If you’re not sure what the deal is with the Government’s Net censorship plan or you don’t know what you can do to stop it, Angry Aussie has a great 10 minute video lesson on YouTube. Watch below or share it with your friends who think Internet censorship only happens in places like China.
16 comments
Fermista says:
Oct 20, 2008
Damn straight!
He’s pretty good at delivering an angry rant isn’t he?
I sure hope the media start to create more public awareness about this, or we’re screwed…
Lori says:
Oct 20, 2008
Firstly, Thats not true about porn, porn is legal in Australia, (excluding porn that involve animals, children, the dead etc)
Its not designed to stop porn, its designed to make the process of tracking pedophiles easier, its watching who goes to similar websites, i.e. the websites with childporn on them, (this is how the federal police currently track pedophiles) i dont care if i miss out on a few websites (there are always plenty of others) to stop pedophiles,
Lori
p.s. anyone that swears during a ‘censible’ explaination looses all credibility to me
p.p.s. if you really dont like it, migrate
Mike says:
Oct 20, 2008
@Lori: Porn is legal in some parts of Australia Lori. But depending on its classification, it is also illegal to sell in most states and even illegal to possess in certain areas of the NT and WA. I’m not talking about porn where other laws were broken either, I’m referring to the porn that gets banned because it has candle wax or BDSM. A common and legal practice performed in many Aussie bedrooms. Should Australians be banned from seeing acts they can perform legally?
The Government’s plan is not about tracking pedophiles. In fact, pedophiles will likely encrypt their connections because of this filter and make it harder for them to be tracked. The Government can already track those visiting illegal websites and do exactly that. This will not make it easier for them.
You’re happy to have the Government monitor what websites you visit? You think that is how a free society should operate?
Migration is a ‘sensible’ alternative?
Sean the Blogonaut says:
Oct 20, 2008
Lori,
I take issue with you like it or leave approach this is supposedly a democratic country where we can debate ideas and where we the people should get a chance to make an informed decision.
I prefer to fight for my rights. How about you back up some claims with evidence before you tell us to politely leave.
Oh and if its not about porn why is it being framed as such by the federal government.
Please tell me where you have ot your infomation on how child pronographers operate? My research indicates that it is increasingly hard to track the producers of this information they don’t use the net the way the rest of us do.
Considering most children are actually molested by someone they know perhaps the government should fund the interrogation of all school aged children. Cheaper and more likey to uncover sexual abuse of minors.
Stevian says:
Oct 20, 2008
There seems to be a sleight of mind at work, that tries to trick those of us who oppose censorship into defending the indefensible (pedophilia). How does filtering mame it easier to track pedophiles, it will simply force them further underground making them harder to track. Of course it is not about pedophilia or porn or even control over information. This whole filtering charade is about convincing a Family First senator to vote on the side of the government, surely he’s not that stupid and must realize he’s being played.
Asmo says:
Oct 20, 2008
Stevian, Fielding’s party (Family First) lists internet filtering amongst their platform policies…
He’s not getting played, this is the pound of flesh he demanded for his support.
One man and his small coterie of blind adherents determine whether the country get’s censored or not…
Rudd and Conroy should be taken out and flogged publicly for this crime. They lied during the election (that the system would be opt out) and they are betraying the rights of millions to buy one vote.
Ironic that the “moral police” need to lie to get their plan through. Very upstanding…
John says:
Oct 20, 2008
@Lori
Get the facts right. This will cause those sick people more underground.
Read -> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=967413&p=12#r224
Jarrod says:
Oct 20, 2008
nice work mate, thats a great video. i’m glad that we have a spokesperson that puts this forward in a more entertaining way. this will be great to spread the message.
M says:
Oct 20, 2008
SPREAD THE WORD! GOOD WORK.
SkipEU says:
Oct 20, 2008
Lori: you are a victim of government’s propaganda. You are saying as government is one step ahead of pedophiles (they are useful excuse in modern times if you want to implement something stupid) but in reality it is the opposite.
This is just about banning porn. With internet filtering Australia will become a unique developed world example of kindergarten where adults don’t have basic rights and even bigger nanny state as it is already is.
Ross says:
Oct 20, 2008
Hang on, where does it say that Porn is illegal in states other than the ACT and NT. That doesn’t sound right.
Mike says:
Oct 20, 2008
It doesn’t. But *much* porn is illegal to sell in all states and illegal to possess in certain areas of the NT and WA. See http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/why-are-adult-stores-selling-banned-films-and-magazines/ for a map.
Terrence Valter says:
Oct 21, 2008
Porn is illegal, in the sense you aren’t allowed to sell it or buy it. Yes you can possess it but you are not allowed to obtain it.
That makes it illegal in my book.
These points are taken from the Govt of NSw website, and makes it very clear just what illegal porn is.
# X rated films are legally available for sale or hire from the ACT or the Northern Territory (p 2).
# In the States, the law only permits X rated films to be possessed for personal use. X rated films are not, and never have been, legally available for sale or hire in NSW (p 3).
# Prior to the introduction of the X classification in 1984, sexually explicit films were available for sale in NSW. They were unclassified and subject to the State’s indecency laws (p 3).
# The X classification is a restrictive category of films that is defined to be unsuitable for minors (p 3).
# The X classification is also defined under the National Classification Code to exclude all violent content. Depictions involving coercion and non-consent have been banned in X since 1984, with later prohibitions being placed on sexually assaultive language, fetishes and purposefully demeaning depictions (p 3).
Mike says:
Oct 21, 2008
Morning Terrence.
I’m not aware of a law that says you cannot buy an X-Rated film in NSW? Only the seller would be committing an offense. Importing on the other hand.
It really is astounding that ‘fetishes’ are considered prohibited, when a fetish could be any number of tame acts.
Max Tivey says:
Oct 22, 2008
This is a scandal. I don’t know which is worse, the legislation itself, or the sneaky way they went about it. Sure, we can circumvent these filters, but why should we HAVE to? We must do all we can to nip this in the bud! I don’t watch porn (at all) but won’t tolerate it being used as an excuse for this draconian crime against the public. BTW: Wonder how much of a finger big-business has in this rotten little pie?
Brittany says:
Oct 22, 2008
I got sent this video (took me about an hour to load with the crappy internet I have haha.) and I wasn’t sure what it was about because I had no idea about the internet censorship… I was thinking, oh… I don’t watch the news so I probably missed it. I was surprised to know that the media HAVEN’T been attacking this topic.
I’m 15, and I go to high school… at our high school we have a nanny net program that has blocked a crap load of websites which makes it hard to even USE the internet.
When we need to do a project on something (a political matter maybe) we go on the internet 99% of the time. But, if we go on there and the political matter is against the side of the current government… will that be blocked?
How can we be sure that this ‘Pedophilia Catcher’ basically won’t turn into another government tool that chooses what we read and what we don’t, taking away our free speech?