The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Australian Government to impose mandatory nationalwide internet filtering
Sorry if it sounds defensive, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. Bad wording on my part.
It looks like the story's being picked up on multiple sites, but they're all using the ASP as a source. I guess everything will become clearer in the next few days.
It's just... wouldn't it be more effective to concentrate the resources wasted on going after people looking at cartoons or women that might look youngish or erecting an absurd internet filter and use all that money and time and other resources making a concerted effort against actual child pornography in an effective and efficient way? Or at least in a way that stands up to any scrutiny? Or something with a clearly defined goal, let's go with that one first and move on from that starting point.
Edit: I love that the examples of content banned for the models looking underage are all ones that specifically state their ages in the titles.
Porn is already fucked in Australia, theres currently a trial against a porn producer for making money off and creating X rated films because it is illegal to sell X rated films outside of NT and ACT.
I came on a plane, but I may be jumping plane if this goes through. When exactly is this supposed to see the light of day? I suspect there will be a massive outcry when it does, because frankly at the moment I take solace in the fact that this is so fucking stupid it couldn't possibly see the light of day.
This is why I hate the impotent left-leaning/socialist parties of the EU, and apparently the same shit happens in Australia. They seem to lack the will/ability to tackle any real issues of social inequality (you know, the stuff their ideology is supposed to be all about), so they throw up a OMG PORN or OMG ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION smokescreen to pretend they're achieving something. It's disgusting.
Fucking Family First are ruining this country. Both Labor and Liberal bend over backwards for them, because the "think of the children" laws are relatively easy to sneak through, buying them votes they need in return. Much easier than trying to do a deal with the greens!
I think it is patently ridiculous to treat flat chested women as if they are somehow children, and that they stir up pedophilia. Further, the banning of female ejaculation smacks of an attitude many of older generations seem to have, that it doesn't exist and is merely urination (completely untrue).
This, combined with the recent R rated DVD laws brought into south australia are a worrying trend of laws being brought in to please Family First (no doubt this is also the reason the internet filter is framed as it is).
Could you follow all this up? As I type this, no major news site has gotten to the bottom of all this, and it's definately something that needs to be followed up.
Because once Family First are done with porn, what else will have to be hidden away "for the sake of the children"? My money is on videogames.
In the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Classification has banned films alleged to show female ejaculation, claiming that the expert medical advice they received informed them that there is no such thing as female ejaculation, and therefore it was deemed to show urine (which is prohibited).[89][90] They later stated instead that they do not take any view on whether female ejaculation exists, only claiming that all examples they have seen thus far during classification have been urination during sex.[91] The depiction of female ejaculation in Australia is also banned, due to highly similar reasons.
Fucking Family First are ruining this country. Both Labor and Liberal bend over backwards for them, because the "think of the children" laws are relatively easy to sneak through, buying them votes they need in return. Much easier than trying to do a deal with the greens!
I don't know - I've always felt there's a lot of soft core porn I might want to rent but am too embarrassed with not having a decent cover story...on the other hand I have the internet, and haven't seen a blockbuster in over 6 months.
Well right now in South Australia, since all R rated movies have to now be grouped together, Fight Club has to be in the same section as Girls Gone Wild.
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
In the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Classification has banned films alleged to show female ejaculation, claiming that the expert medical advice they received informed them that there is no such thing as female ejaculation, and therefore it was deemed to show urine (which is prohibited).[89][90] They later stated instead that they do not take any view on whether female ejaculation exists, only claiming that all examples they have seen thus far during classification have been urination during sex.[91] The depiction of female ejaculation in Australia is also banned, due to highly similar reasons.
'course the BBFC doesn't actually have the power to ban anything. It's just left unrated.
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Pretty much.
Except that our danger is net-neutrality. You'd never have a government office censoring the internet in this country, that's what we have corporations for.
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Porn is your motive to emigrate...
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Porn is your motive to emigrate...
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
Censorship pisses people off because it's easily the most important right that needs defending. And the one being most encroached upon at the moment.
Give me your gamers, your fed up,
Your dirty pornos yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden ethernet port.
Decomposey on
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Porn is your motive to emigrate...
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
Censorship pisses people off because it's easily the most important right that needs defending. And the one being most encroached upon at the moment.
The thing that's really bad here is that it's very rapidly creeping. Slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy when you're talking about "protect the children" legislation. As I've said before, Australia's logic for refusing classification to M rated games can also be applied to porn, drinking, sex, foul language, and rudeness.
Any thoughts on the guy who is now a registered sex offender for downloading Simpsons Porn? EDIT: Actually it looks like he was already a registered sex offender, but still.
Got to say that I really have difficulty seeing any way this could be considered reasonable. The Register, predictably, pondered what this means for the infamous "Lisa Simpson giving head" Olympics 2012 logo.
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Porn is your motive to emigrate...
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
They can try to keep Japanese women away from us but it won't work.
As I thought - pretty much a storm in a teacup. Or an A-cup. Whatever one might think of porn censorship itself, the sex party's accusations of an organised attempt to "narrow the range of acceptable sexual expression in Aus" are clearly nonsense. And didn't even really make sense to start with, IMO.
The Cat on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
As I thought - pretty much a storm in a teacup. Or an A-cup. Whatever one might think of porn censorship itself, the sex party's accusations of an organised attempt to "narrow the range of acceptable sexual expression in Aus" are clearly nonsense. And didn't even really make sense to start with, IMO.
And yet despite this not being actual news (as in, has been part of the ACB guidelines all along, apparently) my outrage is not lessened.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
So what countries are left that don't do or aren't planning this sort of shit? Just want to know in case I decide to move. Preferably ones with good internet :P
Porn is your motive to emigrate...
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
Censorship pisses people off because it's easily the most important right that needs defending. And the one being most encroached upon at the moment.
The thing that's really bad here is that it's very rapidly creeping. Slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy when you're talking about "protect the children" legislation. As I've said before, Australia's logic for refusing classification to M rated games can also be applied to porn, drinking, sex, foul language, and rudeness.
Slippery slop indeed. Doesn't help that both major parties are silly geese. Seriously, one side has Abbott and the other Conroy.
As I thought - pretty much a storm in a teacup. Or an A-cup. Whatever one might think of porn censorship itself, the sex party's accusations of an organized attempt to "narrow the range of acceptable sexual expression in Aus" are clearly nonsense. And didn't even really make sense to start with, IMO.
Cat, that's exactly what they're doing.
The only question is if they're at all aware of exactly what they're doing. This controls a particular access to specific types of sexuality. In effect, it is saying that it is okay to think and talk about sexuality only in certain ways. The campaign by family groups against "homosexual porn" is markedly similar in that the larger effect is to attempt to exert control over the very discussion of sexuality. By creating a dualistic relationship between what is and is not acceptable sexual expression they seek to define how we think and talk about sexuality.
Again, the motivation is probably not explicit and supporters of the ban, themselves, probably don't understand the larger implications, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
The small-chested members of Australian society should sue the government for defamation. :P
EDIT: Re-reading the linked article, it seems the "defense" is relying on the timeline to say, essentially, that they've already been doing this as far back as 2001. I'm not certain this is a sound argument. Even if the "law isn't on the books" they're simply masking the obviously flawed but measurably objective argument of "size criteria" into a subjective view of the body in which they can base decisions on a purely subjective moral ground. At the very least, having an age of consent of 18 doesn't mean "consent if you fit a specific range of body-types", but "consent if you're over 18 years of age". One of these is based in rational and objective means of determining accessibility and the other is a free pass to instill whatever subjective criteria they require into a vague and un-measurable framework of policy.
“The same principle applies to Australia Post which is not responsible if it delivers a letter which contains death threats to someone,” he said.
This is an argument I'll make sure to use next time someone disagrees with me on this subject. Hadn't looked at it like that before.
There is even an EU directive on the subject, but it's certainly not stopping countries from pulling that shit in Europe too.
That's why it's such a strong argument to me. Everyone agrees that TNT or Deutsche Post or the Royal Mail are not allowed to open your letters. Lets see people argue what the difference between internet providers and mail delivery providers is in this respect.
I especially like the comparison because it is understandable to the old men who rule our world. All old people understand how the mail works! You can't come to them with some sort of comparison with two concepts they both don't understand beyond "I think I saw my grandchild walkin' about with a doohicky like that once".
“The same principle applies to Australia Post which is not responsible if it delivers a letter which contains death threats to someone,” he said.
This is an argument I'll make sure to use next time someone disagrees with me on this subject. Hadn't looked at it like that before.
There is even an EU directive on the subject, but it's certainly not stopping countries from pulling that shit in Europe too.
That's why it's such a strong argument to me. Everyone agrees that TNT or Deutsche Post or the Royal Mail are not allowed to open your letters. Lets see people argue what the difference between internet providers and mail delivery providers is in this respect.
I especially like the comparison because it is understandable to the old men who rule our world. All old people understand how the mail works! You can't come to them with some sort of comparison with two concepts they both don't understand beyond "I think I saw my grandchild walkin' about with a doohicky like that once".
Its not a perfect argument; the mail can still refuse to carry flammables, explosives, cash, alcohol, and illegal substances etc. "courier service" works better.
Its not a perfect argument; the mail can still refuse to carry flammables, explosives, cash, alcohol, and illegal substances etc. "courier service" works better.
I can send packages with TNT, actually.
But you have to read the quote precisely, he says that it is not responsible for delivering illegal contents. Of course they can refuse to help criminals and call the cops on whatever they catch, but they should not be forced by the government to become responsible for everything that gets send through them.
Its not a perfect argument; the mail can still refuse to carry flammables, explosives, cash, alcohol, and illegal substances etc. "courier service" works better.
I can send packages with TNT, actually.
But you have to read the quote precisely, he says that it is not responsible for delivering illegal contents. Of course they can refuse to help criminals and call the cops on whatever they catch, but they should not be forced by the government to become responsible for everything that gets send through them.
The argument is about filtering and "responsible" refers to that practice. So does the EU directive. They can't "refuse to help criminals" because they don't have a responsibility to police data where they serve as an intermediary(even caching). If they try(set a precedent) to "call the cops on whatever they catch" they have just scored an own goal.
Its not a perfect argument; the mail can still refuse to carry flammables, explosives, cash, alcohol, and illegal substances etc. "courier service" works better.
I can send packages with TNT, actually.
But you have to read the quote precisely, he says that it is not responsible for delivering illegal contents. Of course they can refuse to help criminals and call the cops on whatever they catch, but they should not be forced by the government to become responsible for everything that gets send through them.
The argument is about filtering and "responsible" refers to that practice. So does the EU directive. They can't "refuse to help criminals" because they don't have a responsibility to police data where they serve as an intermediary(even caching). If they try(set a precedent) to "call the cops on whatever they catch" they have just scored an own goal.
I think you're saying the same thing as what I mean, but in a complex and probably more precise way.
Posts
It looks like the story's being picked up on multiple sites, but they're all using the ASP as a source. I guess everything will become clearer in the next few days.
Edit: They did get a followup response from the OFLC, but it doesn't really seem to make things any more clear.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Edit: I love that the examples of content banned for the models looking underage are all ones that specifically state their ages in the titles.
link
And yet, everything points to it going ahead.
You do have very nice beaches though.
One of them is a beautiful gift from God and the other is an abhorrent abomination.
$10 says that idiotic R rating law they brought in for DVD stores in SA goes national within a few years.
I've sent a tip on this story in to hack (triple j's news show), as they're the major news outlet I think are most likely to follow this up.
Well right now in South Australia, since all R rated movies have to now be grouped together, Fight Club has to be in the same section as Girls Gone Wild.
Which is fucking insane.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
'course the BBFC doesn't actually have the power to ban anything. It's just left unrated.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Pretty much.
Except that our danger is net-neutrality. You'd never have a government office censoring the internet in this country, that's what we have corporations for.
wow.
*e: kidding :P
Just amused by the fierce reaction the ban on small titties and squirting is receiving here.
Censorship pisses people off because it's easily the most important right that needs defending. And the one being most encroached upon at the moment.
Your dirty pornos yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden ethernet port.
The thing that's really bad here is that it's very rapidly creeping. Slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy when you're talking about "protect the children" legislation. As I've said before, Australia's logic for refusing classification to M rated games can also be applied to porn, drinking, sex, foul language, and rudeness.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/the-simpsons-porn-lands-man-on-sex-offender-list-20100126-muzn.html
Got to say that I really have difficulty seeing any way this could be considered reasonable. The Register, predictably, pondered what this means for the infamous "Lisa Simpson giving head" Olympics 2012 logo.
They can try to keep Japanese women away from us but it won't work.
And yet despite this not being actual news (as in, has been part of the ACB guidelines all along, apparently) my outrage is not lessened.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
"Not even Howard tried banning porn."
Cat, that's exactly what they're doing.
The only question is if they're at all aware of exactly what they're doing. This controls a particular access to specific types of sexuality. In effect, it is saying that it is okay to think and talk about sexuality only in certain ways. The campaign by family groups against "homosexual porn" is markedly similar in that the larger effect is to attempt to exert control over the very discussion of sexuality. By creating a dualistic relationship between what is and is not acceptable sexual expression they seek to define how we think and talk about sexuality.
Again, the motivation is probably not explicit and supporters of the ban, themselves, probably don't understand the larger implications, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
The small-chested members of Australian society should sue the government for defamation. :P
EDIT: Re-reading the linked article, it seems the "defense" is relying on the timeline to say, essentially, that they've already been doing this as far back as 2001. I'm not certain this is a sound argument. Even if the "law isn't on the books" they're simply masking the obviously flawed but measurably objective argument of "size criteria" into a subjective view of the body in which they can base decisions on a purely subjective moral ground. At the very least, having an age of consent of 18 doesn't mean "consent if you fit a specific range of body-types", but "consent if you're over 18 years of age". One of these is based in rational and objective means of determining accessibility and the other is a free pass to instill whatever subjective criteria they require into a vague and un-measurable framework of policy.
Also of note is that a three strikes law is apparently off the table with regards to the ACTA Treaty.
A good day for all, it seems.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
This is an argument I'll make sure to use next time someone disagrees with me on this subject. Hadn't looked at it like that before.
There is even an EU directive on the subject, but it's certainly not stopping countries from pulling that shit in Europe too.
That's why it's such a strong argument to me. Everyone agrees that TNT or Deutsche Post or the Royal Mail are not allowed to open your letters. Lets see people argue what the difference between internet providers and mail delivery providers is in this respect.
I especially like the comparison because it is understandable to the old men who rule our world. All old people understand how the mail works! You can't come to them with some sort of comparison with two concepts they both don't understand beyond "I think I saw my grandchild walkin' about with a doohicky like that once".
Its not a perfect argument; the mail can still refuse to carry flammables, explosives, cash, alcohol, and illegal substances etc. "courier service" works better.
But you have to read the quote precisely, he says that it is not responsible for delivering illegal contents. Of course they can refuse to help criminals and call the cops on whatever they catch, but they should not be forced by the government to become responsible for everything that gets send through them.
The argument is about filtering and "responsible" refers to that practice. So does the EU directive. They can't "refuse to help criminals" because they don't have a responsibility to police data where they serve as an intermediary(even caching). If they try(set a precedent) to "call the cops on whatever they catch" they have just scored an own goal.
I think you're saying the same thing as what I mean, but in a complex and probably more precise way.