By: fifers

fifers — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:10:00 +0000

I hope Bernadette follows through on the reasoned arguments people put to her politely.
1) The filter takes money away from education and law enforcement.
2) The filter fails to deal with the primary transmission vectors for child sexual abuse on-line: peer to peer cryptographically protected networks; and, adult grooming through forums / chat / instant messaging.
3) The filter retards the internet’s function to the point of preventing its reasonable utility and operation. Like broadcasting television with static to avoid the sight of ankles on TV.
4) Senator Conroy’s announcements cover “illegal and unwanted content”. Illegal content in Australia is so broad as to encompass most adult expression (through R18+, X18+, Cat 1, Cat 2 content being illegal online; copyright violations (with out grossly out of date copyright law) being illegal; defamation and vilification (being with our grossly out of date libel law being most political, social or economic expression regarding another person or organisation) being illegal.) Unwanted content must, perforce, be even worse than the above illegal content. Might I remind, that “adult themes” alone can push something into R18+. Might I remind that an item can be pushed to Cat 1 publication due to adult themes or coarse language of a high intensity?
5) While the law regarding depiction of child sexualisation is reasonable and just law; a large majority of children (being adolescents) sexualise themselves on the internet, including photographically; and, can be prosecuted under this law as adults for sexualising themselves. This is highly disturbing, and filtering will not prevent children from sexualising themselves in this manner. Education would prove more effective.

Comments on: Bernadette McMenamin responds

By: fifers