Nothing unexpected here: The Australian Christian Lobby has called for bipartisan support of ISP filtering, saying that in the interests of children this issue should be placed above party politics and the impact on speed is a small price to pay. ACL says Australia is taking a huge step forward with filtering.
Here’s a snippet from their PR:
“This will not mean the ruin of the Internet or lead to absurd forms of censorship as some people with clearly vested interests are suggesting,” Mr Wallace said.
“Child pornography is both illegal and immensely destructive and it is entirely appropriate that access to it be blocked, along with other illegal material. The blocking of other degrading and damaging material will be optional, but offers an important safeguard for families worried about their children inadvertently coming across this material on the Net,” Mr Wallace said.
“Claims the Government will impose China-style curbing of free speech are ridiculous given Australia’s robust parliamentary democracy, something China does not have.
“Technology is improving all the time, meaning that the impact on Internet speeds is likely to be minimal, a small price to pay for protecting children and the community from too easy access to increasingly explicit material.”
Update: 2/12/08: Geordie Guy has analysed the ACL press release at his blog.
13 comments
Simon says:
Dec 2, 2008
Is it just me or is it kind of funny that an organisation with the acronym ACL for a name is in favour of blocking something.
Maybe I’m just a software geek.
Stephen says:
Dec 2, 2008
I thought the same thing :/ Looking at that statement it’s clear that they have no idea about what the technology actually is
Bill says:
Dec 2, 2008
Who is funding these people?
It is time to look beyond the smoke and mirrors and probe the players and agendas behind this farce.
Bob Bain says:
Dec 2, 2008
With the backing of Hetty Johnston and as David Marr has noted MichaelAngelo’s “David” would no doubt come under the filter.
Here’s what happened in 1857….
(and despite rumours and observations as to my advancing years I was NOT alive in 1857)
http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/stories/david/index.html
The statue of Michelangelo’s David was originally presented to Queen Victoria by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1857, but was immediately given by the queen to the South Kensington Museum (now the V&A).
“The plaster cast of a fig leaf, half a metre high, was made in London soon after the statue’s arrival and attached to the statue to spare the blushes of visiting female dignitaries.”
“The story goes that on her first encounter with the cast of David at the Museum, Queen Victoria was so shocked by the nudity that a proportionally accurate fig leaf was commissioned. It was then kept in readiness for any royal visits, when it was hung on the figure using two strategically placed hooks. In a photograph of the Art Museum taken around 1857-9 the figure of David is shown wearing a fig leaf. The fig leaf is likely to have been made by the Anglo-Italian firm D. Brucciani & Co., based in London.”
“Male nudity was then a contentious issue. A letter sent to the Museum in 1903 by a Mr Dobson complained about the statuary displayed: ‘One can hardly designate these figures as “art” !: if it is, it is a very objectionable form of art.’”
Even this Wikipedia article could be blocked..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
“David is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo from 1501 to 1504. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to battle with Goliath.”
I’m not too clear on the age of the model BUT if Queen Victoria was not amused I doubt if Hetty Johnston would be either – BUT then it is a portrayal of a Biblical figure and I’m sure the Australian Christian Lobby wouldn’t countenance blocking sites depicting religious icons.
Bob
James says:
Dec 2, 2008
Placed above party politics? Isn’t party politics the whole reason Labor is running with this fascist Family First-laid turd of an idea?
Bob Bain says:
Dec 2, 2008
The objections to Internet content and the current ALP policy began with right wing faction ALP leader Kim Beazley who objected to depictions of violence he seemingly encountered on the Internet.
It doesn’t have much to do with Senator Fielding.
Senator Conroy (also right wing) inherited and believes in this policy and believes the current ratings system for 20,000 people (and which doesn’t work for adult content) can be applied to the Internet where many nations have far more liberal ideas with regards to censorship.
Kevin Rudd is a devout Christian and inherits the Christian values of the party he should have joined – the Queensland National Party.
Most censorship in Australia originted from the ALP. Senator Brian Harradine was a member of the Australian Labor Party (until he left) and a staunch Trade Unionist and I believe someone who was admired by Gough Whitlam.
As I mentioned to Michael censorship laws in Australia were first relaxed by Don Chipp while serving as Customs Minister in the Liberal Governemnt of Sir William McMahon. It was Gareth Evans (from memory) ALP who decreed that there should be an “X” rating (documented as an OFLC resource) and when it was introduced it contained a list of material that could not be prohibited. The “X” rating as envisaged by Gareth Evans was not a “sex only” category as it is today. There’s an OFLC resource on this that I have sometimes referred to and which it is possible to obtain from the “OFLC resource” site.
It was Labor State governments who banned the X rating under the misguided belief it would upset the population. In New South Wales that was Neville Wran (1984) or as radio commentator Mike Carlton referred to him “Never Wrong”.
The ALP is a a political party which has embraced censorship and continues to embrace censorship.
Jarrod says:
Dec 2, 2008
There you have it, another bunch of Christians screaming out, Somebody Think of the Children!
Bob Bain says:
Dec 2, 2008
With respect to the origins of the X-Rating I documented this in my LiveJournal on March 6th this year.
http://bobbain.livejournal.com/205654.html#cutid1
It containa a link to the OFLC resource mentioned in my earlier reply
http://www.classification.gov.au/resource.html?resource=608&filename=608.pdf
Title: VIDEO CLASSIFICATIONS: Discussion of Matter
of Public Importance
Date: 14 June 1984
Database: Senate Hansard
Speaker: Evans Sen The Hon G.J. (ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALP, VIC,
Government)
Interjector: Senator Mason; Senator Harradine; Senator Walters
Page: 3037
Proof: No
Source: Senate
Type: Speech
Context: Matter of Public Importance
Size: 33K
================
New Uniform Video Censorship System
A new uniform system of video tape censorship classification was today agreed to in Brisbane by a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers with censorship responsibilities.
It is designed to ensure maximum freedom for adults to view what they wish in the privacy of their homes and at the same time give guidance to consumers as to what they are buying or hiring and place some limits on what can be openly displayed or sold to children.
The main elements in the system, which were unanimously agreed to by the Ministers present for recommendation to their respective Governments are:
(1) Imported video tapes for home use to be no longer subject to compulsory registration by the Film Censorship Board;
(2) Video tapes for sale or hire to be classified at the request of the importer, distributor or retailer by the Film Censorship Board;
(3) The classification standards to be applied to be the same as for cinemas- vis. ”G”, ”NRC”, ”M” and ”R”-but with a further category ”X”, to be added for stronger material which would be refused cinema showing. Only child pornography and similar very extreme material would be refused classification altogether;
(4) The States to pass laws imposing appropriate points of sale restrictions ( in particular no sale to minors) and for ”R” and ”X” classified material;
===============
In other words the “X” rating was introduced for material that would be refused display in a cinema. In 1976 the Video tape became available in a number of different format including VHS and Betamax and another short lived format produced by Philips. At that time films on that media were unclassified and weren’t required to be classified.
===============
Syd Walker says:
Dec 2, 2008
I’ve posted an appraisal of Mr Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby at http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/02/a-very-christian-boss/
I don’t know Mr Wallace, and relied on web sources only. On that basis alone, I conclude that he’s had a most interesting background for a ‘Christian leader’.
I knew little about the ACL before the last day or so, but it’s a remarkable organisation, with a structure Lenin might well have found to his taste. ‘Democratic Centralist’ is the applicable term, if I remember correctly. The emphasis seems to be on ‘Centralist’.
Cynics might say the ACL agenda is to establish a ‘Dictatorship of the (Self)-Righteous’.
What odd allies – Clive and Jim! Spritualized humanist meets retired ‘anti-terrorism expert’ and ex-SAS Brigadier.
I doubt Jonathan Swift, were he alive today, would have the imaginative powers to invent tales like these. And here we are – getting them free of charge, c/o Reality Ltd.
How lucky we are!
tobias says:
Dec 3, 2008
video of the story here http://www.australianchristian.net/
Syd Walker says:
Dec 3, 2008
This morning I open my favourite local independent blog to discover a superb little story about moral panic, young models, a Murdoch-owned rag and a bizarre magazine, with the suggestive title ‘Zoo’, that appears to have something to do with Channel Nine and features pictures of scantily clad ladies.
Read all about it, at least as long as your ‘feed’ remains uncensored!
http://www.cairnsblog.net/2008/12/oh-irony.html
I wonder what Brigadier Jim Wallace thinks about this?
In any event, here’s a challenge to Jim: Shut down the loathsome Cairns Post and I may reconsider my position and join the ACL myself.
SkipEU says:
Dec 3, 2008
Adults in Australia don’t have their rights? Is whole nation made of children there?
Child pornograhpy is already targeted by all police there is. That’s why it is lame to use it as a excuse all the time.
SkipEU says:
Dec 3, 2008
In reality it wouldn’t differ much from China’s system. China mainly censor pornography what is the obvious goal in Australia too. The only difference there will be some minor political parties and some Taiwan pages.