[LINK] THE Federal Government had rejected mandatory filtering of
the Internet to stop child pornography
wavey_one at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 6 20:54:08 EST 2004
Robin et al
To think that the USA has no internet censorship is laughable.
Freedom of expression as outlined in the First Amendment is
something that is constantly being redefined not only by the
courts, but also more recently by pressure from the American
Offline there are draconian restrictions on freedom of
expression, and these only seem to be getting more and more
Reading the article Bonos New Casualty: Private Ryan at
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/21/arts/21rich.html (now a pay for
view article) is horrifying reading for anyone concerned about
censorship. The influence of the christian right could have
quite horrendous implications, especially if Bush manages to
stack the Supreme Court with his ideological allies.
Restrictions are already happening on television in both movies
shown and depictions of war. Then there is the influence on
newspapers, and next online, especially with the growing
convergence of different forms of media. Doesnt anyone remember
the restrictions of Nipplegate?
And then there is the case of Hirin Ebadi who, if I remember
rightly from her New York Times article (see
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/16/opinion/ebadi.html, but also now a
pay per view article), was unable to publish her book there.
Robin also asked So what are they smoking in Britain?????? Id
say its rather pleasant to be in most, if not all, western
European countries when it comes to regulating content online.
In fact, it those countries cited (China despite there
supposed army of 30,000 censors, Burma plus Viet Nam and others)
that are moving away from censorship. Indeed, it has been argued
that as these countries open up, the level of censorship goes
down. All the while the level of censorship in America
America aint no bastion of freedom of expression far from it,
it heavily censors those whose views dont fit. It doesnt need
a filtering system it has the courts and religious right.
--- Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> Howard Lowndes wrote:
> > (The Minister) said it also had the potential to choke the
> internet and drive up
> > costs for consumers and small business.
> > "The biggest issue is not so much the money but such an
> expensive scheme
> > would not necessarily solve the problem and small to medium
> > (internet service providers) would be driven out of business
> for little
> > or no benefit," Senator Coonan said. "What does work is
> > information and parental supervision and that is the kind of
> > that the government is promoting."
> Now might be the time to remind ourselves that we - the Link
> Electronic Frontiers Australia and birds of the same feather
> - have
> been saying this for over eight years.
> General discussion.
> link should send Robin Whittle to Sydney
> Jack Gilding (jgilding at circit.vut.edu.au)
> Thu, 04 Apr 1996 11:56:41 +1000
> A gonzo travelogue of the mind on two hours sleep
> community standards, Internet censorship compared to
> regulating swimming, the design of Parliament House and
> delicacy, importance and contradictions of law enforcement
> other things
> So what has changed? Here are some suggestions:
> 1 - Most importantly, Senator Harradine has reverted to being
> a feather
> duster. More generally, such censorship-minded senators,
> such as
> the Family First senator from Victoria, have no sway over
> government, due to the government's senate majority.
> 2 - Another bird of Harradine's feather, the similarly (as far
> as I
> know) religiously enthusiastic Catholic (Alston) has
> departed the
> government and especially the Communications Ministry.
> 3 - Virtually every parliamentarian and minister now has wide
> of the Net whereas they had little or none in 1996. I
> like to
> think that quite a few of them recognise how diverse Net
> communications are (technically, in terms of purpose,
> and mode of operation), how unlike publishing or
> broadcasting many
> Net communications are, how vast it is, an how hard it is
> reliably technically block some category of material or
> 4 - Also, I like to think that they pause for thought when
> how hard it is to make clear definitions of what should be
> for the entire country, and the human and democratic costs
> of doing
> so even if it could be done properly.
> 5 - Recognition of how China, Burma etc. are the most
> operators of nation-based Internet blocking systems, and
> the USA has no such thing.
> So what are they smoking in Britain??????
> I feel I have been entirely unsuccessful in advocacy to date -
> in that
> everything worked out worst case (except attempts to control
> access to
> strong cryptography), with the minor exception of an
> pleasant and I think worthwhile discussion with the author of
> the Walsh
> I feel there has been no success with telemarketing (other
> than the
> Labor party proposing a Do Not Call scheme) - the issue which
> got me
> into this field late in 1991. So I am glad to see that here,
> at last,
> is some progress on something I worked on!
> This is not the same as the government taking a real interest
> supporting freedom of expression, and there's no sign they
> want to
> reduce restrictions on Internet servers in Australia, but at
> least it is
> a recognition that the notion of border-based filtering is
> can't work technically and probably that it could never be
> agreed what
> to apply it to if it did work, without causing unacceptable
> side effects.
> - Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
More information about the Link