down privately owned internet cables with the owners permission?

If those electrical signals portray sexual abuse of children, which you and your friends watch for personal enjoyment, I would come to your house with a bat. (disclaimer: I don't accuse you blah blah...)

I see no problem with banning child pornography sites. We have such a filter here in Norway, and as far as I can tell that's all it does as I don't run into it.

The problem is how it is handled. If this happens:

About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

... it has gone too far.

 

If those electrical signals portray sexual abuse of children, which you and your friends watch for personal enjoyment, I would come to your house with a bat. (disclaimer: I don't accuse you blah blah...)

So you would instigate violence against someone for a passive non-aggressive private activity they do in the privacy of their own home, because you disagree with it. That's the most contemptible and vile invasion of personal liberty I have yet heard on this forum.

It doesn't matter what signals come down the line. It really doesn't. You shouldn't even be privy to said signals. You should mind your own business.

Lets put this on the other foot. Say you have devout Muslims of some description living in your neighbourhood. And they perceive that a practice taking place in your home is untasteful, in exactly the way you described in your previous post. Perhaps it is that you view ANY pornography at all... They might regard this as a crime. Do they now have the right to come into your home and kidnap you, hold you indefinitely, and steal your property?

Here are the facts pertaining to the original scenario: all parties in this scenario are in consentual agreement. Therefore there is no injury or damage, there is no suit, no standing, no case. And even if there were, you wouldn't be a party to the matter. So mind your own fucking business.

 

[Schnell]

So you would instigate violence against someone for a passive non-aggressive private activity they do in the privacy of their own home, because you disagree with it. That's the most contemptible and vile invasion of personal liberty I have yet heard on this forum.

It doesn't matter what signals come down the line. It really doesn't. You shouldn't even be privy to said signals. You should mind your own business.

Lets put this on the other foot. Say you have devout Muslims of some description living in your neighbourhood. And they perceive that a practice taking place in your home is untasteful, in exactly the way you described in your previous post. Perhaps it is that you view ANY pornography at all... They might regard this as a crime. Do they now have the right to come into your home and kidnap you, hold you indefinitely, and steal your property?

Here are the facts pertaining to the original scenario: all parties in this scenario are in consentual agreement. Therefore there is no injury or damage, there is no suit, no standing, no case. And even if there were, you wouldn't be a party to the matter. So mind your own fucking business.

Watching it might be passive and non-agressive, but the action is not. The fact of the matter is that people pay to see children get raped, and by doing so they help to increase the number of children being raped.

Do you think that everyone who is not involved should mind their own fucking business when presented with an opportunity to decrease child rape, because of personal freedom? What about the personal freedom of the helpless children? Inactivity is also an activity.

 

Watching it might be passive and non-agressive, but the action is not. The fact of the matter is that people pay to see children get raped, and by doing so they help to increase the number of children being raped.

Do you think that everyone who is not involved should mind their own fucking business when presented with an opportunity to decrease child rape, because of personal freedom? What about the personal freedom of the helpless children?

So go persecute the people committing crimes against others.

This is an ethical fallacy btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Inactivity is also an activity.

This particularly is a solid contradiction, and a monster of a fallacy in the realm of ethics. You are equating the initiation of force with a non-violent non-activity. The distinction between violence and non-violence in the realm of ethics is the most important one. If you equate the two, you throw all ethics out the window: You are putting rape and love in the same category. Trade and theft, murder and witness of a murder, and so on.

 

[Schnell]

So go persecute the people committing crimes against others.

This is an ethical fallacy btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Ethical fallacy? For such a concept to exist ethics would have to adhere to a given standard, which is not the case.

This particularly is a solid contradiction, and a monster of a fallacy in the realm of ethics. You are equating the initiation of force with a non-violent non-activity. The distinction between violence and non-violence in the realm of ethics is the most important one. If you equate the two, you throw all ethics out the window: You are putting rape and love in the same category. Trade and theft, murder and witness of a murder, and so on.

Imagine this scenario: you and your friends are out walking one night, and you see an old lady getting robbed. You have two options here, either you stop the robbery or you walk away and let it happen. In this case, is inactivity better than violating that man's personal freedom?

 

[Evan Wears Prada]

I believe that this is a invasion of privacy to the citizens of Austrailia. What you do inside your home is not anyone elses business.

 

Ethical fallacy? For such a concept to exist ethics would have to adhere to a given standard, which is not the case.

Ethics is the reasoning about and study of human behaviour and the standards by which it should be judged. So yes, it is the case.

Imagine this scenario: you and your friends are out walking one night, and you see an old lady getting robbed. You have two options here, either you stop the robbery or you walk away and let it happen. In this case, is inactivity better than violating that man's personal freedom?

No relevance.

This has nothing to do with the claim that the initiation of force against passive individuals is 'morally justified' according to what electrical signals they transact with other consenting parties.

All the arguments I've heard in support of this claim thus far have been fallacies. Please, stay on topic.

 

[shawnvd]

The internet should definitely not be censored. We do have the right to view anything that we want, and the government should not be controlling anyone. I mean, censoring illegal sites is one thing, but instead of censoring them, they should make an effort to shut them down or prosecute the site owners.

 

The internet should definitely not be censored. We do have the right to view anything that we want, and the government should not be controlling anyone. I mean, censoring illegal sites is one thing, but instead of censoring them, they should make an effort to shut them down or prosecute the site owners.

They just waste time by prosecuting.

 

[ilikepie1]

The internet is the last place for freedom of expression, and if they take that away, then there is no place else to vent your frustrations/opinions without the fear of persecution. I know for a fact that the government will start censoring the violent and lewd content, then move onto the pettiest of things, such as verbal profanity.

 

[Schnell]

No relevance.

This has nothing to do with the claim that the initiation of force against passive individuals is 'morally justified' according to what electrical signals they transact with other consenting parties.

That was purely a response concerning inactivity/activity. So yes, it has relevance in this case.

Also, since when is internet censorship an "initiation of force"? This topic is about putting up a firewall blocking certain internet sites, and has nothing to do with physical harm in the first place.

 

[fastNeasy]

Wow.. u hope they dont introduce this to the US