Comments on: Is Conroy deceiving the public about what his filter will ban?

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:59:57 +0000

The sad thing is that Thailand has it right, where are our screaming hordes of protestors? Unfortunately this negligent and incompetent minister will be successful in thrusting his religious fundamentalism down our throats because, in general, The Australian Public either don’t know or don’t care (enough) about this issue to actually stand up and shout NO FUCKING WAY.

By: Stephen Conroy finally releases report on the Governments live ISP filtering trial « Stormcentre

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:34 +0000

[...] the legislation is designed to filter child pornography, however, Refused Classification includes a much broader range of material, including sites depicting drug use, crime, adult sex, cruelty, violence or “revolting and [...]

By: Filtering wrap up: What ‘works’ and what kills small ISPs - Somebody Think Of The Children

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:28:09 +0000

[...] debatable; whether it works isn’t. With countless legal websites blocked and the certainity of more to come, the protection of children online untouched and the financial risk to small businesses if their [...]

By: Heath

Heath — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:55:24 +0000

Mark G, with your regard to your confusion over Conroy’s bizarre statements on Insight, this is how I recall the incident:

Put simply, Conroy made the claim that it was not the government’s “intention” to block certain kinds of RC material, or that blocking such websites was “not something the government had ever talked about doing” (I’m paraphrasing here). HOWEVER, when pressed by the host (or other guests), he effectively conceded that this would happen anyway under the current classification codes. He attempted to divert the issue away from the government and suggested that even if they did try to rework the classification codes, it wouldn’t make it through the Senate.

So in other words, it isn’t the government’s “intention” to block political content. It’s just an inevitable consequence of a policy they are trying to implement.

Now, that’s what I call responsible governance!

By: Icaria

Icaria — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:23:27 +0000

“We have identified that this is sites like pro-rape sites, bestiality sites, and child pornography promotion sites.

“We’ve said it is confined to that.

…

“There is no capacity to include political material.”

Did anyone else suffer a mild stroke reading that?

Something being undesirable or detestable does not preclude it being, “political material”.

By: BM

BM — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:45:35 +0000

When is this ban-happy government going to finally ban itself?

God himself needs to give all involved a gigantic clip round the ears. Conroy is so ridiculously ill-suited to his role that the mind simply boggles. He should be arrested for lying to the Australian public and replaced by a qualified individual. Hell, a packet of Tic-Tacs is more qualified for the job than Conroy is.

By: Mark G

Mark G — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:40:00 +0000

Bob

Actually, ACMA classified the anti abortion images as RC; the Classification Board subsequently reclassified them R18+. ACMA is normally not required to confirm its ratings with the Classification Board, but this was a special case & followed the furore over the leaked blacklist. Had the leak not happened the images would almost certainly have remained RC-rated, as (presumably) would other images of similar kind.

By: Censordyne Censored : Sean the Blogonaut

Censordyne Censored : Sean the Blogonaut — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:36:58 +0000

[...] Meloni at Somebody Think of the Children also shows us that Senator is either a fool, a liar or both with his articulate dismantling of [...]

By: Bob Bain

Bob Bain — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:31:22 +0000

@Mark G

“that RC is a broad category & an RC filter would block adult porn, anything that’s graphic & confronting (like the abortion image)”

Contrary to what many appear to believe “the abortion image” wasn’t rated RC but R18+ meaning that under legislation it has to be behind an age verification system.

I believe the notice explaining this is on the EFA Website in pdf format. I believe I have seen it and also believe that within this document (the ACMA “please remove this link” notice) is the URL for the abortion image (which might of itself be problematical).

I’m not going to provide a link to an ACMA notice which lists the website concerned.

Bob

By: Wolfie Rankin

Wolfie Rankin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:48:03 +0000

I want them to leave my internet alone.

Wolfie!