Internet Censorship in Australia

x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Internet Censorship in Australia

 I think this topic has been discussed before, but there have been recent developments.

It is an atheist issue too as the censorship is also conveniently supported by loopy religious lobbyists.

Blasphemy laws anyone?

 

The ruling ALP has decided to shelve the policy of censoring the internet till after the forthcoming election, as they have realised that it is 'toxic'.

The problem is that they can't really expect people to vote for them if they've got toxic policy just lying about on shelves.

At the very least it needs to be encased in thick layers of concrete and sunk deep into the earth, or safely mounted on a rocket and expelled from the solar system.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The trouble is x

 

If we don't vote for Kevin, we'll end up with monkey boy in charge and he's even more nutsy religious than the pragmatic Mr Rudd.

And a Green vote is a preference vote for Labor. What do you do?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: If

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

If we don't vote for Kevin, we'll end up with monkey boy in charge and he's even more nutsy religious than the pragmatic Mr Rudd.

And a Green vote is a preference vote for Labor. What do you do?

 

 

Yes, I've pondered this and come to the conclusion that I am going to have to give my Green preferences to the Nationals, which I never thought I'd do.

I'm not very Green, but at least they have civilised civil liberties policies.

 

If the Coalition then introduce censorship, then they get voted out too, and so on. Basically, whoever introduces it won't get my vote.

 

In the meantime, I'm sending emails to all parties telling them this.

It seems futile at times, but it is the best I can think of without being a full blown political activist.

I'm too old and lazy for that.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Is Catholic Church behind

Is Catholic Church behind these?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Whose fault is it?

Kapkao wrote:

Is Catholic Church behind these?

 

It's a complex political business and I'm not privy to the backroom horse trading, but I can speculate.

 

My take is that the primary drive for this censorship is probably simply that it makes government easier. They notably also want to be able to monitor the internet activity of all citizens, as did/does the UK government.

Prior to the internet, the banning of 'immoral' opinions etc. was standard. It still is outside of the internet.

The Communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy, who is in charge of this proposed legislation, has stated that he simply wants to bring the internet in line with other media.

The counter argument is that the advent of an uncensored internet has shown that all the previous draconian censorship was OTT. We don't recall the world's end.

Also, print censorship wasn't secret. You were told what was banned. This won't be the case with the internet.

Of course the driving forces behind pre internet censorship also had a large religious component.

 

Conroy is a Catholic, but the main lobby group supporting this is The Australian Christian Lobby which is an alliance of a few flavours of illiberal Christians. The ACL was founded by a Pentecostal, a Baptist and the founder of an independent church. Their main support is Pentecostal.

They claim that they do not want to directly turn Australia into a theocracy, they simply want their interpretations of the bible to be enshrined in Australian law. For example, they want all porn to be censored by default. 

In short, they are unrepresentative extremist fruit loops, but effective lobbyists.

Australia has a history of powerful religious extremist lobbyists. Fred Nile and the DLP are comedians that spring to mind, not to mention the current Clown King creationist Steve Fielding, described by Dawkins as dumber than an earthworm.

 

Actually, it would probably be fair to say that the Catholics are not primarily behind this, though the church does support it. One of their political arms is the DLP, which is in serious decline.

 

In summary then, the government wants maximum control over the citizens and the religions think this is ultra-spunky, right up their alley. Chickens and eggs are involved too.

I assume that the government doesn't really care about toenail fetishists, but if that excites the ACL and if the ACL will back the legislation, then toenails will be filtered.

 

 

 

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
All I know (or read at this

All I know (or read at this site) is that the RatPope wanted to prohibit gays from serving openly in UK gov't a few months back... my first reaction was "Yeah, I'm sure they love you too, Ratzinger!"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh yeah, they are still a

Oh yeah, they are still a powerful force for evil and no doubt, as established power brokers, will be exerting their influence.

In this case they've got the luxury of their rivals doing a lot of the public dirty work for them.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(Nowhere else valid to put this)

x wrote:

It is not contradictory for atheists to be 'evangelical'.

 

It is simply a matter of politics and lobbying.

After all, the religious are masters in that field and atheism has a lot of catching up to do.

If the religious stopped trying to influence politics, it would be more reasonable to consider the promotion of atheism OTT.

x wrote:

Oh yeah, they are still a powerful force for evil and no doubt, as established power brokers, will be exerting their influence.

In this case they've got the luxury of their rivals doing a lot of the public dirty work for them.

As I was going to say in the "Atheistic Bigotry" thread- evangelical atheism makes sense in light of the theocratic lobby that Austrailia currently has. While I can't say the US is innocent of this by a long-shot... I can suggest that we aren't nearly as vulnerable as Austrailia is (the exception of the particularly extreme rise in theocratic behavior under Bush Jr's reign being well behind us, at least in a political sense.)

Alas, I can understand "Fighting fire with fire" in the sense of 'Atheism versus theism'.

 

What I have *ZERO* tolerance for is the uncanny tendency for "Dawkins Witnesses" to use tautologies in the extreme.

People get tired of hearing tautologies, regardless of personal philosophy/belief system...

 

edit; My inner spelling nazi strikes again! Ugh...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
x wrote: Blasphemy laws

x wrote:

 Blasphemy laws anyone?

I'm all for them, god can take his case into court anytime he wishes. Amazing how people think the all-mighty needs them to defend his reputation. He can't take care of himself apparently, some all-powerful god.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Coup - Atheist female Prime Minister

Kapkao wrote:

As I was going to say in the "Atheistic Bigotry" thread- evangelical atheism makes sense in light of the theocratic lobby that Austrailia currently has. While I can't say the US is innocent of this by a long-shot... I can suggest that we aren't nearly as vulnerable as Austrailia is (the exception of the particularly extreme rise in theocratic behavior under Bush Jr's reign being well behind us, at least in a political sense.)

Alas, I can understand "Fighting fire with fire" in the sense of 'Atheism versus theism'.

 

What I have *ZERO* tolerance for is the uncanny tendency for "Dawkins Witnesses" to use tautologies in the extreme.

People get tired of hearing tautologies, regardless of personal philosophy/belief system...

 

edit; My inner spelling nazi strikes again! Ugh...

 I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'using tautologies in the extreme', but on face value it seems like a bad thing.

 

As regards the Australian political situation, it has all gotten a whole lot weirder. Weird enough for a new thread.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
x wrote: I'm not quite sure

x wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'using tautologies in the extreme', but on face value it seems like a bad thing.

It is.

definition wrote:
needless  repetition  of  an  idea,  esp.  in  words  other  than  those  of  the  immediate  context,  without  imparting  additional  force  or  clearness,  as  in  “widow  woman.” 

Hey, I like putting my beliefs and philosophy on a pedestal as well, but that isn't going to convince anyone of their validity or superiority.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:definition

Kapkao wrote:

definition wrote:
needless  repetition  of  an  idea  

Yep, I'm against it.

I am, I am, I am.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Gillard carries on with internet censorship policy

Extracts from

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/gillard-to-stick-with-web-filter-despite-disquiet-20100707-100qe.html?autostart=1

THE Prime Minister will push ahead with controversial plans for a mandatory internet filter despite acknowledging public concerns that it will interfere with ''legitimate use''.

 

 

A vocal critic of the filter, Mark Newton, argued that the comments showed Ms Gillard was not going to use the change of leadership to moderate Labor's position on the issue.

The network engineer attacked the cinema comparison, saying that ''the reason nobody can see child pornography in cinemas is because it's illegal, and aggressively pursued by police''.

''I call on Julia Gillard to spend a little bit more time listening to the policy's critics, instead of dismissing them with silly throwaway lines about child pornography,'' he said.

 

But Ms Gillard won backing from the Christian group FamilyVoice Australia, whose spokeswoman, Ros Phillips, said she was ''delighted'' the government's position was being maintained.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This shit is bizarre.

 

How many child porn sites are there in the world that would justify the installation of this national nanny-wall? Newton is right. It's more China than Oz. And who decides what gets fed into the firewall? Politicians?

What's with Family Values? The christians are fixated with child porn. Bloody weirdos.

Maybe they'll use the wall to block the denizens of evil at RRS...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It's nonce sense

Atheistextremist wrote:

What's with Family Values? The christians are fixated with child porn. Bloody weirdos.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NesjvRihbEg