Lindens Please Help The Aussies

Remove your consent, Don't Vote. Voting only allows them to claim to be legit.

The big banks who were losing money they couldn't collect.

Though back in May, The Register was reporting that

Now that sounds very much like the US

I think many people are confusing "censorship" with other kinds of legal action, which creates confusion.

I'm against all kinds of censorship, plainly because I think that people have the right to decide for themselves what to write, read and view.

However, when it comes to child pornography, we are taking about something else. The production of child pornography includes committing crimes, i.e. exploiting children sexually. Therefore, child pornography is illegal to produce, distribute and (in many countries) to consume. This is not censorship, it's all about stopping criminal acts. When an internet ISP blocks a child porn site, they don't do it because of censorship, they do it to stop a crime from being committed.
It's the same thing as if you are to close down a book store selling stolen books. That's not "censorship" or "restricting the store owner's right to distribute the written word", it's stopping a crime.

It's important to distinguish between censorship and other kinds of legal action. What is obviously happening in Australia is censorship and that is ALWAYS wrong. Period.

Overall, this is an excellent point, I think. But it's still all rather more complicated than this suggests.

I'll ignore for a moment my own views on the issue of whether or not certain types of materials cause "social harm" or not (as for example, non-photographic child porn, materials that incite to hatred or that defame according to race, gender, or sexuality), and focus on the problem with defining actions according to the "criminality" of their production.

What about materials that are the product of criminal actions, but that were not produced to be marketted? Documentary footage originally produced by the perpetrator of crimes against humanity, for instance, or even "man-on-the-street" videos and photos of acts of crime in progress? A great deal of mainstream porn, particularly that which comes from non-Western countries, was produced under conditions that are "criminal" in many jurisdictions, including coercion or in some cases much worse.

The second problem of course is the slipperiness of the notion of "criminality." Laws change, standards of criminality vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, sometimes within the same country. It has been determined in most Western countries that exposing real children and minors to sexual acts is "criminal"; it is equally true that some countries have determined that just POSSESSING representations of sexual acts committed on a minor is "criminal." There is a lot more to determining which kind of "criminality" YOU find "acceptable," and which you don't, than simply shouting "censorship" at the latter, while nodding in agreement with the former. Jurisdictions that have put more wide-ranging controls in place over the possession of child porn of various sorts haven't done so arbitrarily: in most cases, they are banned because of the belief (right or wrong) that these cause harm, and in that sense are also "criminal."

The point I am really trying to make here is that reducing this issue to a simple dichotomy of right and wrong, black and white, simply doesn't work, and doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issues at stake here. There is no clear line in the sand distinguishing "righteous" restrictions on material from "evil" censorship: there is only a sliding scale along a very broad spectrum that shifts regularly as cultural values and attitudes change.

Everybody is against "censorship": it's a motherhood and apple pie issue. Where the problem arises is in determining what we mean by a legitimate restriction, and illegitimate censorship. Unless you believe that literally ANYTHING is acceptable, that's an issue you are going to have to face.

Annisha,

This is so weird. I've always thought Aussies were a very laid back and easy-going bunch. And, um...I should think that a country whose ancestors were transported criminals would have a more liberal attitude toward vice and debauchery than most. What have you people done to saddle yourselves with such a priggish government? (And where will they transport the dissenters this time? Vacant continents are scarce these days).

Rafe,

It's not just the "far right" who'd like to impose censorship. The far left does too. Both camps believe that you should only see, hear, and think exactly what they see, hear, and think.

All,

Don't let Them do this to you. Take back your government and your freedoms.

"Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said."

For teh childrenz.......Check
For society.................Check
Protect people from their own decisions..........Check
Tyranny...........Check

Good thing he's protecting those fragile Australian minds from Duke Nuke'em.

Lindal, your essential point here is correct, of course, but I would extend it further: the middle is pretty ok with various forms of restriction and/or censorship too.

I am, to put it mildly, no friend of the far right, the Moral Majority, etc., and I'm not a great deal happier with the extreme left, but I think it is a bad mistake to demonize these people with reductive forumulae like this. The same with the suggestion that people who wish to impose restrictions are simply "evil."

These people are not stupid, and they certainly don't believe that they are "evil": they have thought-out reasons for the values and ideas that they espouse. They may be poorly conceived, or based on faulty premises, but you aren't going to beat them by calling them names. We have to begin by acknowledging, first, that they have a right to hold the views they hold, and, second, that they have arguments that must be met head on.

We do democracy a disservice but simply yelling "Evil!" at anyone whose views we dislike.

I think everyone needs to hide a Goatse somewhere unlinked on their website, report it, and see how long Australia is willing to keep the entire Internet blocked.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a 'doomsayer', but this is truly frightening to me. I'm with Lindal here, my impression of Australia was one where this kind of thing could never happen. O_O

Australia maintains a rough-and-ready outback reputation, but it's much more urban than the US. There's a reason the outback is empty and untamed, and it's not because it's full of wild and untamed bronzed Aussies.

The 'progressive movement' is the far left, I included both. I added the far right before posting just to be fair to the 'Patriot Act' and McCain's desire to censor video games and MMA. The 'Fairness Doctrine' is one of the strongest freedom of speech curtailments I know of in today's legislation and it comes from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

As I am a Libertarian I tend to look at the left with a more critical eye but today's Washington conservatives are just as anti Constitutional as Washington Libs. Both "sides" want to legislate moral behavior to such a point that there is no longer a distinction in American political parties when it comes to our unalienable Rights.

/end hijacking of thread. It does all tie in though because Australia, the UK, and the US are very similar in political philosophy when it comes to personal freedoms.

Why should people sacrifice freedom for security? Who are we protecting here? If someone is going to search for child porn, they are going to find it somehow. We can't police everything unfortunately.
Once you give them censorship power in fear of seeing things you don't like. Then its going to go overboard. You will be forced morals down your throat. like no gambling, no porn that they consider dirty, no kinky sex, maybe no porn at all, no unregistered sites, everything might even be brought to a G rating. You don't know how far it will go and theres nothing you can do once you hand that power over.
I love the internet because information here flows freely.

Ahhhh, the old tried-and-true "slippery slope argument" . . .

Take away my right to wear a concealed weapon in public, and the next thing you know, they'll be taking water guns away from kids . . .

There are ALWAYS limits on what we can or cannot do, can or cannot see in society. ALWAYS. There is, I imagine, no one in this thread, with the exception perhaps of the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, who would allow absolutely EVERYTHING. And the moment you institute even a single restriction . . . you have invoked a version of the "slippery slope" argument.

Again, to clarify: I am not taking a particular stand the Australian Gov't's actions here. I am urging everyone to understand that this is NOT a simple "right vs. wrong" issue. The issues at stake are not merely grey: they are multicoloured. Ringing denunciations of "censorship" sound wonderful, but they do not begin to tackle the real complexity of the problem, or what is at issue here.

I saw Australia going in this direction when all those guns were destroyed.

Its not about Gun Control its about control.

/me eats a cookie.

NO CHILDRENZ ON THE INTERNET XD

Parents should closely watch what site children access. And never left alone. When my dad 1st got me a computer and hooked it up to the net. I only wanted to find some people to talk to. I find some random site and started chatting to the people. They asked me my age and i was like 10 i think. And they all gasped and said i should not be there. I didn't understand why. I also didn't understand the funny moving pictures around the site. I saw one that looked like a woman pulling a cow's udder and squirting milk into her mouth. And i saw another that looked something like a big thumb poking a hole... I didn't get it. Children don't understand sexual images. When they see it, they get confused. When my dad walked in to see what i was doing, i showed him the website and he immediately started yelling at me and grounded me. I had no idea what i did wrong...

/me raises my hand and waves wildly.

I would only restrict the initiation of force or fraud against another. So, I would allow pretty much everything.

Hmmm. Some of us might argue that it's "about" reducing the carnage on the streets . . . and, yes, limiting the right to kill other people easily and efficiently, but, yeah, whatever . . .

Can I have a cookie too?

What issue are they tackling here with censorship? What problems could it possibly solve? If there is an illegal website... shut it down and arrest offenders.

I have no problem with them holding their views, until they try to force them on me.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper.

LOL

I had an eye on your corner when I was writing that.

But, define force or fraud, Chris? These have to have legal definitions that distinguish between, say, "persuasion" or coercion, and "force." Is blackmail a form of "force"? What constitutes "blackmail," exactly?

Careful how you answer: it's all a dangerously slippery slope!!

And if the website is in, say, Japan? Or Myanmar? Or Kentucky?

And who decides what is "illegal"? Making even that judgment could, in the eyes of those who are doing such things, constitute a form of "censorship."

Which I couldn't do with 5 gallons of gas and a match?
Or an automobile? Or a machete

Gun control worked out really well for those Armenian Christians, Ukrainian farmers, Chinese peasants, Cambodian intellectuals and the Tutsi. (aren't you proud of me, I didn't even mention Hitler)