So far as I can see, the proposed law would ban defences of the bombing of Dresden and of Hiroshima, and of the shock and awe tactics at the start of the Iraq war. Since each of these actions was performed with the intention of advancing a political cause, were intended to intimidate a government, caused death and serious harm to persons, and wee not advocacy, dissent or protest, they count as terrorist acts under the very broad definition in the Criminal Code Act.

Perhaps they really were terrorist acts. But it is controversial whether they were justified. People should be able to debate the issues. Ruddock's disucssion paper proposes a bill that would prohibit that discussion.

surely half the problem is 'who decides'?

a nation that entrusts a politician to select it's reading matter will find it hard to maintain the pretense of democracy. mind you, oz has not let facts get in the way of pretense thus far, so mr ruddock will not be expecting any significant resistance.

ozzies, you were saddle-broke long ago, why not give up the pretense and instead enjoy the warm glow of participating in struggle sessions under the benevolent direction of your current master, whoever he may be.

all together now: hate! hate! hate! that (fill in topical devil), love! love! love! that (current big brother).

I guess Ruddocks' probably right, the censorship laws should be extended. We need to be protected from the bad guys out there and protect our children also. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
I for one am glad Ruddock is looking after us like this. People generally can't be trusted these days, anyone of us could be a terrorist and we might not even know it. A book or dvd or a game especially could be just the trigger that sets us off. Like some sort of subliminal command or something. Look at David Hicks, i bet he read something he shouldn't have, maybe even by accident he may have watched some extreme-Islamicist video or something and turned into a terrorist just like that. Poor chap.

Donnie - I'm reasonably certain you're being sarcastic, surely nobody could actually have that kind of attitude toward Ruddock, and have such a naive attitude toward brainwashing.

I'll say here what I said to Manny Waks article entitled 'freedom of speech v protection of values'

Quite frankly, I'm against banning DVDs such as this for a number of reasons.

1) Freedom of speech isn't really a sliding thing. You have it or you don't. I suppose you can put caveats on things such as urging acts of violence, but go much further and you run into some pretty significant risks.

2) From a practical standpoint: if we ban these, the people behind them stop making them, or they go underground. Either way, we no longer know who precisely is making these messages. Isn't that riskier?

3) Regarding issues of what is permissible discussions:
My answer there is quite simple - that's up to us. If someone was to advocate something such as ethnic cleansing, they would be hounded and their views would not be accepted. This is as it should be - the alternative is somebody deciding the rules beforehand. I don't like that idea at all. I'd rather these issues were decided by consensus, which is pretty much what you have in a society of free speech.

4) I'm not convinced something like a stupid DVD would radicalise anyone that isn't already in an environment where such an influence can take hold. In relation to it being likely to instigate terrorism, I think that's pretty damn unlikely when weighed up against the implications of limiting free speech. Somebody could just as easily watch an action movie and decide to replicate the villains. For more on the risk of terrorism for videos such as this, see point (2).

If the DVD was to actually describe how to build bombs or something along those lines, then that's a different story.

This is a rare instance when I agree with George.

Pro terrorism books and DVDs shouldn't be a separate category for censorship.

As he says "Is it worth making them [the books/DVDs] the centre of debate and perhaps even more popular?" It just glorifies them.

If banned in Australia they may well be downloaded from the internet, mail ordered from overseas or carried through customs. There are no armies anymore of customs officers checking hardcopy books at seaports or raiding noisy lithograph printing presses at 4 am.

What is more intriguing is the that the Federal Government (eg Ruddock, AFP, AGs, ASIO) may have been unenthusiastic about such censorship, initially.

However Labor Premiers (particularly Iemma) may have pressured the Federal Government to specify terrorism for censorship. The Reason? They (especially Iemma) do not want to be seen as soft on terrorism. Iemma’s Electorate is Lakemba. So he can't confront a significant group of Muslim voters headon. Iemma must be “tough” sideways by placing an unworkable legislative request on the Federal Government.

If George ever succeeds in his ALP political aspirations he may be sitting on the legislative committee to push through this Labor initiated piece of legislation.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Fact: Prohibition doesn't work.