Breaking: More BS from Conroy’s office. Read here.
Sunrise: How does the senator respond to accusations by Sunrise viewers that this is a threat to free speech/democracy?
Conroy’s Office: This is not an argument about free speech. As I have already said, we have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the internet is no different. Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working.
5 comments
Simon Rumble says:
Oct 29, 2008
“Senator Conroy’s spokesperson also tells Sunrise the examples of Euthanasia and Anoreixa sites were not mentioned by the government but by Greens Senator Ludlum at a Senate Estimates meeting last Monday.”
A straight out lie.
Senator Conroy-You would have to ask them whether that falls within their definition. There are calls for, as an example, banning pro anorexia websites. Again, it falls into that sort of category. So there are calls for a whole range of material to be included in the black list, but I do not think that they fall inside the existing definitions under the law. I do not think that they are caught.
Matthew says:
Oct 29, 2008
Amazing. It’s the same old stuff. Someone needs to get the truth out to public about what is actually happening in the European counties he keeps mentioning and how that differs with what the government is trying to do here.
And the Anorexia claim is crap too. Nicola Roxon has previously mentioned that the government would be looking into banning those sites too.
I just wonder why the AFP can’t work with other police agencies across the world to bring down illegal sites such as child porn ones. If they have a black list, they know where this stuff is, shut them down. End of story.
Mike says:
Oct 29, 2008
@Simon
And this from Hansard
——
Senator Conroy – Can I come back to Senator Ludlam’s comment about euthanasia. I was halfway through a sentence in the Broadcasting Services Act. The sort of material I described would be refused classification currently and regarded as prohibited content now. That is what I described before. I am happy to repeat that.
———-
Coenraad says:
Oct 29, 2008
This isn’t an argument about free speech? Oh. Obviously all the concerns that have been expressed about the impact these filters would have on the free exchange of information over the Internet were completely irrelevant. We’ve been wasting our time! All along, the argument really had nothing to do with any of that!
I’m sorry, Mr Conroy, but you can’t just say that this isn’t an argument about free speech when that has already become a central point of debate. You obviously don’t believe that the public can think for themselves, but we’re not quite that stupid.
JC says:
Oct 29, 2008
@Coenraad
He’d be right, after all we did vote him in.