Lindens Please Help The Aussies

Once a people allow a right (free speech in this case) to be taken away, it never gets returned, it just emboldens the takers to take more....

As to censoring the internet and censorship supporters... If you don't want to see it, don't click on it. If you don't want your children to see it, monitor them like a good parent. Don't try to take or reduce my right to use something just because you don't like it.

As to the Aussies - sad but true, if they censor out SL, you will probably get it back about the same time you get your right to own a gun back.

As to censorship in general - there will always be some, you can not yell fire in a theater, but it should be used like tweezers, not like a shotgun.

Unfortunately this is not the case, not anywhere. Governments, of whatever sort, are sovereign. They rule on behalf of the citizens, as they see fit. The only time citizens are sovereign is when there's an election.

I'm in favour of greater censorship of the internet - but only of extreme nasty stuff, the sort of material that isn't supposed to be in SL anyway and is usually only put there by griefers.

But if the Australian authorities ban SL it would be really sad. It gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure. Even is it gets a bit risque sometimes, it's generally harmless. I think the greatest damage SL can do to people is if they get too emotionally involved or spend too much time in-world, upsetting their RL/SL balance.

Hmmm . . . visit a Dolcet sim one day. Other than representations of kiddie porn, there isn't an awful lot that isn't allowed in SL. Tubgirl is *nothing* compared to what is not only permitted, but actually explicitly advertised on Xstreet and elsewhere.

so when is SL expected to be blocked in Australia then ??

It isnt As i stated before...

this law isnt even before our parliment yet

It isnt even lw yet

And even if it does any blocking that might happen to SL is more than likely able to be opted out of (at least accoding to the way the bill is currently written)

sorry I have to confess I didnt go through the entire thread I simply assumed that the person who started the thread knew what he was on about when he claimed it was going to happen.

so basically its still not been finalised ?

Amen!

That is correct.

The news articls are referring to the fact the Australian Labour party (the current government) has decided after testing this system that they aregoing to put the bill before parliment and attempt to get it passed

I agree with you Eclectic, not least because British Telecom, for example, have had blacklist filtering in place for many years, yet this hasn't affected access to SL by UK residents.

Nevertheless, the Rudd government has chosen to essentially ignore the findings of a report commissioned by the Howard government (presented to the government in February 2008 but kept secret until a year ago) which indicates that the scheme is seriously flawed. Senator Conroy's claim that developments since then have dealt with these concerns is not proven (see analysis by A/P Bjorn Landfeldt, Sydney University).

As important as it is to be able to access SL, there are far more serious issues at stake, such as freedom of speech (to which we have no explicitly protected right as it is), accountability for blocked sites, and carte blanche for the government of the day to determine what is 'inappropriate' (few people are arguing against the blocking of sites that are outright illegal).

The intent to censor the Internet builds on Philip Ruddock's successful banning of books during his time as Attorney-General in the Howard government, which was achieved by petitioning the Federally-funded Classification Review Board to refuse classification. Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, it seeks to extend the government's power to control what can and cannot be accessed by the populace.

This is why it's important for us all to step outside our beloved "she'll be right, mate" mindset for long enough to drop a line to the senator and perhaps to our local or federal representative to express our opposition to the currently-proposed scheme. Voicing an opinion will not guarantee that the bill will not eventually be passed into law in some form, but complacency certainly won't!

The timing of this is just too perfect for me not to say something. My son notified me last week that the University of Colorado at Boulder sent out an announcement banning Nerf guns from campus. They specifically stated "anyone caught with a nerf gun will be treated as if they were carrying a real gun".

In the US these days, we are not sliding slowly down the slippery slope - we are cruising down it at full sled speed.

Yeah, I'd probably agree that that is an overreaction . . . although, the incidence of gun-related violence on university and college campuses has become frequent enough that I can see playing at "guns" there as being at least insensitive.

I don't see how this is a case of "the slipper slope" though: are we to allow real guns on campuses in order to safeguard our "right" to carry Nerf ones?

My understanding is that it is some massive RP game that is now played on campuses all across the US -- something vs zombies or such.

Actually it is the slippery slope that started with toy guns being banned from elementary schools because kids could get confused on real vs toys. Yet now *adults* are being told they cannot play with toys because why? No good reason that I can think of.

Actually there are a few campuses that have started movements to allow them to utilize their concealed carry permits on campus specifically to be able to defend themselves against any further nutcases.

Well, this really is a cultural thing, I think. Personally -- and I am pretty confident I speak for a hefty majority of Canadians on this -- I find the idea of any civilian carrying concealed weapons (or visible ones) in ANY kind of public context just plain terrifying.

I spend a lot of my time on a university campus these days, and to say that I would feel uncomfortable with the possibility that the person next to me was packing a weapon is an enormous understatement. I'm not so confident as you seem to be that THAT person is not more likely to be the "nutter" than the person on the other side of me carrying no weapons. Marc Lepine, after all, killed 14 women at L'Ecole Polytechnique using a legally-obtained and licensed weapon. So too with Kimveer Gill, who shot 20 people (killing one) at Dawson College in Montreal in 2006, and Valery Fabrikant who killed four at Concordia in 1992.

And as for dealing with a psychotic gunman, we have properly-trained and screened campus police for that.

It goes without saying that society is prone to overreact sometimes: we need to be on guard against that when it happens, obviously. But the basic premise of the slippery slope argument -- that we daren't act against behaviours that might reasonably be considered dangerous or harmful because it might later lead to an infringement of more legitimate freedoms -- assumes that we are all going to sit on our hands and let this sort of thing happen. I don't see why this is any more likely than that we should allow our legitimate freedoms to be impinged upon in any other way.

One of the biggest problems with the "slippery slope" argument is that it is applied so selectively. Is anyone likely to argue that we shouldn't have laws protecting children from sexual interference by adults? Yet, the fact that we do has yet to lead to an assault upon the rights of adults to have sex, because that is clearly so unreasonable.

In Canada, and indeed in most of the rest of the Western world, we have more stringent restrictions on firearms than in the US; yet Canada and the UK are hardly on their way to becoming police states, and are, in fact, statistically much less violent societies than the US, where there is more opportunity to "protect" oneself against violence by responding in kind.

[ETA: I just want to make it clear that I am not taking gratuitous swipes at the US here, a nation for which I have enormous respect. There are always trade-offs; I think the US IS a more "free" society in some respects than Canada.]

As I've said, the slippery slope argument is a recipe for paralysis: taken to its logical conclusion, we can act against NOTHING out of the paralyzing fear that we might lose other rights down the road. Well, that might be so if we aren't vigilant. But we NEED to be vigilant anyway. I don't see how a rational and well-considered restriction based specifically on one case need lead to those same rational arguments being applied illogically to other inappropriate cases.

I also have to say that I dislike the implication (of which, to be clear, I am NOT accusing you) that anyone who supports a limitation on freedoms on the basis of public safety or health is necessarily some sort of wild eyed zealot who is just waiting for a chance to push the issue to the nth degree.

In New York City is illegal to sell toy guns that look like real guns. Toy guns must be painted bright red, yellow, blue or similar luminous colors. It is also illegal to paint real guns in such colors as it is deemed an attempt to disguise them as toy guns.
But you just did mention Hitler by stating that you didn't mention Hitler! I will send you your Stealth Godwin Award later.

It is rather poignant that you argue against gun control in this context as the Second Amendment was drafted under a very similar context after having undergone a revolution against the British government. It also prompts one to question whether the motivations behind the inclusion of the Second Amendment are somewhat archaic and the notions behind it obsolete in the United States.

You can actually buy this real AR15 around here - in the stores:


Not that I can see anyone really wanting that.


Okay fine....

/me whips off her skirt and waves it in salute.

Well, as far as I know, none of our 'campus police' are armed, properly trained, nor properly screened. Most average citizens that have a concealed carry permit have are better trained in weapons than the majority of so-called 'guards' in many places here. Unfortunately, it doesn't require any training to buy a gun -- only to get the concealed carry permit.

Interesting read here . Especially the derail concerning "right to carry" laws. I did a short Google on that and clicked on the very first listing that Google returned. What caused me to even do the search is something I remember from about 15 years ago (maybe a little longer since I was young and was not especially concerned with concealed weapons).

I lived in Little Rock, AR at the time. Our news was full of car jackings occuring in Dallas, TX on an almost daily basis.........car jackings where the thug would jerk open a door to an unsuspecting driver at an intersection, point or wave a gun in their face and force them from their car and steal it right in broad daylight. Texas legalized the right to carry a concealed weapon to citizens who could pass a background check, show proof of proper gun training and safety practices. A few weeks after the law was enacted some punk car jacker jerked open the door to someone who had the RTC permit and the weapon was on the seat next to him...........when the jacker waved his gun at him the driver blew his face off. Car jackings in Dallas, TX suddenly stopped......then Little Rock started having the problem. But now Arkansas has RTC laws too............car jackings are almost unheard of anymore.

Interesting read if you care to go:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

I liked this part:
....................

More RTC, less crime: Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million.2 There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, the nation's murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low.3 RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24 percent; murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent).4
.....................

Yeah, yeah I know the NRA and all. But someone has to speak up.

Sorry Chris but I have to disagree. Not voting only allows you to say "Well I didn't vote for them - I didn't vote for anyone - therefore my opinion doesn't matter."

Voting IS your freedom, IS your right, and IS your responsibility. Otherwise, you might as well go out into the woods and claim yourself to be a separatist state.

By casting a ballot against the censor party, you are stating that you don't want censorship. By NOT casting a ballot, you're stating that you don't care.

The average Aussie doesn't need or want a gun but we do like our internet. We are quite happy not requiring a kevlar wetsuit and a gun to go to the beach. But if they try this they will probably have to fight the Telco companies too, because anything restricting internet is likely to result in a lot of people drastically scalling back or completely cancelling their internet plans.

If we had left our gun laws the way they were we were going to end up worse than the US, those people who have legitamate needs besides roadsign hunting in suburbia have still got them quite legally. The NRA of course just feed bullcrap to their members of course a lot of who are gullible enough to believe we have 3000 gun deaths a year when it's actually only around 300. Less than one a day, yeah we have a real gun problem please help us so we can match the exlempary USA stats........

Who we voted for makes no difference, because both parties are in bed with each other, they ensure no-one can set up a 3rd party.

How has that worked out? How many shootings have campus police stopped?

Whether or not one agrees with concealed carry on a college campus, the evidence of past shootings suggests that relying on the campus police is probably not the best plan.

Separatist state sounds good.

And when you have two choices, bad and worse? Which do you vote for? South Park got it right, we are given the choice between a douche bag and a shit sandwich and are supposed to like it.
Write in votes are not counted unless the candidate has filled out the proper forms. So, that isn't an option.
Give me the choice of "None of the above" and maybe I will cast a ballot. Until then, I can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of the MFers."

Taking a look at the accounts of the major campus shootings over the past fifty years, I'm not sure trusting your life to the campus police is such a good idea.

That's where activism comes in, Chris. You can sit on your hands and moan about a lack of choice, or you can agitate to make sure that parties ARE offering choices.

A case in point: the NDP, "my" party (i.e., the one I invariably vote for) cut a deal in November that meant that individual members of the party were allowed to vote to get rid of our gun registry. I am enormously pissed off. However, the only party that remained solidly in support of the registry was the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party that I couldn't vote for even if I wanted to because they don't run candidates outside of Quebec.

The answer, though, is not to throw up my hands and complain that I now can't vote for any of the bastards. It is to fight hard and LOUDLY to ensure that the two centre-left parties know that this kind of betrayal will cost them votes. Believe you me, my local NDP riding association knows about how upset I am, and, come election time, their candidate is going to get an earful from me when s/he arrives on my doorstep.

There are lots of ways to make your voice heard, and to influence political decisions, outside of the voting booth.

Maybe, but I'd rather do so than put my faith in god-knows-who sitting next to me and carrying a concealed pistol for god-knows-what-reason.

Actually, the Dawson College shootings to some degree affirmed my faith in law enforcement to handle these sorts of situation. That was a terrible tragedy, and 20 people were shot, but the response of the Montreal Police Force was, by almost any account I've read, exemplary, and unquestionably prevented a far worse tragedy. Apparently the police studied the much much less effective response to the Montreal Massacre, and devised a new procedure for dealing with this kind of situation that did make a real difference in 2006. The result, for what it is worth, was only one dead woman, instead of 14 . . . :-/

In the final analysis, in my view anyway, the real solution is to severely restrict access to firearms in ALL of society: restricting the right to carry a weapon onto a university campus isn't going to deter a killer, while arming the students is going to turn every campus into a potential OK Coral . . . Guns have to be cut off at the source.

Several great essays on why not to vote.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html

You might find this one interesting Scylla.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.25

If you want to get deep into it even voting for a "good" candidate is an act of violence.