Filtering not about freedom of speech, P2P filtering to be tested: Conroy
December 22, 2008 – 4:23 pmIn the latest topic open for comment on the DBCDE blog, Promoting a civil and confident society online, Senator Conroy says the Government does not view the debate about mandatory ISP-level content filter as an argument about freedom of speech.
He also reveals that ‘technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial’.
Senator Conroy writes:
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. In this context, claims that the Government’s policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified.
Australian society has always accepted that there is some material which is not acceptable, particularly for children. That is why we have the National Classification Scheme for classifying films, computer games, publications and online content. Australian ISPs are already subject to regulation that prohibits the hosting of certain material based upon the Scheme. For many years, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has had the power to issue a ‘take-down’ notice requiring that prohibited content hosted in Australia be removed, blocked from public access or hosted from behind a restricted access system, depending on the content involved. All the Government is now seeking to do is to examine how technology can assist in filtering internationally-hosted content.
News flash Senator Conroy: Most Australian’s believe freedom of speech encompasses much more than just political speech, carved in stone or not.
Blocking prohibited content means blocking legal content.
Under the Act, prohibited content is made up of content that is or would be potentially classified RC, X18+ (which I think is fair to say is the majority of pornographic websites on the Internet), and when not behind a restricted access system, R18+. All of which is legal to own and possess (the obvious exception being child abuse material) in most places of Australia (prescribed areas of the NT being one such example).
In response to a question about how the blacklist be maintained, Senator Conroy writes that website complaints will be assessed in accordance with the National Classification Code and the Classification Board Guidelines for Classification of Films and Computer Games.
We all know how in touch with community views that Code is.
In accordance with the Code means content that deals with drug misuse or addiction in such a way that they ‘offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults’ would be Refused Classification. Not to mention a plethora of other adult related topics like euthanasia (which can fall under point c below).
(a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence
The contents of the existing ACMA blacklist are also secret and managed by ACMA themselves, with some assistance from the Classification Board. As expected, this would likely be the case under a mandatory scheme.
Not an argument about freedom of speech? There’s certainly no an argument left about whether it will actually protect children or if it will work, so what is it about Mr Conroy and Mr Rudd?
29 Responses to “Filtering not about freedom of speech, P2P filtering to be tested: Conroy”
“News flash Senator Conroy: Most Australian’s believe freedom of speech encompasses much more than just political speech”
Yet we don’t have it enshrined as a fundamental right in our laws. Odd, that.
By Simon on Dec 22, 2008
“Blocking prohibited content means blocking legal content.”
Huh? By definition Prohibited content is Prohibited.
But before we touch on this, can we now stop comparing the Clean Filter to China/Iran/etc?
Back to the Prohibited comment, if it doesn’t meet the requirements to not be prohibited then it is prohibited.
I mean, it is in some situations legal to drink alcohol but in others, it isn’t. Same here.
I understand the argument, but I think a lot of the argument comes down to things that are censored of the internet or age restricted aren’t on the internet. I think the government are actually doing there job if they believe in that system (i.e. age restriction of some material) trying to make the internet have the same restriction. There are lots of reasons they may and probably will fail, but at least they are standing true to those standards. And it doesn’t appear (from what I have seen and heard) that they want to ban porn out right, just bring the internet to the same standard as every where else.
I am comming around that perhaps I have argued against things, I shouldn’t argue against by the way. I am finding your posts very interesting and informative.
Molly
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
@Phillip:
Prohibited content is content you or I can legally possess. It is content considered RC or X18+, R18+ and even MA15+ under some circumstances.
Prohibited content is not always illegal content.
By Mike on Dec 22, 2008
@Mike
Correct! Prohibit content is not always illegal (and I didn’t say it was), but if it is prohibitted, it is Prohibited!
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
That’s gotta be the most phenomenal misdirecting hairsplit I’ve seen since I first logged onto the net.
By Geordie on Dec 22, 2008
@Geordie
Is that aimed at my comments or the post?
I am just saying there is plenty of things that are legal to own that have situations that they are prohibited. Alcohol is a good one. Its not illegal to possess alcohol but it is often illegal to possess it in the main street of your suburb/town/city/etc.
Further on this, unless this has changed since Dec 07, the proposal was either to have the high rated (”RC or X18+, R18+ and even MA15+ under some circumstances”) items to have a rating system on it or to be blocked as part of the opt-out filter. I freely admit that I may have misunderstood that (as it was written in a legal type document) or it may have changed but at that point they weren’t saying it was blanketly going to be banded, just needed to be regulated (as it does when it is distributed off the internet).
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
So after being made aware of P2P conroy is now making it part of the trial, what 3 days out from when its supposed to start?
Being ofcourse a live trial with no real customers.
And the comparison to China and Iran is valid in the sense that this filter would put in place the mechanism that would allow the government to enact the same level of control.
They can’t block everything of course but they can influence. We have just had three major abuses of free and civil society – Hicks,Habib and Haneef. If a party can gain political ground out of an issue they will – I simply do not trust them to act in the peoples best interest.
By Sean the Blogonaut on Dec 22, 2008
@Phillip:
You’re missing the point. Yes, prohibited content is prohibited. The point is that to be prohibited, the content *should* be illegal. In this case, you may have content that is not illegal being determined as prohibited, which is quite ridiculous.
You may want to ask Senator Conroy to stop comparing this filter to the UK/NZ/Sweden etc too… that comparison is just as ridiculous!
Here’s one question that I would love to be able to ask every pro-filter individual – “do you really think that this plan will work, and why?” EVERY single point that they list as a reason any person knowledgeable in IT would be able to completely disprove.
d.
By Dylan on Dec 22, 2008
In response to Molly:
The reason this blog entry (amongst others) is making a point that prohibited =/= illegal is not because *we* don’t understand the difference but rather because gov’t marketing of this proposal has centred around, “blocking illegal content” – not prohibited content. This is blatant scope creep and misdirection on the part the gov’t.
> I mean, it is in some situations legal to drink alcohol but in others, it isn’t. Same here.
Good analogy but very broad and easily manipulated: I may not be able to legally buy alcohol for a certain number of hours on Sundays (not sure if this is national or just in SA) but I’m perfectly entitled to receive and drink it. That particular piece of regulation focuses on stifling *distribution* which, coincidentally, is where we think the gov’t should be focussing it’s efforts.
> And it doesn’t appear (from what I have seen and heard) that they want to ban porn out right
Of course not, it’s been revealed that quite a few MPs actually have paid subscriptions to porn sites. Politicians aren’t in the business of (intentionally) screwing themselves over.
> just bring the internet to the same standard as every where else.
Which I and many others thoroughly disagree with. Aside from the internet being far more diverse a form of media than other ’standardised’ media formats (best a subject for another day), the argument that C must conform to A and B is no more or less valid than the argument that A and B should catch-up to the far more progressive and liberal C.
Anyway, thankyou for the constructive contribution, even if I do not agree with your conclusions.
By Icaria on Dec 22, 2008
@Dylan
I think your missing the point that prohibited is normally about a context. i.e. You are prohibited from smoking in pubs/clubs and public buildings. Smoking isn’t illegal, but it is prohibited in some situations.
You can have as much material that is ”RC or X18+, R18+ and even MA15+ under some circumstances” as you like on your machine, the government is just purposing (or already has purposed as far as Australian Web hosts is concerned (I believe)) that it will be prohibited to have it available in Australia unless it is “hosted from behind a restricted access system” or whatever it is that they are actually purposing.
HTH
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
> unless it is “hosted from behind a restricted access system” or whatever it is that they are actually purposing.
Just so we’re clear: you do realise, “restricted access system”, means a dialogue box that asks, “Are you 18? Yes/No”. They aren’t going to not block, “prohibited”, content just because the site maintainers whack one of those on there (which pretty much every porn site in existence already has).
By Icaria on Dec 22, 2008
@ Molly
Have you read the relevant ACMA page? Let me remind you: “Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board..”
Note that it does not say any X rated material not protected by a restricted access system. So this means that any X rated material, no matter how well protected from under 18’s, is prohibited. So technically that means no pictures of consenting adults having sex allowed in Australia, for anyone, even adults who opt out of the child friendly feed.
And RC includes any detailed instruction in crime. So if circumvention becomes a crime, then Reporters Without Borders can be blocked due to the instructions in their Cyber-Dissidents Handbook.
Those are just a few examples of how the application of the ACMA rules can effect what we can see on the net.
By Sam D on Dec 22, 2008
@Sam D
I, from day 1, have said there are two issues, and I think people should argue them seperately:
1) Censorship. What should we as Australians be allowed to see and possess in all mediums (books, magazines, press, internet,etc)
2) Bringing censorship of the net inline as best as can be done with other mediums.
See I think you touch on interesting points but they have little to do with the internet as a lot of them are problems with point 1 and its just that we have basically no controls on the internet that things that are censored in other mediums aren’t censored on the internet.
So in your example of Circumvention. If its illegal to publish a book on circumvention, yes, it should be illegal to post on your blog about it. Personally, I wouldn’t want to see that so if the government ever made it a crime, I would have a go at them for making it a crime whether that be in book or electronic form, not that its banned online. And that’s what I say to people. If you have an issue with censorship, have an issue with all censorship and fight that fight. Don’t use the net as a scape goat for other rights you think we should have.
There are definitely issues of success and the negitive effects of the filters (e.g. speed, etc), but I think the government are trying to do the right thing by purposing a pilot. Again, if that is successful, time will tell but they are trying to do the right thing if they support that ideal.
JMTC
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
@Icaria
I wasn’t 100% sure, but I had idea that is what it was and I believe that is the point of the opt-out system. Its not perfect but if your not happy, do what I will do day 1 and opt-out.
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 22, 2008
To claim that a censorship system has nothing to do with free speech is a load of crap, period.
You only have to look at the instances where the classification board has banned films that it doesn’t like (for whatever reason) for examples that could be argued as being of public interest, regardless of whether you personally think they are disgusting or not. I’ve seen Baise Moi (banned) and Anatomy of Hell (not banned) and I personally think the latter to be more offensive – the entire classification system is highly subjective at the best of times.
The other obvious issue that springs to mind is the differing laws between the states and the territories – if an ISP supplies clients in both, how is that supposed to work? If I drive over a border with a mobile connection does that mean that I suddenly get different level of filtering? What happens if I stand on the border and wave my laptop back and forth?
I think the larger issue is the Government proposing a censorship system with a secret blacklist and expecting to be taken seriously when they say it’s not about restricting free speech. There is no plan for independent oversight of that list even being discussed by the Government. The classfication board makes their procedures and decisions public and has a method of appeal. What’s the point in treating the internet like conventional media and then setting up a system indepent of, and more restrictive than, the classfication board. To be able to access content at a public library that can’t be accessed on the web? What are they thinking?
As for blocking P2P, good luck with that. No set port, encryption, and no way to identify the legality of the content (a packet from a legal Linux iso doesn’t look any different any other, so how are you going to tell?). It would be trivial to push all the traffic over an SSL tunnel if necessary. Even if the Government did figure out a method of blocking it, haven’t they learnt anything from Windows software checks? The patch for the check is always out in under 2 days – it’s an arms race for which the Government is totally outgunned.
By Stuart on Dec 22, 2008
> Its not perfect but if your not happy, do what I will do day 1 and opt-out.
And how does that give you or I access to ‘prohibited’ content or even perfectly tame, legal, un-prohibited content which simply fails to satisfy one of the ACMA’s required formalities?
The gov’t is suggesting that any international site which hasn’t had the forethought to consider whether they satisfy Australian regulation requirements is going to be blocked.
Opting out of the safe-for-kids blocklist isn’t going to give us access to that material.
By Icaria on Dec 23, 2008
@Phillip
I’m astounded at your inability to understand what I and others here are saying. Filtering according to the ACMA Prohibited Content rules isn’t bringing the net into line with other media, it is censoring it in a way that is in fact much more restrictive. The fact that you are not interested in that material (or so you say), is entirely beside the point and selfish to boot.
And yes, the comparison to China and Saudi Arabia would still be apt, even if nothing but X 18+ material was blocked. You know why, because adults have the right to watch other consenting adults have sex (etc), and taking that right away to please religious and ideological minorities is repression no matter which way you cut it!
By Sam D on Dec 23, 2008
@Sam D
Why do you think I don’t understand? I understand but believe it is you that isn’t trying to understand! Correct me if I am wrong, but you pretty much (on any sort of scale, you could just have a sign on your car and sell it out of your boot, but lets over look that) can’t sell a book unless it goes through the censorship office and if it has adult material, there are warnings and limits put on the book and possibly, it maybe banned from sale. Hows that different to what the purpose on the net? Are there books that people feel are wrongly blocked? Bet your bottom dollar there are!
On China and Saudi Arabia, You could be right. Argue that point. Argue against censorship not censorship of the net!
@Icaria
A lot of you want to say I don’t understand. Fair enough, on this occasion, I will admit to not understanding your point.
I would love you to answer me this (without at first giving me your opinion, give that later in the answer, just give me the strict answer to this question and then in the next paragraph, explain why its ethically or morally or humanly wrong for you to have to give the answer I expect you should if being truthful):
—————–
What status would you say (in talking Legal, illegal, prohibited) content would have that “fails to satisfy one of the ACMA’s required formalities”?
——————
Okay, after answering that, rant away.
Now to the first part of your question, you said in a previous comment:
“Just so we’re clear: you do realise, “restricted access system”, means a dialogue box that asks, “Are you 18? Yes/No”. They aren’t going to not block, “prohibited”, content just because the site maintainers whack one of those on there (which pretty much every porn site in existence already has).”
To which I responded:
“I wasn’t 100% sure, but I had idea that is what it was and I believe that is the point of the opt-out system. Its not perfect but if your not happy, do what I will do day 1 and opt-out.”
Which could be misunderstood (Mike, grad Wordpress 2.7 and add threaded comments, pleeaaassssseeeeeeee). What I was saying was from my reading, adding that box saying are you over 18 was enough for it not to be “illegal” but would put it in line to be blocked by the opt-out filter. I would have thought that there would be a lot more then 10k urls that had that sort of porn on it and if the first tier filter is only blocking 10K max, that wouldn’t filter everything which seems to me to mean that “normal porn” (please don’t jump all over that term, I don’t have time to look through my mind for the 100% correct term. I don’t mean anything by it except that there is levels (kiddy porn for one) that I think 99.9% of people would agree souldn’t be allowed and I don’t want to debate what that is) sites will be fine for the mandatory filter. So I was saying that I would be able to see most porn by opting out of the “kiddy Filter”.
As Prohibited material. If it is legal to own but prohibited to distribute in manner X and I want to get it by manner X, I can’t, its prohibited. If I get it in manner Y, then it is legal for me to hold!
This is not an 100% analogy (so I am not entering into the holes in it, because there are probably billions, but the basic point matches) but I believe its not illegal to have x-rated material but it is to sell it in in just about all states except for ACT (and maybe another). I haven’t seen it mentioned that some of the material at certain levels will be illegal on your computer, but to distribute it if it doesn’t have the correct method (what ever that is) maybe.
HTH (to be honest, this comment has gone on so long, none of it probably makes sense)
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 23, 2008
The National Classification Scheme is based on a flimsy agreement dated 28th November 1995 under which any party to the agreement can withdraw from the censorship agreement with just a month’s notice.
In my view the State of New South Wales (agreement signed for on behalf of the State of New South Wales by the [then] Honourable Jeff Shaw ) has neither kept to the intent nor the spirit of the agreement allowing the open sale of material in gross violation of the terms and spirit of the agreement – and indeed the National Classification guidelines.
Under Part II Section 3 (3) of the agreement I believe the State of New South Wales should provide one month’s notice of termination.
============== Reference ===========
The National Classification Scheme…
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Classificationpolicy_NationalClassificationScheme
Intergovermental Agreemment
Agreement dated 28th day of November 1995
Signed by
The Honorable Michael Lavarch Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia
The Honourable Jeffrey William Shaw QC MLC – Attorney General of the State of New South Wales
The Honourable John Wade – Attorney General of the State of Victoria
The Honourable Ken Davis – Minister for Emergency Services and Consumer Affair – State of Queensland
The Honourable Cheryl Edwardes – Attorney General for the State of Western Australia
The Honourable Trevor Griffin – Attorney General for the State of South Australia
The Honourable Ronald Cornish, MLA Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania
Mr Gary Humphries, MLA Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory
The Honourable Steve Hatton MLA Attorney-General of the Northern Territory,
PART II – OPERATION OF AGREEMENT
3. (1) This Agreement shall come into force then it has been executed by the Commonwealth, all the States and each Territory.
(2) This Agreement may, after its coming into force, be amended only by the unanimous agreement of all the Parties to it.
(3) A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by notice in writing to each other Party, the notice to take effect on the date to be specified in the notice which is not less than one month from the date on which the notice is given.
===================
The Premier of New South Wales (Bob Carr) in the early years of this century and in relation to the film “Baise-Moi” condemned the “conservative views of the Commonwealth of Australia” and it’s been almost “open slather” in New South Wales ever since.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Dec 23, 2008
> I would love you to answer me this (without at first giving me your opinion, give that later in the answer, just give me the strict answer to this question and then in the next paragraph, explain why its ethically or morally or humanly wrong for you to have to give the answer I expect you should if being truthful):
—————–
What status would you say (in talking Legal, illegal, prohibited) content would have that “fails to satisfy one of the ACMA’s required formalities”?
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=INT_IND_CONTENT_ABOUT
To quote: ” Under the Act, the following categories of online content are prohibited:
* Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board (formerly the Office of Film and Literature Classification). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
* Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.
* Content which is classified MA 15+*, provided by a mobile premium service or a service that provides audio or video content upon payment of a fee and that is not subject to a restricted access system. This includes material containing strong depictions of nudity, implied sexual activity, drug use or violence, very frequent or very strong coarse language, and other material that is strong in impact.”
My point was simply that sites will be blocked that have done nothing more egregious than fail to read *every* regulatory checklist in *every* country likely to visit their site. Even if I were to exclude the occasional porn site I visit; in a given day, I probably visit a multitude of international sites which do not meet the ACMA’s requirements for content hosted locally. Going *only* by what was said on the gov’t, “blog”; it would seem to indicate that the gov’t intends to block international sites until such time as they review their own content policies to bring them into line with every (21mil strong) insignificant countries’ policies.
> Okay, after answering that, rant away.
I don’t believe I’ve ranted yet and I don’t intend to start now. You entered this discussion with decent enough manners. I hope you’re not now resorting to personal attacks and general condescension.
> I would have thought that there would be a lot more then 10k urls that had that sort of porn on it and if the first tier filter is only blocking 10K max
The 10k number is *only* for the closed network, “live trials”. It’s a number pulled out of Labor’s hat, under the (likely intentionally) mistaken impression that filtering speed/reliability scales linearly.
By Icaria on Dec 23, 2008
While the minister may indeed be aware that solutions exist for ‘filtering’ peer-to-peer and BitTorrent protocols, perhaps he is not aware that those filters are entirely incapable of determining which file is actually being transferred using those protocol. With protocol encryption it is often difficult to determine whether BitTorrent is being used at all. Once found filtering software can only either block entirely or limit speed as is done and maligned by many ISPs much to the chagrin of their customers. Implementing nationwide torrent-throttling would bring the level of censorship in this country well beyond that of the common ‘draconian net filter’ countries. ISOs of many Linux distributions and any number of Creative Commons releases (Nine Inch Nails’ material comes to mind) are either best or only available via P2P.
By trevaaar on Dec 24, 2008
SERIOUS lol at the “promoting a civil society online”, the only way that would happen would be to remove all anonymity online (more than just anonmous posting, names used for online posting would all need to be able to be easily tracked to the actual person behind them), because that would be the only way to defeat the internet tough guy type of person.
to see what I mean, look at this tv tropes page. (warning contains the F-word) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT
By alphamone on Dec 24, 2008
@Icaria
Thanks for your answer. Sorry if you took the “rant” comment as a negative, it wasn’t meant to be.
Also on the 10K an you reply, I think from what I have read that (although some think the whole filter idea is a bad one) Conroy and the government aren’t over the top saying stupid things and aren’t out of hand dismissing what people are saying about the filter, so I don’t think they are going to come in with a “ban every piece of porn on the net” type solution. I could be wrong.
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 24, 2008
> Conroy and the government aren’t over the top saying stupid things and aren’t out of hand dismissing what people are saying about the filter
You must have very forgiving standards.
> so I don’t think they are going to come in with a “ban every piece of porn on the net” type solution. I could be wrong.
I doubt anyone’s seriously suggesting they will. However, it’s not unlikely that a large amount of general and adult content could be blocked due to both Aust’s arcane ratings standards and regulatory technicalities. That’s all I was saying.
By Icaria on Dec 24, 2008
I have tried really hard to try to see it from both sides of the argument.
The Points I’ve take into consideration:
A) Block child Porn.
B) Yes great idea but it’s not a be all solution. This filter has been proven not to work and could ban legitimate web sites and if the result is a big enough company gets banned then you could possibly be looking at a class action Law suite e.t.c and then you have the SSL issue which is a big problem. If this traffic becomes un-encrypted your going to have more than just a child pornography problem your going to have every scam artist in the world focusing on Australia.
A) Block all other porn
B) this has not been verified but by the way Mr Conroy has added P2P to the trial i feel hes only one frigid statement away. What is next!? I can only make love with the wife in the standard missionary position.
A) P2P Blocking
B) Fair enough block P2P but you cant tell whats legal and whats not? I.E. you can tell a Linux Distro from a Movie or TV show. So what do you do?, block torrent sites?.. new ones will open. Block the standard BT port?, the user will change it and the list goes on and so does the expense for maintain any sort of list.
So with all the damning facts against the purposed mandatory filtering why is it still even being considered? and what ever happened to educating our kids and monitoring what they do on the Internet. I for one will not let any of my children use any social networking sites such as Facebook, bebo or the like where i can not directly see what they are doing and they have been told that if anything inappropriate happens that they are too come to me immediately.
Now… with all my above rants seemingly in favor of anti-censorship i have to say that i would be all for stopping the depravity that child porn entails but the facts are it’s just not going to work and its going to cause all sorts of other problems.
By Matthew on Dec 24, 2008
Now granted that the technologies that the government might only exist to block all PTP/BT traffic, but correct me if I am wrong, but the government hasn’t suggested that they want to block all PTP/BT traffic?
By Phillip Molly Malone on Dec 24, 2008
“lol at the “promoting a civil society online”, the only way that would happen would be to remove all anonymity online (more than just anonmous posting, names used for online posting would all need to be able to be easily tracked to the actual person behind them), because that would be the only way to defeat the internet tough guy type of person.”
I’m always rather taken aback when people suggest this sort of thing as a “solution” to harassment. Is it not obvious that the stripping of all anonymity and pseudonymity wouldn’t magically create an internet utopia? What it would achieve is to is drive a huge number of people off the net altogether, because of how easy it would make it for crims to “go real life” with stalking, harassment and violence. No thanks.
By lauredhel on Dec 24, 2008
so now the crude name calling is over and the moral panic is done away with, we see that this is a crass attempt to prop up the record and film industry.
By Lamont Cranston on Dec 25, 2008