Article: [Conroy] further claimed that similar kinds of filtering already exist in UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand.

I wish Loewenstein didn't repeat the "miss-conceptions" promulgated by the minister. The countries listed have exactly the kind of filtering we have in Australia now. All those countries have ISP's offering a "family friendly service" which is filtered. None have compulsory or even "opt out" filtering. If you want a filtered internet feed, contract one of the ISP's here:

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=9#ff%20seal

There are stuff all countries that do have what the good Senator is proposing for Australia. 3 come to mind: China, the UAE and Iran. If this proposal is implemented they will be our only peers. The remainder of the world is either too poor to have the internet available to is general population, or they don't do this form of censorship.

I am sure runner and his ilk will soon chime in with dissenting opinions. But I'd lay odds none of them actually practise what they preach and have one of these filtered feeds. The reasons are pretty straight forward. They cost more because there is a low of work in maintaining the list and additional equipment required to implement it, and they slow down the internet. Nonetheless runner will sit here begging to have something he doesn't take by choice forced down his throat.

Needless to say, if the government does implement its filters this market niche will disappear, along with ISP's that depend on it.

On the positive side, it's nice to see this blizzard of disinformation from Conroy is weakening. He no longer claims any western countries have the kind of filtering he is proposing. He no longer claims the previous trails were a success. And for new trials they are inviting (pleading?) for ways of filtering email, https, peer-to-peer, and so on. I am hoping that shows he is beginning to understand the current proposal won't stop kids from sharing porn or whatever. When he gets no creditable responses, perhaps he will also realise filtering the internet in any meaningful way is impossible.

Unless any of us are naive to the point of imbecility, we are all aware that a certain amount of filtering and a much larger amount of surveillance takes place already.

Until now, however, people by and large, have seemed perfectly content to accept this status quo. It is not to be wondered at then, that Government could read this silence as assent. The popularity of (my favourite bugbear, it seems) Wikipedia alone would seem to argue this. Despite the fact that it has never been a secret that this site comes in for modification and manipulation by government agencies, people flock to it happily.

Yes, I fully agree that people should make public their concern about this move and its unacceptability. But while most of us are simply too apathetic to counter increased governmental intervention in our lives, I don't think we can really blame pollies for assuming that they are free to chip away at our freedoms with impunity.

The plethora of moves we not only stood back and let happen but, in some cases, actively condoned in the "war against terror", was probably seen as a green light by governments not only in Australia but elsewhere. What I consider to be far more worthy of terror is our continued reluctance to do anything more than engage in on-line squabbles amongst ourselves while ignoring the fact that we are giving tacit approval to policy-makers to use carte blanche in respect of our freedoms and rights.

Compulsory filtering is neither technically feasable nor desirable.
I have no desire to join Iran, China and UAE as a member of club Thought Control.
To those who say "but what of the children?" I give them this:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people, As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
Put simply: *No one* has the right to limit my information! Anyone who tries to do this is perfoming and aggressive act and it simply will not be tolerated. As someone on Wired said: If I have to rent a VPN to an offshore ISP to get unfiltered internet then I will!
Of course this is all really about politics. Labour needs the Family First in the Senate to get it's other policies through, and there is obviously some "new right" religious influence in the ALP these days.

What are you talking about Romany? Do be specific and tell us what is being blocked already. To generalise as you have is stupid. Say something or say nothing but don't gabble on about unknown filtering.

If you know something, spit it out mate.

I can't really express the outrage I feel at this. We have Howard Mark 2 on our hands. Don't canvas something at election but bring it in soon after and before the next campaign.

Censorship never works but it hurts people in the short term. Will people be jailed for getting to a site Rudd doesn't like? Like an atheist site?

If Rudd goes ahead with this he should enjoy the time he has left in charge as he won't be there after the next election. He will lose the leadership for starters as Australia cannot afford a religious lunatic in the top job. And we can see just the start of why with this.

The pathtic ignorance of these politicians is that they don't understand they will not stop the people they say they are aiming at. They'll just go peer to peer or even snail mail.

They don't use the net so have no idea of what it can do and how easy it is for the experts to avoid anything a government comes up with as "secure". Nothing is secure, ever. The most vulnerable part of any such security system is the human beings who run it. They are prone to attack, bribery etc and forced to give up the keys.

Why would they even bother with this when there is so much phishing going on. Wouldn't you think that would be more critical? Perhaps someone should Phish Rudd's accounts and see how his attention changes.

Any effort by the Government to protect children from the fruit of the pervert industry should be applauded.Any fool can see that the destruction of families has caused more social problems than any other single factor in society. The porn industry might give a few adults a little pleasure but the cost to abused children and families is evident. The harder we make it for the children of irresponsible drug and alcohol effected parents to access perversion the better. We have more than enough enough porn on the SBS and free to air TV to satisfy the lusts of those held in bondage.

Let journalist scream as loud as they like about censorship. They like some artist think only of their own dogmas and rights not of the victims of this sick industry.

I agree with Antony and most of the commenters.

We normal people are being caught in a religious push that we didn't vote for and didn't expect.

Senator Conroy of Victoria’s campaign appears to stem from the assumption of religious reactionaries that it is they who have the RIGHT to control people's thoughts and morals through controlling straightlaced politicians.

A very small minority of Anglican and Catholics, mainly from Victoria, are pressuring (short back and sides) Conroy and Rudd that our right to choose should be taken from us.

Grass roots liberty and choice are alien concepts to High Churches.

I only hope that Conroy's vision is a bad dream that will be voted down by Parliamentarians who have the guts to represent their constituents rather than The Party.

Beware Mr Rudd if this censorship measure goes through you’ll lose more votes throughout Australia than you win in Victoria.

Pete

We already have religous fundamentalist infiltrating government,and now they want it escalated to mind control.
Much as been said of late re rememberance day "Australians died to ensure our freedom", it appears that comment is used loosely by those who would censor and attempt to control the minds of the Australian public.

if microsoft can know what's on your harddrive, so will the government.

you can evade blocks, but you can be prosecuted for evading blocks. you deserve it. a people content to submit to politicians will be as free as a sheep in a paddock. deliver up your tax fleece and do as you are told.

i'm not sure there's too much to worry about. conroy's plan should buckle under the weight of its own stupidity. and, we have populist demagogs such as fielding and xenophon exposed as the authoritarian nightmares that they truly are.

Another set of pollies led by the nose on this one. It is some public service gnome's brain wave to increase his/her department and the proposal re-surfaces as an 'initiative' for each new minister. The proposal was originally suggested and drafted by an IT contractor, guess why?

Child porn is illegal, so is shoplifting.

The new filter is for the net what compulsory bag searches at every shop is for shopping.

Expensive,
Intrusive,
Incovienient
And above all only partially effective.

For both these crimes the deterrent is that if you get caught you get punished. For God's sake don't punish everyone for what a handful of people might do.

Excellent article by Antony Loewenstein and some very good comments. One point that hasn't been touched on is how the censorship is likely to spread. What worries me is the following scenario: Initially, only the really egregious sites are blocked, such as child pornography sites and hate sites advocating violence. Then the censorship is gradually extended further and further to political, economic, and religious opinions that irritate our masters, perhaps even Runner's brand of Christianity or an environmental site that criticises massive coal exports. As mentioned, there is already pressure to extend it to gambling.

One example where this sort of extension happened comes from the 19th century. Some reformers, some working class themselves, were concerned that very large families among the poor in Britain and the US were contributing to their poverty. They therefore printed and distributed pamphlets with family planning information to give ordinary people some choice. The elite were often against contraception for religious reasons or because they were worried that their workers might go on a reproductive strike. They therefore classified birth control information as obscenity and passed laws calling for it to be suppressed (the so-called Comstock laws in the US).

It is incredibly dishonest that this censorship proposal was not put up before the election. At least for the time being, though, we can put those who vote for it last on the next ballot paper.

Divergence: "It is incredibly dishonest that this censorship proposal was not put up before the election."

As much as I dislike the proposal, as much as I think Conroy's statements on the subject are either deliberately miss leading or amazingly ill informed, you can't say we were not warned. This proposal was an integral part of their election platform, publicly available for all to see. It was put there years ago by Beazley.

If Rudd has been consistent on one thing, it is his dogged implementation of his election promises. This is another one of them. Unlike his other promises this will be a test of just how dogged he is, as this one is near universally loathed by all constituents that understand what is proposed.

I agree with bushbasher that the proposal is unlikely to get up. However, it is unique in that it manages to be both a total waste of money and a danger to our democracy and social fabric. Ultimately what protects us and our children is a society where the watchers are watched, all options are put on the table and discussed, and no one person or organisation gets silence thoughts or descent they personally find uncomfortable. Take that away and a large part of the Australian culture will die.

rstuart

Don't worry rstuart the national broadcasters and many universities have banned any sort of biblical expression for decades. Christ will continue to build His church. The gospel message was not stopped when men were thrown to lions, or sawn in two or thrown in pots of boiling oil. You don't really think any effort by puny mankind will prevent the Only message that can save man from His sins being preached.

It is now time to stop the pervert industry from ruining any more children's lives. Mr Rudd is to be applauded.

Runner are you saying there are no religous groups or teaching in universities, well don't know what Uni you went to. In my Uni days there was total freedom of expression, and it is still the same today.

An effective way to counter the follies of governance is not to support it, withdraw or withhold it. With any luck the brainiacs wont 'heed the call' and whoever is left over does a third rate job.

The thing about the internet is that people can get contrary and variant messages out into the world and back. Sans intermediation, without interference or background noise, without permission, directly, in a split second. State doesnt like that sort of thing. It threatens their fragile sense of political security. It undermines their power. Statistically insignificant contrarian aberations, left un-checked, multiply over time and before ya know it, constitute an unacceptable threat to the main program (theirs not ours) and the 'system.' Thus the system requires controls.

If the internet were to go on for another 50yrs as it has the last 20, the propaganda framework that obfuscates the real authority of state (force) may become redundant. If the masses dont buy the feel-bad/feel-good cocophony of vacilating lies... they might get restless.

Sort of starting to happen they way l see it. The recent financial stress (a major systemic threat) is forecast to get a lot worse. Its the sort of thing that throws everything else into focus. Its easy to get along, be happy and tell nice stories when the going is good (read, the money is flowing), but when it goes the other way the dynamic changes. People get upset, ask hard questions and start challenging things.

Will be interesting how the govt handles this emerging climate. So far its been a lot of window dressing. Maybe this too will resolve in the same vain. And dare l say it, vanity is what politics is really about and Chairman K.rudd is about as vain is they come.

I can't believe this writer thinks Hamas isn't a terrorist organisation. They themselves tell the world - are proud too - what they do, i.e. send in suicide bombers to blow up women and kids on buses.

Then again, this is the same writer I'm pretty sure that thinks Israel, with it's large and very growing Muslim minority (some towns of which are openly hostile to Israel, with some having arguments over flying the national flag at the schools they run in the Arab towns) is an aparthied state!

Apartheid states don't tolerate leaders of minority communities being openly hostile to the nation that treats them better than any Arab country ever has.

You must have meant Saudi Arabia mate. What evidence do you have that Hamas is not a terrorist group?

You people just don't want to see anything negative in the other do you. With a name like Lowenstein I'd say you're like those whiteys who used to own slaves, and now feel incredible guilt for what they're forefathers did.

Israel is the only democracy in the mid-east. Hamastan isn't, they were voted in, but it's just mob rule. Churches are burnt, Christians have fled. Democracy means treating the most vulnerable minorities with equal rights.

Hamastan certainly doesn't do that mate.

yes, benjam1n, you have correctly noted that loewenstein is an idiot, and a pretty slimy anti-semitic one. (yeah, yeah, he's jewish: he's still anti-semitic). he is correct that hamas was democratically elected, and of course you're right that this doesn't in any way preclude hamas from being a terrorist organization. which of course it is.

but people are agreeing with his main point here because it's a no-brainer. which means loewenstein had just the required amount of brains to write it.

On the other side of the coin if someone is being defamed on the net any Government must be able to have rules to deal with it.

Here we all are worrying about the waste of time and effort that this project is, and the censorship of sites by unknown criteria and ideals changing the way people are able to express themselves and fundamentally our society, and you're worried about DEFAMATION?!

And no, it will not stop what the government says it wants to and will stop.

runner: "the national broadcasters and many universities have banned any sort of biblical expression for decades. ... Mr Rudd is to be applauded."

Your mates on the religious fringe aren't as sanguine about this proposal as you are, runner. For example, here Luke Stevens from sydneyanglicans.net worries that some of the more bigoted religious views on homosexuals will be targeted by these same censorship laws.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3673/

As indeed he might. No doubt you delight the pointed responses you get to your calling homosexuals perverts and designating the secular evil. If this law comes in they will be able to do more than give you pointed responses. They will be able get them erased from the net. Most media outlets nowadays already bow to their pressure, and would delete your comments without a second thought from their forums. You are lucky to have this one available to you.

You have said here before with justifiable pride that you have put a daughter through Uni, and commented at the time on how well tolerated religion was at the institution. This is really unsurprising because as you probably realise many universities offer theology as a course. And as for our national broadcaster, I gather from your comments listen to them on occasion. Never caught "The spirit of things" or until recently "The Religion Report" - both weekly shows devoted to the topic you say is banned? I also guess you don't watch the Sunday services shown on ABC TV every Easter either.

The point being the rubbish you spout supported as it is by outright lies is a fairly easy target for the censors. And unlike you apparently, some of the people who do spout it realise it.

By the by, there are people who are deeply religious and whose words - unlike yours, would be upheld as examples of virtue, but who still don't like this proposal:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1075390&r=16996393#r16996393

Pity you aren't as thoughtful or as kind hearted as she is, runner. But it takes all kinds, I guess.

rstuart You accuse me of the following

'As indeed he might. No doubt you delight the pointed responses you get to your calling homosexuals perverts and designating the secular evil.'

I take no delight in this at all. It seems you are comfortable with the homosexual lobby who are prepared to push their agenda extremely aggressively and even violently.(as seen by the recent dummy spitting when black Americans voted against gay marriage in California). Of course they took it out on a predominantly white church again displaying their hypocrisy.

Personally I would rather not even comment on homosexuality. I have mentioned on a number of posts that adultery, fornication, lying and idolatry are all sins in the same basket. The only difference is that you have not got a militant lying or adultery club pushing their agendas like many (not all) people practicing homosexual.

If you can point to me a religion report or a university that teaches in their 'religous curriculum that fornication or living together without being married is wrong (as the Scriptures clearly teach) I will apologise. I am obviously aware that many universities run religous courses. My point is that they are not taught from a biblical world view.

Again I am sure that the vast majority of Australians would not tolerate some things on the internet. At the moment everything is tolerated. My opinion along with Mr Rudd believe that the reduction of porn from the pervert industry will reduce child abuse.

runner: "I take no delight in this at all."

Amazing. As we have discussed in the past, you fling more accusations of hatred, evil and sin at others than any of your fellow posters here on OLO. And yet you don't enjoy a single moment of it, eh? What a selfless person you are, runner. Sadly, despite your denials, it is unlikely the rest of the Australia will believe you if these censorship laws come in. Your words here on OLO read like the very definition of intolerance, and you can't change them. They are written in the OLO equivalent of stone. It is unlikely they will be erased by anything short of government fiat.

As for what the theology courses at universities: of course they teach the biblical point of view - or at least many of the biblical viewpoints as they can. By its very nature, a well rounded Theology course will try and cover them all - even the fringe ones like yours, runner. I guess you would prefer they cover only your particular interpretation of the bible, that that would be unfair to the others, wouldn't it? Getting back to religious expression on universities, I imagine that if your daughter stayed at a college at university you did damnedest to ensure the one she stayed at had a Christian chapel. Not that it would of been hard - the campuses are littered when them.

But your words indicate you know this. Now that you have take a second to think about it, you know that your earlier statement "Universities have banned any sort of biblical expression for decades" was a blatantly obvious attempt to mislead and deceive with what you know to be outright lies. And be honest, if people were to start go around and censor things, this is the sort of thing that should go first, isn't it?

rstuart: << it is unlikely the rest of the Australia will believe you >>

I agree with rstuart - runner is one of the most prolifically sanctimonious haters in this forum. If there is any pleasure at all in his life, it must surely derive from his ignorant certitude that he is always right, and everybody else is wrong.

Like with this preposterous claim:

<< the national broadcasters and many universities have banned any sort of biblical expression for decades >>

If runner ever watched ABCTV or listened to Radio National or his local ABC station, he'd know that there's probably more Christianity-related content on the national broadcaster than any of the commercial networks. If he'd ever been to a university, he'd know that they're crawling with Students for Christ, Opus Dei, and any number of Christian colleges, chapels and chaplains - not to mention the dedicated theology and divinity courses that some offer.

However, as I've said before, I don't think anybody takes runner and his fundy cohorts very seriously - except for themselves, of course.

rstuart

I see that you and CJ are still second to none in your character assassinations. Your dishonesty really knows no bounds. You both know that my comment regarding biblical expression was in the context of what is taught at university. You are still unable to come up with a biblically based course at a secular university. I could just see them allowing Fred Nile to teach theology. I would suggest that you 2 are the dishonest ones. Unless the religion report or compass changed its colours I also doubt whether any bible based teacher would get a run there. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to give a clear answer rather than character assassination

runner, I still remember the Roman History courses I took at Macquarie University under the tutelage of the illustrious Professor Edwin Judge, a biblical scholar of international repute and expert on Early Church history. You may find more about Professor Judge here http://www.publicchristianity.org/videos/judgeintro.html

Your claims about secular universities don't stand up to any detailed analysis.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_2/Ford.htm
http://news.csu.edu.au/director/regionalnews/canberra.cfm (Professor Clive Pearson)
http://www.pacifica.org.au/volumes/volume18/issue02 (Martin Sutherland, Elaine Wainwright, Mike Grimshaw)
http://www.stmarksntc.org.au/thl/staff/pdf/CowdellCV.doc
http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2007/06/01/the-delusion-of-dawkins/ (Professor Alister McGrath)
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/faculty-old/education-arts/facultycommittees/CTLOctober/EACTL0631%20B%20Theology%20Business%20Plan.doc
http://www.bct.edu.au/Arche/Authors.htm (David Rankin)

R0bert

runner: << You both know that my comment regarding biblical expression was in the context of what is taught at university. You are still unable to come up with a biblically based course at a secular university. >>

I guess they must teach prevarication at the "biblically based" indoctrination course that Christian fundies attend, given the propensity for them to refuse to admit that they tell porkies when they're caught out. There was absolutely nothing in runner's mendacious rant to suggest that he was only referring to course content.

As for "biblically based courses" being offered at universities - you're unlikely to find one because universities are for intelligent people. You'd have to go to a "bible college" or some such Christian madrassa in order to find the kind of mindless indoctrination that you think should be offered at universities.

Chade,

Yes we are concerned about the lack of control and laws on the net regarding DEFAMATION.

It is a serious problem and must be addressed.

I am not saying the issues raised by yourself and others are not important as well.

We simply CANT have no laws controlling the net- that includes forums Chade.

As it stands now most times ONE person has the right to either leave up or take down comments that are defamation of either a person or business.

It also places the victim in a position they MUST sue the owner of the net forum etc..

Even then after costly court cases the real offender can simply escape due to privacy laws.

In your case its the people spreading porn that we cant touch.

Be it porn or defamation its all damaging and lowers the standard of our society.

The counter argument of course will be will Governments use these laws for political purposes?
IMOP Of course they will.
Given our organisation has for years written to Government demanding some type of control over the net regarding defamation we cant have our feet in both caps either I guess.

So sadly yes we support it.

Mean time if someone can Ban Viagra adds it would almost be worth it:)

How sad is this world that nothing is private anymore and sex is spread across the net and TV and newspapers.
No wonder why kids today show little respect as our Grand parents and parents did.

I might remind some lost souls here that Shakespeare defamed and sexualised with social parody at a time when the filter for such infamy was beheading.

In short: Only those afraid of the TRUTH about who we really are have an interest in censorship beyond existing physical security measures.

Meanwhile, Othello,Iago and Macbeths roam the halls of our parliaments shouting IMMIGRATE FOR THE GREAT GST power god(but SHHH, don't tell). Shylocks and Antonios down at the chamber of commerce run our economy into oblivion with imported drugs & immigrant greed. And all the Lady Macbeths wash off their damned spots and sprog forth cute little carbon footprinted gridlocks & ABC never-learn centres for a freeload baby bonus.
And don't forget King Lear riding his charger from his American castle to tell Australia to stop bludging.

If ever there was a need for unrestrained free speech its NOW!

Let all the poison that lurks in the mud ... Net out!

KAEP, While I agree with you the counter argument must be to protect the innocent.
Take OLO for instance.
Pale has been accused of-
A Raising funds unlawfully- which is silly considering we self funded in conjunction with RSPCA QLD including the fact my own property was morgaged to help cover costs
Not to mention many good people give up their time for nothing from one day a week to seven.
Our team of lawyers who again just give their time and certainly do not need to be defamed as a reward for their kindness to animals.
Then of course there has been the allegations that we support FGM because we actually do a lot of work with our Muslim people both in Australia and elsewhere.

These people who are too gutless to use their real names but for what ever purpose think they can get away with destroying the names of good people MUST be dealt with under the SAME laws of our country that everybody else has to obey and be answerable to.

Needless to say I suppose some organisations who seem to spend a great deal of time rattling the tin would see an advantage in some of their members posting in false names to defame what they might possible see as opposition- whatever.

Who can ever forget as another example the dreadful comment posted about aboriginals on the day Kevin Rudd said sorry.

I am all for freedom of speech but not to the point it can cause hatred and defamation and racial comments or any unfairness to the innocent. Speaking of mud- It sticks.
Whether its true or not. All the laws of a country must also be included into the net. Otherwise we have no laws morals or rules.

When shall we three meet again
In thunder, drought, lightening or economic pain?

When the hurly burly's done,
When the environments lost and the GST economy's won.

That will be ere the set of 25 million setting suns.

Where the place?

Upon next November Heath.

There to meet with Howard Rudd.

Hark, Paddock calls the souls of live exports.

Fair is foul and Bailouts fair.
And except in polititians ivory lair,
Media Hover through the GST-smog and drought stricken, filthy over-immigrated air.

All hail!
GST, Immigrate, Externalise the costs,
Who is too slow or dumb to know
are soules for the Master's hosts.

runner: "You both know that my comment regarding biblical expression was in the context of what is taught at university."

I can't speak for CJ, but no runner I didn't realise that was the context, possibly since this is the first you've mentioned it. Others more knowledgeable than I have chimed in to set you straight on bible courses. As CJ says you will probably claim otherwise, but the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint will be presented as accurately as possible in these courses. Some students do end up adopting it as their preferred style of Christianity. Evidently Fred Nile did, as he graduated from a tertiary course in Theology at the University of Sydney.

Fred came away from the experience with a very different view of our Universities to you. He said this in the defence of the Chancellor of his old Uni:

'The militant Senate majority should hang their heads in shame and allow Dame Leonie Kramer to retire at her pleasure, after being re-elected unopposed in 1999" said Rev Fred Nile MLC. "I thought Universities were the bastion of free speech and thought?"'
http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/2001/010531a.asp

I don't know whether Fred has given a lecture at any University. His Wikipedia page says he was asked to speak at Sydney Uni on one occasion. But regardless, your argument that the opinions of the likes of Fred Nile are banned from expressing themselves at our Uni's is revealed as yet more baseless disinformation by this: he was asked to join the ruling council of one of them - the University of Woolongong.

As for engaging in character assassination, it wasn't my intent. Yes I am pointing out you say some pretty vile things, and that you lie and deceive in support of them. But every OLO regular already knows that. As Steel astutely said: "You assassinate your own character, runner". Rather, I am trying to show you your words would be the targeted by pressure groups for censorship. You are in effect lobbying for your own demise! Believe it or not, I personally do not want to see that happen.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1966&page=0#40344

"People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming": What are you actually here for? What has "Live Exports" and "Intensive Farming" got to do with defamation?

Why is it that we "simply CANT(sic) have no laws controlling the net"? You don't offer a reason beyond "damaging and lower[s/ing] the standard of our society". You know it's an international thing, right? And that very often people on forums aren't even living under the same law system and culture?

You also complain about kids, but here's a newsflash: the kids did not raise themselves.
In both of these things, you're just finding ways to pass the buck, and finding something to blame for society changing in a way that you don't like.

So you're supporting a government having the power to subvert its citizens and that they should have the power to damage the basic tenements of our society (by a stupid means, too), while complaining that our society is being damaged.

I'm sure you'll forgive me if I laugh.

Finally, where did I mention or defend porn? I made no reference to it. You've had several shots at simply changing the focus of the conversation, and I don't see any worth in following it up further.