[LINK] GetUp anti-censorship campaign gets cash fast
cas at taz.net.au
Sun Dec 7 11:26:11 EST 2008
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 09:10:06PM +1100, David Boxall wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 6/12/2008 Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ...
> > a fairly obvious usage of the propaganda smear "free speech == child
> > pornography, you sick bastard". ...
> A child's best protection is a diligent parent. No filter is perfect.
> The presence of an unreliable filter will tend to lull parents into a
> false sense of security, leading to a reduction in that essential
absolutely. and mandatory filters cause far worse harm than just a
false sense of security, they enable the abdication of the parent's own
responsibilities to protect and guide their children.
> The most substantial Internet threat to children comes from predators
> who groom them online for abuse in the real world.
and the most substantial actual threat to children, greater by
many orders of magnitude, comes from their own families and
friends/acquaintances of the family (priests are one well-known
internet child abuse is the latest version of the bogus "stranger
danger" meme - which serves to deny the unpalatable truth that many
children are in danger from their own families (particular fathers,
older brothers, and uncles) by obscuring it with hysteria over
statistically insignificant danger from strangers.
it is also a witch hunt, which like all other witch hunts is politically
useful for justifying laws and oppresive tactics against ALL citizens
(not just those committing the "witchcraft" crimes being allegedly
targeted) which would otherwise cause an outraged reaction in the
> A reduction in parental diligence increases the predators' potential
really, the actual danger to children from contact with perverts on the
internet is minimal. and the actual harm is even less. aside from the
one or two per year who are actually stupid or gullible/naive enough to
meet in the real world, the worst they risk is offensive words or images
that they'd be better off not being exposed to. but it's not going to
kill them or even hurt them, they'll get over it. the world is full of
terrible things that children, even adults, would rather not see or know
(child pornography, OTOH, is a very different thing to perverts chatting
online to children. there's real and actual harm done to the kids in
making the images).
> The typical reaction of filtering proponents is to imply that critics
> of the plan are in some way involved with paedophilia and/or child
yep, key characteristic of a witch-hunt. anyone protesting or
criticising the laws MUST be a witch themselves.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
More information about the Link