Comments on: Mandatory filter will block RC

By: Censorsdyne launched as Children’s groups oppose filter (but Conroy says they’re wrong) - Somebody Think Of The Children

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:45:07 +0000

[...] Restricting the access of Australian Internet users to legal content is certainly an attack on freedom of speech. [...]

By: Disentangler

Disentangler — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:24:10 +0000

So I guess people who were born either with one of the 126+ biological and or congenital intersex conditions, and or people who are transgender, will be barred from gaining access to websites with medical and other help and resource information, under these bazaar censorship regimes, do to the fact that some psychiatric literature still classifies their conditions as being of a fetish nature.
For that matter, I’m guessing that any kind of information relating to gay, lesbian and bisexual issues will also fall under that RC listing?

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:08:07 +0000

I know there were election promises around internet filtering, but to my knowledge there was never a mention of the word ‘mandatory’ before the election. If I’m wrong (a strong possibility) I’d love for someone to point me to where this promise was made.

By: alphamone

alphamone — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:07:26 +0000

im sorry,

but,

SPANKING IS RC?

O.o

Granted I don’t know much about the fine details of that fetish, but I can’t realy think how spanking fetish related materials without any other type of material (multiple fetishes in a single image seem to be seen by the government as X times as bad as an image with a single fetish).

By: Fiona

Fiona — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:39:17 +0000

Simon, the election promise was to the Australian Christian Lobby – silly us for a) missing church that day and not knowing about it b) voting this mob in!

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:53:32 +0000

It seems more about fulfilling an election promise than achieving any particular policy aim.

An election promise that, if my understanding is correct, was never actually made. This goes from stupid to stupider.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:43:54 +0000

Hi Matt, you’re right. Post updated. Apologies.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:07:47 +0000

Mike, I thought that the classifiaction board rated the anti-abortion site as R18+. At least that’s what was said on Whirlpool. Think they had a link the classification in the OFLC database.

Also with fetishes, I think the problem here is that can’t you buy R18+ Catagory 2 magazines with most fetishes in them? If that’s so how the hell would that be treated on the web? You can have photos as well as movies of course, so it’d be OK for spanking in a still image, but no movies of it? This is really not well thought out at all.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:28:14 +0000

That it does

By: Andrew Garrett

Andrew Garrett — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:18:05 +0000

It also seems to include strip poker games, if my understanding is correct (see )