I think that Clive Hamilton was correct in stating that too much sexuality has been thrust in everyone's faces these days, particularly in the faces of children.

However, I never imagined that Clive Hamilton would have leaped from that understandable position to one that required our rights to access legal adult material and whatever else our Government secretly deemed to be 'unwanted' to be taken away from us and on top of that, in a way that would make the Internet vastly more unwieldy and vastly less efficient.

If mandatory net filtering becomes law, it may well pave the way to effectively abolishing free speech altogether.

I am appalled with Clive Hamilton's stance on censorship and I think it is a terrible shame, because I believe that his book "Growth Fetish" and many of his other ideas still have a lot of merit.

Another book of Clive Hamilton's I would recommend is the now ironically named "Silencing Dissent" of 2007 which he co-edited with Sarah Maddison.

Now it would appear that Hamilton himself may well be helping to bring about the very censorship and the overall repression of dissenting voices that he rightly denounced on the part of the Howard Government.

There was one curious and serious flaw in that book, however. That flaw was in the chapter "The Media" by Helen Ester which focused exclusively on the role of the Howard Government suppressing the flow of information from the Government to the newsmedia and the broader public.

In this chapter the corporate newsmedia, particularly the Murdoch newsmedia, is oddly depicted as being on the side of free speech.

It's as if Helen Ester has taken at face value all the posturing by the Murdoch newsmedia in defence of "Your Right to Know".

In reality, the overwhelming amount of suppression of information is at the hands of the corporate newsmedia themselves (and the ABC as well) who refuse to report such readily available information as parliamentary debates (see "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 17 Sep 08 at http://candobetter.org/node/765#DebateIgnored). Suppression of information by our governments is minor in comparison.

Also when it suits them, the media refuse to draw the most obvious links between related stories. As an example one day, the Australian will screech and shout about how beneficial population growth and immigration is for the economy (See "Open Door" of 17 May 08 by Paul Kelly at http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/open_door) and then the next day we read reports of how our water, electricity, road toll, etc. charges are going through the roof to pay for the necessary additional infrastructure for the extra people.

It is now just possible to counter such misinformation on the Internet, but if Clive Hamilton gets his way that avenue could well be closed off to us before much longer.

It would also be interesting to see if he is still as personally opposed to the Murdoch newsmedia as he once was.

Like Clive Hamilton I am not impressed by our highly sexualised media.
But I am concerned that
- Internet filtering is technically not possible without massively reducing internet speeds
- determined and curious children will break through the filter fast
- the banned list is secret, there is no guarantee that euthanasia sites are not filtered out
- the potential to erode free speech far outweighs a Net filters ability to keep curious tech savvy 14 boys safe from the dangers of pornography or bomb making sites

Lol.

Wasn't it Hives Hamilton complaining about suppression etc. in his last column for ONO.

Now we find the intellectual vandal is trying to become the net nanny.

Tim Lambert of Deltoid was recently caught out trying to resuscitate Hives' PR.

Obviously intellectual vandals like Hives and Shiny Lambert like to hang out together. Yuk.

It is good to see someone like Clive Hamilton more concerned about child sexual abuse then curtailing to the pervert industry and those with pathetic ideologies that support it. He is to be applauded by all decent minded Australians.

"The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were" Steady on there, does this mean you are admitting that JWH was not as bad as you all claimed, culture wars and all that, suppressing free speech - ask David Marr about it?

You have the government you wanted, you all shouted about everything the Liberals (Coalition to some of us) said and did, and you brought in another party.

The ALP can do what it wants since they are so popular. OK, I can live with that, it is a democracy after all. Get over it, if it costs the country bandwidth - well that's what you signed up for isn't it?

Did you not realise, not everyone would get what they wanted?

Clive Hamilton regrets the ‘sad demise’ of OLO and says he won’t be paying it any more attention, so he presumably isn’t reading these comments and won’t be responding here.

In ‘Death Rattles of the Climate Change Skeptics’ (New Matilda, 19 May 2008), Clive criticised Don Aitkin for acknowledging my work, and described me as one of ‘Australia’s foremost climate skeptics’. He claimed I was ‘associated’ (how?) ‘with the denialists of the Lavoisier Group, an organisation that sees the Kyoto Protocol as a European plot for a “new imperial order” that would see our sovereignty “relocated from Canberra to Bonn.”

Last Saturday I said on this Forum ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132&page=16 ) that “My views are as stated in the papers, submissions and blog posts that I’ve authored and to which I’ve referred. As these are quite voluminous, I continue to wonder why most of the criticism directed at me is for things I’ve never said and, in many cases, don’t believe.”

Clive was one of the critics I had in mind. He’s an economist, but hasn’t addressed any of the economic issues raised in my papers. He chooses instead to assail me for the way an organisation with which I’m allegedly associated ‘sees’ the Kyoto ProtocoI.

A recent Reuter’s report from Lima ( http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN2149971220081121 ) says that Kevin Rudd, who ‘led the left-leaning Labor Party to power last November’, had ‘urged a global response to a problem that [had] led to calls for tighter regulation and a bigger role for the International Monetary Fund.’

Left-leaning? Bigger role for the IMF? Here’s Eddie Ward, ‘the truest Labor man’, speaking on ABC Radio in1946 about the Bretton Woods Agreement that created the IMF:

“… the Agreement will enthrone a World Dictatorship of private finance, more complete and terrible than any Hitlerite dream. It will ... pervert and paganise our Christian ideals and [endanger] world peace ... World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery, degradation and final destruction. Therefore, as freedom-loving Australians, we should reject this infamous proposal.”

The protectors of Australia’s national sovereignty are losing their punch

rpg writes:

quoting me: 'The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.'

And then goes on to say: " Steady on there, does this mean you are admitting that JWH was not as bad as you all claimed, culture wars and all that, suppressing free speech - ask David Marr about it?

You have the government you wanted, you all shouted about everything the Liberals (Coalition to some of us) said and did, and you brought in another party.

The ALP can do what it wants since they are so popular. OK, I can live with that, it is a democracy after all. Get over it, if it costs the country bandwidth - well that's what you signed up for isn't it?

Did you not realise, not everyone would get what they wanted?"

Just to clarify:

I didn't vote for the ALP. I voted informally. That was my only choice since I supported neither party. As you would know, our current absurd election system makes sure that even a vote for a minor party will end being passed down the line until it ends up with one of the major parties. This is due to the requirement that one cast a "preference" for *every* candidate on the ballot paper (when voting for the House of Reps).

For the record, I really do regard the ALP as currently more reactionary, opportunistic, moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals. I was never part of the pseudo-left clamour for Kevin to come and save us from the "dark years" of Howard. My view at the time was that an ALP government would definitely be somewhat worse than a Liberal one.

Kerry Miller

What's the bet Hamilton will be found in a seady hotel somewhere with a rent boy and bag of fruit and runner watching from under the bed.

I would worry about total censorship on the net but Clive Hamilton's paper on the sexualisation of children has many valid points which cannot be ignored.

The question is how we deal with this. I have no problem with the illegal sites being 'censored' as censorship is part of any society - we call them laws because their aim is to protect.

Societies don't always get the balance right but at the moment the pendulum is very much on the 'anything is okay' in the interests of freedom no matter what the consequences might be.

I think parents should have the right to be able to choose a filtered internet service stream to protect their children. The idea that parents are always home to monitor their children's net activity is disingenous.

The fear is that censorship will grow to include non-illegal sites based on any particular group's own belief system on issues like abortion, euthanasia etc.

It is not a straightforward concept - censorship - but neither is the overt exploitation and marketing of sex to children particularly in the music industry, fashion etal.

Being sensitive to the issues that Clive Hamilton raises is not the same as being prudish or a wowser as some might accuse.

We need to distinguish between "child porn" (in which real children have been used to produce fantasy material for paedophiles) and all other porn.

Child porn is *already* illegal and the people who produce it (as well as those who look at it) are regularly caught and prosecuted as a result of internationally co-ordinated ( and very effective) police efforts. For that very reason, child porn is hidden away and almost impossible to come across accidentally. Mandatory ISP-level filtering is not necessary for protecting children from this type of porn.

Hamilton’s problem is clearly with all the other porn. His frequent references to “child porn” are an attempt to demonise those who disagree with him. The reason he wants a filter is because once there is an official mechanism for blacklisting and blocking various sites, it will be possible to put all sorts of material on the illegal list (and there will be no provision for any of us to opt out of the “illegal list”). In fact, the proposal is for the illegal list to be secret. There will be no opportunity for any public discussion as to what should go on it.

Hamilton’s research is contentious to say the least. It’s clearly driven by his own politically correct agenda as to what constitutes “healthy sex”.

If we allow the filtering proposal to go ahead we will be giving Clive, and people who think similarly, a mechanism for deciding what is good for us.

The Howard government provided free downloadable filters for use by concerned parents. That should have been as far as it went. However, since all filters can be bypassed by clever kids (including the proposed mandatory one) there is always the risk of simply driving the activity underground.

Most of us don’t want our children to be exposed to pornography at a young age. The best thing we can do is to take an active interest in what our kids are doing, and at the same time, create an atmosphere in which they feel comfortable talking freely to us.

Kerry Miller

Kerry Miller wrote;

"Most of us don’t want our children to be exposed to pornography at a young age. The best thing we can do is to take an active interest in what our kids are doing, and at the same time, create an atmosphere in which they feel comfortable talking freely to us."

I question that porn does harm to little children. My mother acquainted me with the facts of life and elimination at an early age. I had to learn all the proper words: coitus, orgasm, defecation etc. One exception was that I could call my penis a doodle. I was bored stiff by her yammering about the subject. My Dad had a stash of porn which I found, and it didn't interest me. It was not until much later that I became interested in sex.

However, feeding children on a diet of violence and giving them the idea that problems can be solved by applying enough force and enticing them with adverts for unhealthy junk food does far more damage in my opinion than watching or reading porn.

Trying to pin this on Hamilton misses the point. The article describes the way the theory and writings translated to political acceptance...and that falls squarley in the lap of religious lobbyists (as the article indicates no less).

Do not mistake academic writings for power. There are many who write theory yet are ignored. he may privately entertain religious sensibilities or reasons to view them as allies (autralia institute patrons anyone?). Has the question ever been asked if he has possible affections for moral (likely religious) authority.

But it's the religious who have adopted this agenda and used it for government purposes, again as the article describes (see Family First and the history of Senator Brian Harradine and his advisor Melinda Tankard Reist-a contributor of OLO, who hides her religious Catholicism under a feminist guise).

I do not like the way this author dismisses the essential religious component. Without them Hamilton's essays would be nothing and ignored (though he is employed by the euphimistic Australia Institute** *), particularly in light of his earlier writings.

-=-=-=-=-=
** * Look at this gem, for example:
The Australia Institute was sued by David Jones for allegedly engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct: David Jones Ltd v The Australia Institute Ltd [2007] FCA 962. David Jones objected to a media release by the Australia Institute entitled "Corporate paedophilia – Sexualising children by advertising and marketing".
-=-=-=-=-=

I find it interesting (and not necessarily coincidental) that Clive Hamilton has been appointed Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University, which has many, many Christian connections.

And as for the secularists who believe Clive Hamilton's writings about the "sexualisation of children"...

Let me remind or warn people again of the example of Melinda Tankard Reist, publishing articles and hosting an Australian Women's forum, a self-described feminist with all the euphemistic phrases that earn numerous points amongst elite types who hang off their words like they are prophets (one feminist here on OLO described feminism as a Church) - ...that, MTR was actually likely to be a staunch Catholic as she was an advisor to the Catholic Senator Brian Harradine of Tasmania, who speaheaded many campaigns of censorship and was unrepentantly against pornography and other "sins".

Is Hamilton one of these types of activists? My initial impression of Hamilton is contained in my prior post and it certainly seems as though there are several strong properties. One of them it seems is that he has very traditional views of the government-people relationship, with people being mere pawns or servants to the government. He doesn't seem to have any respect for Australians as a free thinking people.

Off topic everyone, sorry.

To: IanC

Can you be more lucid ... what exactly are you trying to say that is pertinent to this topic? I’m not going back to that thread you linked to Ian, so I may as well cut-n-paste here:

“The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.

Denial is a defence mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

You may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

Denial of denial: This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing behaviour.

Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviours which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behaviour. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion."

Seriously Ian, let go of Clive Hamilton. It's not about you (it's more about people like Bob Carter).

The problem with Hamilton is that he would like to filter out all obscene material,selected by his standards.
This would mean Climate Audit, Watts Up, Ice cap etc would go because they offend his religious beliefs.
Hamilton has lost, if he ever had it, any tolerance of views that conflict with his.

Thanks Little Brother. Your post shows why the discussion on this article is, in part, about Clive Hamilton's intolerance of dissent - a regrettable character trait for a person who's just been Australia's first professor of public ethics.

Steel, he's been appointed to a ‘Vice-Chancellor’s Chair’ at Charles Sturt University – he’s not the Vice Chancellor.

Clive says his role is to carry on his work as a public intellectual 'being engaged in social and policy debates.’ I only wish he would

Amazing how loud the supporters of the pervert industry are. They just have to have their little bit of indulgence despite it resulting in young boys and girls having their lives ruined. What bunch of selfish little people totally blinded and bound by their own lusts. No wonder the pervert industry is such a thriving market. Thankfully Mr Rudd has the backbone (I hope) to stand against these sick minds.

The problem is partly technical - effective internet filtering is just about impossible unless access to most of the web is severely curtailed. The technology has got ahead of us - and yes while the internet makes it easier to do just about everything the price we pay for it may be the normal sexual development of children and adolescents. Yes and there is such a thing as normal - basically - consenting adults get together and have a mutually enjoyable time. This is normal. This is not what porn depicts. Porn depicts males having an enjoyable time by dominating females and females pretending to have an enjoyable time by being dominated.

If some people knew that Clive Hamilton used XYZ toothpaste, then they would boycott XYZ toothpaste in protest. These people claim to have an objective mind ... bollocks. They don’t address issues; they attack the messenger, e.g.

“a regrettable character trait for a person who's just been appointed Australia's first professor of public ethics.”

Give us a break, what issues do you think a professor of public ethics is going to draw issue on ... toothpaste brands?

The author of the article says:

“Hamilton like McKnight believes that capitalism has made us too wealthy and too free ... arguing that economic growth engenders a consumerist mentality which destroys *normal* human relationships, creates the desire for instant gratification, manipulates us in ways over which we have no control, gives us freedoms which are bad for us and so on ...” I agree - do Hamilton’s detractors, if not why not?

“Hamilton is of the view that pornography/erotica which depicts any form of sexual violence is clearly dangerous and likely to have negative social effects. He's very worried about porn which depicts things such as men ejaculating on women's faces, double penetration, male-female anal sex, bondage, rape scenes and so on.” I agree - do Hamilton’s detractors, if not why not?

“While he's correct when he says that market capitalism has a shallowness which leaves us with an *emptiness* and a desire for deeper, more meaningful lives ...” I agree - do Hamilton’s detractors, if not why not?

“ his (Hamilton’s) moralistic call for people to accept lower living standards and his (very serious) attempt to have the State step in to regulate various atavistic desires, is just reactionary.” I agree - do Hamilton’s detractors, if not why not?

I also agree that filtering is a cumbersome, if not dubious method of censorship.
______________

Little Brother
This topic is not about climate change, despite all your efforts (and plaudits from IanC) to make it so.

Kerry, I do apologise for assuming you had voted for ALP/Rudd government.

I can only offer the excuse I get so tired of hearing folks still bleat about JWH and the Coalition and the evils they nurtured, that I saw your article as yet more of the same.

I'm not for any type of censorship or husbandry of the internet, but I don't think this government cares because I see their motivation is not intellectual but populist.

rpg,

As far as I can recall mandatory net filtering was not put to the people at the last election, so why does it necesarily follow that we who voted for Labor (even if only on a two-party preferred basis) should quietly accept net filtering?

This illustrates what is wrong with our political institutions. Very rarely do important political decisions actually accord with public opinion. The obvious examples are "Work Choices", the privatisations of NSW's electricty and Telstra and now mandatory net filtering.

This is why we need more direct direct democracy so that our legislators can be forced to either withdraw such obviously stupid and unpopular laws or put them to popular plebiscites.

As appalling as net filtering is (not to mention quite a few other Federal Government initiatives I could also name) , I think the Rudd Government still has a long way to go before it will have stooped to the depths reached by the previous Howard Government.

Let's not forget the AWB scandal, the Iraq War, "Work Choices" which was not even put to the electors in 2004, the privatisation of Telstra etc, etc.

Steel

"Let me remind or warn people again of the example of Melinda Tankard Reist, publishing articles and hosting an Australian Women's forum, a self-described feminist with all the euphemistic phrases that earn numerous points amongst elite types who hang off their words like they are prophets (one feminist here on OLO described feminism as a Church) - ..."

I can't imagine a feminist on OLO ever describing feminism as a 'Church'. I once described it as a 'broad church', but that description has absolutely none of the religious connotations you imply here.

Could you please provide the quote you're referring to. If you can't, and it was in fact my reference to a 'broad church', I expect you to apologise for completely misrepresenting my words.

chandralekha

"Porn depicts males having an enjoyable time by dominating females and females pretending to have an enjoyable time by being dominated."

Well spoken. This is exactly why I detest porn and want its current uncontrolled proliferation curbed.

Pelican

"Being sensitive to the issues that Clive Hamilton raises is not the same as being prudish or a wowser as some might accuse."

Exactly. And it is not necessarily a reflection of religious values either, as is also often implied.

Censorship is always a blunt instrument and rarely achieves its aims cleanly. I'm not terribly hopeful that Clive's efforts to clean up the internet will succeed, but I applaud him for having a go.

chandralekha wrote:

"Yes and there is such a thing as normal - basically - consenting adults get together and have a mutually enjoyable time. This is normal. This is not what porn depicts. Porn depicts males having an enjoyable time by dominating females and females pretending to have an enjoyable time by being dominated."

Porn depicts domination. It also depicts consenting adults getting together and have a mutually enjoyable time. What makes it porn is the the emphasis on the description of sexual activity not domination. Domination of female by male is the theme in respectable literature. It mirrors the reality in our society. One can use the same argument to ban all fiction as some fiction depicts murder which is an illegal act.

If we ban porn because we don't like some of its themes then we should ban Mills & Boon as the book can give impressionable young females false ideas of romance and sexuality. I am against banning porn in any form except where the making of it involves using either minors or non-consenting individuals.

What can I say, Clive Hamilton and his ilk are pillocks. Their version of freedom of speech is that everyone is free to say what Clive likes.

Censoring the internet will not stop the paedophiles.Computers can now have direct communication without accessing the net.With encrypted codes the censors have no way of breaking or stopping the communicaton.

We should not let Govts or any other bodies have blanket powers to censor.If they can filter just the paedophiles,well and good.Who will watch the censors and keep them honest?

Thanks Kerry Miller. It is interesting to discover that your main intention for this article was to head butt Hamilton in the first paragraph. Hamilton may be the first public figure to lobby for Internet filtering of porn, however, he is certainly not the first public figure whose research unveils some worrying trends.

Meanwhile the usual “Get Clive” stormtroopers are here to take him out at the knees, – the topic of course, irrelevant.

And while there are many adults who cry “foul” when threatened with censorship of internet porn, the schoolies are giving each other head jobs with many teens unaware that oral sex can cause STDs.

A peer reviewed study from the journal CyberPyschology and Behaviour revealed that males aged between 12 and 17 who regularly viewed porn had sex at an earlier stage in their lives and were more likely to initiate oral sex, apparently imitating what they had watched.

A rise in rates of oral sex has been linked to an increase in numbers of tongue, mouth and throat cancers caused by the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2228388.0.internet_porn_encourages_teenagers_to_have_sex_early.php

An Australian survey revealed that 84% of 16 and 17 year old boys had been exposed to internet pornography and 60% of girls. 73% of boys and 11% of girls admitted to watching porn but then more girls these days are submissive to the sexual demands of boys, fearful of being left out of the loop.

Kath Albury, researching pornography at Sydney University early in 2003, believes the promotion of cunnilingus on the internet has meant many young men now see this activity as highly desirable.

Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said there had been a rise in sexual practices among teens, copied from internet pornography including group sex.

Meanwhile I ponder the naivety of those who believe the filtering of internet porn would censor freedom of speech. Are they not yet aware that freedom of speech and freedom of information has been suppressed and censored for decades, on issues of significant importance, to which the public are entitled?:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKSYD23097020071105?sp=true

http://www.huliq.com/44227/government-found-interfere-public-health-research

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92habitat.html

Dickie, that last link ... that is why I wish to remain anonymous on OLO. Another time, another place.

I read you Q&A. It's my trusty wooden leg again - for sure! Cheers.

Software already exists to enable citizens in uncensored countries to provide unfettered access to the Net through their home computers to friends and family members who live behind firewalls of states that censor, eg. http://psiphon.civisec.org/index.html

For us in Australia, it might be a good time to setup an account with an overseas friend.

This software has been developed to support the freedom of people in countries that don't have freedom. The same software can be used to search for the things that the Net Nannies don't want us to see. What do you do then? Do you criminalise software that has been developed for the benefit of the citizens of Iran, North Korea and China? Is blocking porn more important than basic freedoms?

There are other implications. Language translation sites provide loopholes, as does the Google cache, as does The WayBack Machine, a glorious effort to provide an internet archive. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of porn, censorship never ends with blocking the initial cause of complaint. The good, the bad and the ugly are all mixed up together and can't be neatly separated out. That is the underlying rationale of the success of the internet and WWW, the freedom to link from anything to anything.

As well as these partly technical considerations, it is not possible to draw the line between righteously well intentioned censorship and denial of important freedoms. That is because censorship is always about someone in authority telling other people what is good for them, a denial of freedom. Adult to adult not just adult to child; it morphs into some adults treating other adults like children because they make a moral judgment that those other adults can’t handle freedom. We have laws already to deal with law breakers. We don't need censorship as well

Dear Dickie,

Oral sex can spread disease. So can kissing, eating tainted food or doing many unhealthy things. That is not a reason to censor material showing oral sex, kissing or eating.

It is a reason to have education in hygienic practices including sex education showing the risks of disease.

Many years ago when I was a teenager my girlfriend and I found about all oral sex all by ourselves without a manual or guidebook. I'm sure teenagers today are as enterprising and adventurous.

Yes, Q&A, I can see how enviro scientists are struggling to get their scary stories in the media. Bollocks, to use your word. It is climate rationalists who are fighting censorship. And on denial, if someone tells me the aliens are invading tomorrow, am I in denial if I don't believe it and am not frightened? It is not denial to 'reality test' the source of one's fear.

dickie clearly has a profound fear of dirty germs and nasties, such that he has not explored the delights of cunnilingus. Touched your keyboard, dickie? Better go wash your hands again.

I liked this: "The yearning "for something more" is exactly the impulse that will one day lead people to want to step up, take responsibility and run things themselves."

I think one of the greatest gifts of the smart rationalists of previous generations who have fought for better health, wealth and freedom, is to give younger people the space to explore things for themselves. The first generation labours to give their children education, the educated work to give their children creativity. This brings its own challenges, but there exists a wisdom among the current generation who have been given the gift of freedom too explore and create and learn that material things can't ultimately fulfil - but that doesn't mean they should be taken for granted. It is not indulgent to seek to know thyself or explore and create, and it is a gift for those who keep the faith of their forefathers, instead of dissing the efforts of previous generations who fought for it.

I have actually read some well-argued cases for censorship (eg. Theodore Dalrymple) who believes broadly that creativity doesn't have to suffer through imposed limits. Nature imposes them anyway, eg the painter has to work within the limits of the height and breadth of her canvas, sculptors with the quality of their clay. Jerry Seinfeld avoids swearing (self-imposed censorship) as he believes it forces him to work harder and find the funnier joke. He is funnier than Rove. And if pushing the envelope is the measure of creativity, are we saying art is better now than, say, during the Renaissance. Bill Henson's certainly isn't, and the left fight for it. It is not a matter to be taken lightly but great artists understand the power of working within limits, and sometimes playing with them.
Simply smashing them just produces shallow spectacle and BS, which is what most porn is, and ultimately unsatisfying. But I am glad to have the freedom and responsibility to find this out for myself.

I see censorship (esp. of outdoor media) as a matter of negotiation and planning, like architecture, urban planning, our environment and other collective goods, as we don't have the freedom, which is often argued for other media, to simply "switch if off". Hey, just don't drive down that freeway! Or close your eyes! I find many ads offensive for reasons other than the sexual.

But censorship in our private lives is a different matter. Let the law prevail on child porn etc but free us from your missionary position.

Dickie,

All these studies run along the line:

those teens watching porn have sexual intimacy earlier etc.

It could also read

Sexually active teens are more likely to seek out porn.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Until I see a broad survey that isn't self fulfilling I will take it with a pinch of salt.

This is of course ignoring the fact that it won't work, and will stuff up the net for the 99.9% of people not doing anything illegal.

As with anything non-trivial this is a cost-benefit issue.
Prohibition/Censorship is too risky as the power *always* corrupts.
I can't believe we are seriouosly having this discussion in this day and age. The internet scares conservatives because freedom is for the select few: not the ignorant, unwashed masses.
There may well be some bad sides to porn, but these must be balanced against the imposition of a censorship elite.
The extremists cannot be allowed to gain illegal control over our lives in the name of "save the children!", nor "save your souls!"

pelican: "Hamilton's paper on the sexualisation of children has many valid points"

Perhaps pelican, but it has no relevance here. The paper you refer to was about the sexualisation of kids in the mainstream media - TV ads and the like. No one is (I hope) talking about filtering stuff that is currently allowed on the mainstream media. Unlike porn on the internet, the mainstream media is thrust down your throat - it's hard to avoid. Striking porn on the internet by accident is unusual, you have to actively seek it out. If accidentally coming across porn does worry you, install a filter on your PC at home. They are provided by the government, free of charge.

What Clive wants to stop is people who actively seek pornography on the Internet from seeing it. Seeing that sentiment expressed here is almost expected. But seeing it come from a Professor of Ethics at a major Australian University is a surprise. Porn has little correlation with sexual attacks on women. Most studies show a negative one - the more porn the safer women and kids are. Most posters here either don't know that, or more probably conveniently brush it aside. A Professor of Ethics must do neither of those things.

More seriously, Clive was recently on the panel of Radio National's "Australia Talks Back" show dealing with ISP filtering. Naturally, the expansion of the filter to euthanasia, anorexia and hate sites came up. Clive said he wasn't pro-censorship, and he would never support the censorship of anorexia and hate sites. So here is our Professor of Ethics actively seeking to have pictures of a healthy activity most of us will participate in for the bulk of our lives banned, while at the same supporting the rights of self mutilation and hate sites. If I were running Sturt Uni I'd dump him. He is bringing the entire field of Ethics into disrepute.

A number of you here have expressed dismay at finding porn on internet. You can find the free government filters here:
http://www.netalert.gov.au/
I trust you will install one pronto.

David f

Thank you so much for your illuminative insights and your assurance that one can engage in oral sex without a manual.

Once again, I must draw posters’ attention to Mr Fungochumley’s pitiful lack of perception. His two claims – one referring to me as a “he” and one that “he” has a phobia about germs are both fallacious. In fact, I expose myself to germs constantly. No doubt that could be a reason why I have such a sturdy immune system and I pay little attention to the state of my keyboard.

On the other hand, I would be reluctant to allow a porn freak, the use of my keyboard (or the monitor!) – particularly when their ambidextrous skills exceed the task of merely massaging keyboard letters!

It appears that the consensus here is not to filter pornography on the internet. Unfortunately, parents are not supervising their children’s internet viewing and few solutions have been offered to prevent young children from viewing pornographic material.

Rstuart. You state: “So here is our Professor of Ethics actively seeking to have pictures of a healthy activity most of us will participate in for the bulk of our lives banned.”

Do these “healthy” activities – the pictures to which you refer, include the myriad of bestial depictions of naked women shagging dogs, pigs, horses, donkeys, snakes and monkeys? Or the elderly author’s special recommendation of “men ejaculating on women's faces, double penetration, male-female anal sex, bondage, rape scenes and so on?”

These porn sites are provided by men for men which indicates to me that their private and personal sex lives are rather “limp.” Nevertheless, I guess internet porn provides some relief for the lonely, the depraved, the sexually incompetent and let's not forget the ugly - aye...that's for sure. And at least it keeps the kiddies occupied!

I don’t think referring to someone named dickie as a “he” shows a “pitiful lack of perception”, dickie. A tad harsh, even for your worship. A reasonable misapprehension, I would have thought, not a fallacy. Thank you for enlightening me about something. I, unlike you, am happy to recognize error (I simply mu-u-u-st draw posters’ attention to dickie’s recent Poynter and Gilling & Muscat commentary). I would share some of my similar thoughts on this issue with you, but as you are such a pestilent little nit, I couldn’t be stuffed.

Dickie,

You appear to have an inordinate knowledge of what is available. I take it comes from many hours of "research", as I have seldom seen most of what you describe and never seen some other items like bestiallity.

As with most things you will find most things if you look for it as you will in the city. Most of us choose to refrain. You should try it.

dickie: 'Do these “healthy” activities – the pictures to which you refer, include the myriad of bestial depictions of naked women shagging dogs, ...'

Well since you ask - yes they do, at least in the sense that the participants aren't likely to be physically hurt or get sick, nor are they likely to go out and harm anyone else. This is my definition of unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I like you think there are more productive outlets for libido. But that's no reason to ban it.

My issue is, when it comes to girls shagging dogs versus hate sites apparently our Professor of Ethics ranks the porn as worse than hate. So lets do a thought experiment. Lets say after seeing images of people shagging dogs, every girl on the planet immediately felt the urge to race out and do the same thing. What would we end up with? Confused but happy dogs and a lot of startled husbands I expect. Now lets do the same thing - but with hate sites. We would end up with a lot of people shrieking abuse at each other, bashings ...

You are probably having trouble getting past your personal feelings on pictures of shagging in general dickie, but the logic is pretty clear. While I don't really hope up much hope of you going where the logic points, I have much, much higher expectations of a Professor of Ethics.

Our professor would also be aware that in the western world, or at least the part of the world connected to the internet has been deluged with images with girls shagging dogs over the past decade. Yet I am not aware of a single newspaper headline along the lines of "Naked teenage girls caught in dorm with randy dogs". However where I see people espousing extreme views on jihad, race and so on do attract some adherents, I also see news headlines of bombs, death and destruction. I am hoping even someone like you dickie can appreciate the difference between that and shagging the odd beastie.

Dear rstuart

Your vacuous hate site red herring has no relevance to the issue I have raised – pre-pubescent and pubescent children’s exposure to graphic and pernicious pornography.

Hate sites are of less concern to the discerning since children do not have a propensity to hate. Their sexual urges are paramount where they are at their most vulnerable.

Nevertheless, those who forget the past are liable to repeat it. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that racial tensions have always been part of Australian society and have always been resolved.

Do you know anything about the race riots on the WA goldfields in the 20s? What about the 40s rstuart when we had to “endure” an influx of new Australians after WW11? So how did we Aussies refer to them? “Dings, wogs and garlic munchers” eh? And what about the “slanty eyes” – the “yellow plague?” Oh my god!

Of course that had no influence on who we children chose to have as best friends at school. In fact my buddies were “dings, wogs and garlic munchers” with whom I broke bread and whose gracious parents offered me the occasional thimble full of grappa.

So now the “towel heads” must endure a similar treatment. The Aussies who know no better deny the realities, that perhaps all suicide bombers are Muslim but not all Muslims are suicide bombers.

Children appear to have a heightened perception of this fact and I am pleased to say that among my grandies’ little mates is a “league of nations.” These children are our future rstuart - not an ageing dung heap of denialists and "free" market racketeers!

In regard to pornographic internet material rstuart, frankly I simply cannot imagine my grandchildren at 12 or so, sitting on the face of some callow youth or a pubescent, seductive nymph - youths and nymphs who have been significantly influenced by free access to a bombardment of pornographic websites - websites established by malignant predatory wan**kers who have descended into an unconscionable depth of depravity!

Dickie has effectively argued that our right to express opinions is not under threat because it has already been taken away:

"Are they not yet aware that freedom of speech and freedom of information has been suppressed and censored for decades ... ?"

This ignores the fact that a good many people, who have opinions of which our governments disapprove, do have the right to express those views.

I believe that one of the reasons we aren't yet living in a fascist dictatorship is that we still have the right to free speech as limited as it is.

Let's not allow this to be taken away from us by kidding ourselves that it already has.

(As I recall the German Communist Party employed a similar rationale to justify not treating seriously the Nazi threat in the 1930's. The situation was said to be so bad under the rule of the pro-capitalist German Government that surely the Nazis seizing power could not have made the situation any worse, could it?)

The best way to stop this assault on free speech is to attend protest rallies on Saturday 13 December:

http://wearechange.org.au/

Melbourne:
12pm-5pm
State Library
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931

Brisbane:
11am-3pm
Brisbane Square
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601

Sydney:
11am-4pm
Town Hall
Check http://www.nocensorship.info forums for Sydney updates

Adelaide:
12pm - 4pm
Parliament
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39343300875

Hobart:
11am - 1.30pm
Parliament Lawns
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995

---

Again, for the record, I don't count myself amongst "the usual 'Get Clive' stormtroopers".

As I wrote earlier, I think that Clive Hamilton has a lot of worthwhile ideas to offer, but his support for mandatory net filtering is reckless and dangerous and, moreover, are in contradiction with what he, himself wrote, in "Silencing Dissent".

Also, again, I do think this society has become over-sexualised as Clive Hamilton has correctly pointed out, but I also believe that all adults, including (and, perhaps, especially) "the lonely, the depraved, the sexually incompetent and ... the ugly" should have a right to view legal explicit sexual material in the privacy of their own homes.

I find it interesting that there is such moral outrage about censorhsip of this sort (we are not talking political censorship)ie. child pornography (which is illegal) and hardcore porn.

Yet no moral outrage about how easy it is for children to access this sort of information. I hate to break it to you but downloaded Net filters are not 100% as many who work in schools will tell you.

It is amazing to see that those who are insecure about their own positions on this are becoming unecessarily discourteous towards those who might offer a different opinion.

The comments made towards dickie are unbelievably rude and out of order.

There are plenty of arguments one can use against censorship without reverting to the lowest common denominator style of attack.

Why not find win-win solutions rather than just ignoring the other side of the debate.

Why not two streams via your ISP so subscribers can choose the filtered version or the unfiltered? Excluding illegal sites on both of course.

That way families are not always the bottom of the priority pile on both sides of governments and there is some choice.

rstuart

You are of course quite right my earlier post defending Clive was, while related, not really in context in this issue.

I am a big fan of Clive's and from reading his books believe him to be a well-intentioned and altruistic person who looks at the world from a different view, not being afraid to challenge accepted norms.

Anyway as I said I am a big fan and look forward to his new book in which he talks about the Freedom Paradox.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=3&newsstoryid=2496
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php

Dear Pelican,

I think exposure to crime and other shows which are based on violence is quite harmful to children and possibly to adults. A child can be subjected to watching a horrendous number of murders and other crimes of violence.

We are all products of a sex act. I don't see anything wrong in showing it. I question whether it hurts children to see the sex act depicted. Farm children are quite acquainted with sex seeing the various farm animals engaged in it. It may even be their task to help in the process. When accommodations were more cramped children were quite aware of their parents' sexual activities.

I think the preoccupation with sex is sick. Perhaps the stupid and wrong statement attributed to Jesus (equating committing adultery with merely thinking about it) has something to do with it.

I can see a case for restricting depictions of violence. I can see no case for restricting the depiction of a loving sexual connection to any viewer.

To understand where Kerry Miller is coming from, it is worthwhile looking at her blog site:

http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/

David Jackmanson (Kezza’s colleague) published on OLO last week. His article is also worth reading:

http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=153

daggett
“Again, for the record, I don't count myself amongst "the usual 'Get Clive' stormtroopers".

That’s fine, but he is being used as a pawn in wedge politics (the plot thickens).

__________

To understand where Hamilton is coming from, I think his book “The Freedom Paradox” (look at the PDF extract) is also worth a read:

http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781741755077

Here is a link to Hamilton’s university site:

http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/clive-hamilton.htm

Are any OLO posters going to contact him for his views?

__________

rstuart
You say he (Hamilton) “apparently ranks porn as worse than hate” – I haven’t been able to track down where he has said that. Can you point to a link?

Kerry’s article does bring out varied emotions. One thing is sure, what Stephen Conroy is proposing does need to be nipped in the bud.

Kezza
The type of ‘censorship’ proposed is, for want of a better word, obscene. However, there are more fundamental issues that Clive Hamilton addresses (in his latest book for example). These issues are separate to what you raise and are understandably misinterpreted here. I think it was wrong to *use* him in this way, although I understand why you did.

Davidf writes

'I can see no case for restricting the depiction of a loving sexual connection to any viewer.'

With views like this it is no wonder we have brothers under the age of 10 raping their sisters. You are one sick cookie.

Runner wrote:

"Davidf writes

'I can see no case for restricting the depiction of a loving sexual connection to any viewer.'

With views like this it is no wonder we have brothers under the age of 10 raping their sisters. You are one sick cookie."

Dear Runner,

I am not sick enough to transform a loving sexual connection into rape. That apparently takes someone like you. Sex is not evil, and the depiction of it is evil only to perverted minds. Were you found under a cabbage leaf?

It is a sick religion which has a humanoid god born without benefit of sexual intercourse and makes sex dirty.

Q&A: "Can you point to a link [to where he said that]?"

I described what he said and where in my first post in this topic. "Australia Talks" doesn't do transcripts. Start listening to the audio at the 35 minute mark. Beware ABC removes the audio at the end of the month.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/current/audioonly/ats_20081118.mp3

pelican: "Yet no moral outrage about how easy it is for children [to access porn]"

David f has already given one good answer, but there is another explanation. We don't have the same morals, and your question implicitly assumes we do. David's morals are different to yours, and mine are different again. So at this point the question becomes: whose morals prevail, yours, David's, or mine?

There is no easy answer to that question, and I am not going to attempt one here. However, when I puzzle over these things I have always had a guiding principle dancing fuzzily around in the back of my mind. A few months ago I was startled to see a quote from John Stuart Mill which summed it up very elegantly. He said:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

To convince me the proposed laws are needed you would have to show porn does indeed harm children. From the data I have seen so far the most plausible interpretation is porn reduces attacks on women and children. You have links with data?

pelican: "downloaded Net filters are not 100%"

Sadly the same is true for the ISP filters, otherwise much of this argument would go away. The way you by-pass them is different, but I think easier.

pelican: "Why not two streams via your ISP so subscribers can choose the filtered version or the unfiltered?"

Conroy has always said the filters will be "opt out". This ruckus started when he revealed this meant you could "opt out" of the child filters, but there would still be a filter for "unwanted material" in place.

FREEDOM & DISSENT
The Hamilton Paradox

rstuart

Thanks for the link to Australia Talks.

Hamilton said he was opposed (to internet access) to “extreme and violent pornography”.

This is not the same as saying he was opposed to “pictures of a healthy activity most of us will participate in for the bulk of our lives (being) banned.”

If you were ‘running Sturt Uni, you would dump him ... because he is bringing the entire field of ethics into disrepute.’ This sounds more like a criticism of the University for appointing him in the first place - why would they do that?

I appreciate your views on this and similar OLO articles, but I feel you (and others) are misinterpreting (or taking out of context) what Hamilton is saying. Besides, he is not the issue here, although Kezza and the ‘stormtroopers’ seem not to mind - as Fungochumley clearly demonstrate.

I've caught myself considering the thought before that universities, or media news, appear to be appointing more and more dubiously qualified social 'researchers/psychologists' and media commentators, who always seem to have this predisposition or attraction to making government control people more and more. Where does this need come from? Why do people feel the *need* to keep bitching like the tabloids about sexual 'immorality' and sexualisation (which is a complete hoax).

It's almost as if...people like Clive Hamilton feel spurned that they have been deprived of opportunities and the freedoms and open-mindedness of youth and younger generations (notwithstanding exceptions).....that they have such boring unfulfilled lives that they have become depressed and envious, or plain ignorant of other lifestyles (sexual or otherwise) and generations.

What they consider extreme is usually normal to any open, free minded person, or any European/American. I have heard somewhere before, that it is a criminal offence for the people of Singapore to have oral sex. Now, Clive Hamilton obviously wants to take Australia down this puritanical pathway, rather than becoming as free as Europe and America. We are not only failing to keep up with these places, we are becoming pinchy-lipped, mean-minded horrible people.

Thanks for your support Pelican and your suggestions. It’s refreshing to find someone who is addressing the issue and is not a member of the “I, me, myself” brigade.

Rstuart. You claim “from the data I have seen so far the most plausible interpretation is porn reduces attacks on women and children. Porn has little correlation with sexual attacks on women. Most studies show a negative one - the more porn the safer women and kids are. Most posters here either don't know that, or more probably conveniently brush it aside yet provide no links to that data.”

I do believe it is you who is brushing aside the data which states the opposite and since you fail to provide the data to which you refer, I’m tempted to suggest that first, “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.”

Nevertheless, the following links I offer for your perusal - links which suggest that viewing porn in fact increases the number of sexual assaults. In addition, while crime rates are generally down in Australia, sex attacks on men, women and children have increased significantly.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-6.htm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-127347758.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/07/1159641569552.html?page=fullpage

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/child-sex-crime-skyrockets/2008/06/24/1214073209189.html

Allow me to state that I do not have any religious convictions – I’m an atheist. Furthermore, I should hope that I am not left, not right but forward.

I’m astounded to learn that Davidf’s warped view sees hard porn as a “depiction of a loving sexual connection” and he believes there is nothing wrong in “showing it” to children. While sex education is vital for young children, I fail to see why they would need to witness their parents copulating.

In fact I've just visualised my little darlings when it was their turn to tell the news at school:

"Good morning Miss Jones, boys and girls. My news today is I watched Mommy and Daddy having sex last night and Daddy put his .........and Mommy was making funny noises and Daddy was grunting and ahhhhh..ummmm and errrr...............!!

With that I rest my case!

dickie: "In addition, while crime rates are generally down in Australia, sex attacks on men, women and children have increased significantly."

I have seen your posts elsewhere dickie. You know what hard data is. Newspaper articles don't cut it. Try ABS statistics, with comments from the statisticians on what might of influenced the data. It appears from Hetty Johnson's comments in one of the articles the way the data is recorded has changed. Secondly, none of them demonstrate a correlation between viewing porn and sex attacks, let alone causation!

For what it worth I did go looking for such evidence - to the extent of emailing PhD Psych's that inhabit a few email lists on the planet for it. They did better than you. They had hard evidence showing correlation. There is no doubt that people who commit violent sex attacks love porn depicting the same thing, and the worse they are the more they like it. So not only is there correlation - it's a strong correlation. However, it doesn't tell us whether the urge for violence drives the liking for porn, or the porn drives the urge for violence or there is another common underlying factor.

Finding data demonstrating the cause behind the correlation is much harder. I almost gave up. It is to believe what I and apparently most here instinctively assume - that seeing a picture makes people want to do what is in the picture, although in hindsight that obviously isn't always the case. The wikipedia article on porn hints otherwise, so I persisted. In the end, papers like these is all I could find:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

Embarrassingly, once you get the search terms right it isn't hard to turn up many studies like this. There are a couple of outliners, but overwhelmingly the picture painted by the above two links is the one you see. If you have links to studies of similar weight that show the opposite effect I would very much like to see them.

I've got to say legally available porn is unlikely to turn people into depraved sex monsters, but it is likely to turn them into, well, wa**ers with limited understanding of real loving sex. Most hardcore porn does not depict mutually pleasurable sex - it promotes male domination and sexual pleasure over any other form of sexual expression. The vast majority of the female actresses are faking it because VERY FEW females are capable of deriving sexual pleasure from anal sex or giving oral sex or having their face being ejaculated on.

You must admit its extremely sad that young women are willing to engage in these acts (some of which must be painful, humiliating as well as physically and emotionally damaging) and fake pleasure all for a bit of attention and/or money. What low self-esteem.

Adolescent boys who are exposed to porn as their main sexual education (and it is increasingly becoming so) are unlikely to become interested in their partner's pleasure - or even aware that their partner's pleasure is as important and as strong as their own. They are likely to view girls as objects that must be cajoled or bribed to serve a narrow range of sexual acts - not humans with desires and pleasure of their own.

The vast majority of porn is selfish and anti-love and sad and limiting of human sexual possibility. Its here to stay though. So, whatever you do make sure that your children get a reasonable sex education that stresses the importance of love and mutual respect and keep them away from internet access while they are alone. If they do view it out of curiosity tell them how exploitative it is (of the women involved and of the viewer themself) and that real sex can be so much more meaningful and pleasurable than this travesty.

chandralekha wrote, "The vast majority of the female actresses are faking it because VERY FEW females are capable of deriving sexual pleasure from anal sex or giving oral sex or having their face being ejaculated on."

I expect that the above statement would prove to be true in part, but but one female who would not entirely agree with the above statement would be US self-proclaimed lesbian Tristan Taormino (see http://www.puckerup.com/).

I think we should not be judgemental about sexual practices (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that are not considered mainstream, as long as they occur in private between consenting adults and no harm is done to anyone else.

Obviously, the definition of 'consent' is vexed given the desperate economic circumstances of many (but not all) women who act in pornographic movies, thanks to globalised 'free market' capitalism, but let's address the causes rather than the symptoms.

No doubt, free market ideologues, such as Peter Saunders (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=176) of the CIS, who advocates taking away unemployment benefits after six months, regardless of circumstances, would see no problem with women being forced to support themselves by acting in pornographic movies or prostitution as a result.

In the latter case, it is a fact that there are Australian women do support themselves through prostitution as a result of the already harsh punitive social welfare regime and the prohibitive rises in the cost of living, in particular, rent.

I found it hard to see how giving the federal Government a blank cheque the right to censor any material deemed "unwanted", in addition to explicit sexual material, will help us to fix the problems which drive women into the porn industry, prostitution and many other degrading livelihoods.

Can't believe people in this thread. The stuff you come out with is like, 3-5 decades old reasoning. Literally. Get out more. Read more ffs. You are absolutely nuts.

Rstuart.

Please reflect on your previous claims:

1. “ Porn has little correlation with sexual attacks on women. Most studies show a negative one - the more porn the safer women and kids are”. 26/11

2. “ From the data I have seen so far the most plausible interpretation is porn reduces attacks on women and children. You have links with data?” 27/11

Do not worry about Pelican’s links Rstuart. WHERE IS THE DATA YOU HAVE SEEN?

So what is it Rstuart? You have seen the data? You have not seen the data? You made it up?

Then:

“They did better than you. They had hard evidence showing correlation.” Eh……..wot?

“However, it doesn't tell us whether the urge for violence drives the liking for porn, or the porn drives the urge for violence or there is another common underlying factor.” Oh yeah…..right! Very important - I daresay.

So then you dredge up "data" from a report on the sexual habits of the Japanese - published last century with citations reverting to the 70s.

The other "data" was published by the Dept of Economics at Stanford. Competing interests? Please name Rstuart?

Meanwhile, you ask me to provide ABS data but where are YOUR ABS figures? Or could it be that the ABS have no data for the potential correlation between porn and sexual violence?

“Newspaper articles don't cut it.” Of course not - lies, damn lies and shonky statistics, unless the statistics in the articles suit your agenda Rstuart:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/20/goldsmith.pdf

"(Both numbers and victimisation rates of sexual assault in recorded crime statistics in Australia have increased in recent years. The overall recorded victimisation prevalence rates have risen by about one-third in ten years, from 0.07% (69.0 per 100,000 persons)in 1993 to 0.09% (91.7 per 100,000) in 2003.)" ABS

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4/$File/45230_2004.pdf

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/ (NT and ACT assaults not included.)

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/victims.html

Sorry Rstuart. I have more to do now then getting my head around the jiggling of your puppets through a maze of contradiction and obfuscation!

And besides, you're not very good at it!

You, on the other hand, dickie, are very good at it.

Dickie wrote:
“Nevertheless, the following links I offer for your perusal - links which suggest that viewing porn in fact increases the number of sexual assaults. In addition, while crime rates are generally down in Australia, sex attacks on men, women and children have increased significantly.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-6.htm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-127347758.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/07/1159641569552.html?page=fullpage

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/child-sex-crime-skyrockets/2008/06/24/1214073209189.html”

I took a look at the four sites Dickie mentioned:
The first stated:
“More specifically, the research, … shows a causal relationship between exposure to material of this type and aggressive behavior towards women.”

There are flaws in the above. The particular studies are not cited, and there is no control group of non-sexual violence. I contend that exposure to scenes of violence whether they are sexual or not increases the likelihood of the viewer practicing violence. I am most concerned with exposure to scenes of violence.

The second site mentioned frequent sex assaults in the schools but was flawed in two ways. It did not compare the frequency with the past and did not connect the assaults with viewing porn.

The third site mentioned porn addiction. However, it did not connect porn addiction with violent behaviour.

The fourth site contained the following:

An Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) report released yesterday found that the overall number of sexual assaults had increased by 20 per cent …, but said it could be due to an increase in the reporting of assaults, rather than an actual increase of the crime.

None of the sites mentioned contained any evidence definitely connecting sexual violence with the viewing of porn.

Dickie wrote:

“I’m astounded to learn that Davidf’s warped view sees hard porn as a “depiction of a loving sexual connection” and he believes there is nothing wrong in “showing it” to children.”

All hard porn does not depict a loving sexual connection but some does. However, I think seeing a violent cop show on TV does more damage to children than seeing a loving heterosexual act which probably does absolutely no damage.

Disagreeing with you does not justify you calling me ‘warped’. Let’s not call names. Is one forbidden to disagree with you?

dagget wrote:
"As far as I can recall mandatory net filtering was not put to the people at the last election, so why does it necesarily follow that we who voted for Labor (even if only on a two-party preferred basis) should quietly accept net filtering?"

I wasn't aware of this either but I just read an article that states that:
"In the run up to the last Federal election, just a few days before the poll, the ultimately victorious Australian Labor Party released a ‘Cyber-safety Policy’. Internet censorship via ISP-level ‘filtering’ was featured in the policy. The exact words were: “A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”"
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

The whole article (longish) by Syd Walker is worth a read. He is basically attempting to have an adult conversation with Clive Hamilton along the lines of - how dare you attempt to censure what I read, as an adult. He also floats the idea that there may be an ulterior motif, that our security services may want the ability to control what we read and this advances that cause. He also addresses the arguments that Clive uses directly and this might help satisfy some of the other complaints in this thread.

Something else I discovered from the Liberal Party press release (Nick Minchin). Apparently the ALP plans to discontinue the provision of Australians with free pc-based filters at the end of 2008
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/libs-shoot-down-filtering-plan-misguided-and-deeply-unpopular/

Greens and Liberals are opposed to mandatory ISP filtering. By my reading this does add up to the ALP being worse than the alternative mainstream parties, at least on this issue.

dickie, thanks for the links.

I presume they are meant to show sexual assaults rates are rising. The second two do, but the figures are given without comment. The first does supply the needed details, but shows if anything a drop since 1996. None mention porn at all, let investigate a correlation to it. I presume the links dealing with correlation and cause are coming?

dickie: "WHERE IS THE DATA YOU HAVE SEEN?"

If you have a problem with the data the reports used, look at the citations at the end. You have seen scientific papers before - yes? Good. You know how it works.

dickie: "you dredge up "data" from ... of the Japanese ... reverting to the 70s"

And a recent study on Internet and porn in the US. Both are relevant as human nature doesn't change quickly.

Q&A: 'Hamilton said he was opposed ... to “extreme and violent pornography”'

He wasn't always that explicit during the interview. But now I think about it, regardless of what he said in the heat of the interview he has repeatedly said at other times he only wants to filter only stuff that is banned now. My point is really that speech directly inciting self mutilation, hate and violence takes obvious precedence over titillation, even "extreme titillation". Of course porn that directly incites those other things fall into their category. He is reversing the two. The only charitable explanation I can think of is he is trying to make it politically palatable.

chandralekha: "turn them into, well, wa**ers"

All sexually active males are enthusiastic and regular wa**ers. Physiologically, it keeps their sperm fresh and reduces prostrate problems in later life. Just as periods aren't voluntary for females, regular ejaculation isn't voluntary for males. I doubt the availability of porn effects it too much.

chandralekha: "Adolescent boys who are exposed to porn ... are unlikely to become interested in their partner's pleasure"

Ya gotta be kidding me! Does that mean people who are exposed to horse racing are unlikely to anything other than whip a horse when they first meet one?

Dickie is so worried about what might happen that he is prepared to strangle everything.

It is like being so worried about car crashes that a speed limit of 10kmph is imposed.

Both would be ridiculous and impractical.

Thanks billkerr for that link to http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

Whilst I would take issue with one or two secondary points raised in that article, it is excellent and urge everyone to read it in spite of its length. Some of it bears repeating here:

"If obscenity is the issue, can we discuss real obscenity?

"How about illegal wars, based on lies, wars in our own times, that this country participates in and/or supports?

"These are wars in which innocent people – many, many people including many, many children – have been and continue to be killed, maimed, suffer poverty and disease, all as a direct consequence of armed assaults by Australia’s ‘allies’.

"These appalling and entirely avoidable obscenities don’t seem to bother you much, Clive, judging by your website (http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/). Yet you’re shocked about pornography on home computers.

"For what it’s worth, I think you have your priorities backwards. I think they are seriously screwed up.

"Would you agree that if ‘hate speech’ has any meaning at all, it is ‘hate speech’ to promote illegal wars based on lies?

"If so, why aren’t you concerned about the proliferation of such ‘hate speech’ in the mainstream media, every time there’s another war in the offing in the middle east?

"If not, why not?"

Thanks dagget for joining me in recommending the reading of http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

Some people here have been critical of the focus on Clive Hamilton. Q&A described it as "attacking the messenger", dickie saw it as an unfair head butt of Clive, Steel said the problem was not Clive but religious lobbyists

I think Syd Walker's article responds to those views.

Firstly by pointing out that the Minister (Conroy) is pretty much incompetent and relied on Clive to put the secular argument for censorship on "Australian Talks", ABC Radio Talkback. If you think I'm being unfair on Conroy then check out the letters by Mark Newton on the EFA site (download the pdfs) which demonstrate beyond question his incompetence:
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/11/19/filtering-followup-to-newton-letter/

Religious lobbyists will mainly appeal to religious people. The pro-censorship camp needs a secular advocate. Given the incompetence of the Minister that person is Clive, along with his co-author Michael Flood

Syd Walker repeats Clive's most persuasive arguments and responds effectively to them

davidf

We are not on the same page in reference to children viewing sexually loving relationships or farm animals having sex. I have no problem with sex.

I am talking about the worst case scenarios - violent porn, rape porn, child porn. As a parent I would rather my children not be exposed to this at all, but if so at an appropriate adult age. At the moment I have no control over this other than within my own home (to some extent) but have not control over what is going on in another home they might visit in this era of latch key kids.

rstuart
You probably know more than I do about the technicalities or feasibility of streaming one filtered and one unfiltered option via an ISP. But even it the filter is not perfect it does reduce the risk. This way at least it maintains choice.

At the outset, I am against internet filtering - as proposed by Senator Conroy.

However, I think it is a logical fallacy (or a case of ‘ignoratio elenchi’) that Kerry Miller and others deliberately attempt to change the subject or divert attention.

Miller (and some others) presents an argument against internet filtering that may in itself be valid, but I don’t think her, some posters, or even Syd Walker, address the real issues raised by Hamilton.

Debate any issues you like: pornography, hate, illegal wars, sex, cruelty, obscenity, poverty, health/disease, religion, politics, anorexia, diabetes, euthanasia, GM, nanotechnology, add your own – they are all ethical issues ... but they are red herrings nonetheless, particularly when semantics and definitions confuse the issues, or the issues themselves are taken out of context.

Without question, some people have neither the capacity nor ability to look after themselves, or indeed others in their care ... and even less capacity for those not on their care. Still, others couldn’t give a toss about their neighbours or other members of their society. What we do and how we behave has its consequences. Are we happy in the direction our society is going? Some would say no.

What Hamilton is doing is challenging all of us who live in a modern, democratic society ... to question our own actions and beliefs. Freedom does carry with it a measure of responsibility, anarchy doesn’t.

Q&A wrote:

"What Hamilton is doing is challenging all of us who live in a modern, democratic society ... to question our own actions and beliefs. Freedom does carry with it a measure of responsibility, anarchy doesn’t."

Anarchy carries a considerable responsibility. Anarchy means without government. Without the big daddy of government to keep us in line we are responsible for our own acts.

Just as atheists behave morally without big daddy God watching anarchists can be quite responsible without big daddy government watching. Some responsible anarchists are Henry Thoreau who went to jail rather than pay taxes to support what the considered an unjust war, Albert Camus who criticised Stalin when other members of the French left were silent, the many anarchists such as George Orwell who went to Spain to fight the fascists and Leo Tolstoy, a Russian Nobleman, who turned over profits from his writing to help persecuted Jews in Russia.

One motivation to becoming an anarchist is concern for humanity oppressed by government.

One can act responsibly through fear of punishment or an inner feeling that one should do the right thing.

In Brisbane there are three groups of anarchists: anarchosyndicalists who are concerned for the rights of the working man, humanist anarchists whose concerns stems from the consciousness of the abuses of religion and Catholic anarchists in Dorothy Day House who take seriously the words of Jesus regarding peace and turning the other cheek. The Catholic anarchists oppose militarism and have gone to jail as a penalty for their protests.

Watch out! There may be an anarchist acting responsibly near you!

david f proves Hamilton's (and my) point ... the plot thickens even more.

Q&A:
"Without question, some people have neither the capacity nor ability to look after themselves, or indeed others in their care ... and even less capacity for those not on their care"

Syd Walker cites Clive's main argument as:

“What’s so special about the internet? All but the most unthinking libertarians accept censorship laws that limit sexual content in film, television, radio, books and magazines. Yet the hysterical response from the internet industry and libertarian commentators to the Government’s proposal to require ISPs to filter heavy-duty porn shows how the internet has become fetishised.”

Syd's response is along these lines:

The world wide web is without precedent. The analogy with most other media does not hold up. If you are going to make an analogy then the best one would be the postal service. Censoring the WWW is more like censoring a public mail service. Big Media is controlled by a handful of people. The web is grassroots information liberation. Any censorship means that some of the vast array of web pigeon holes may be blocked without us knowing what is being blocked. This directly threatens the most significant information liberation experiment in the history of humans.

Also Syd's section about the impossibility of defining a hate site is very good - not as an exposure of Clive's position (CH does not support censorship of such sites) but as an exposure of Clive's thinking (for unthinkingly suggesting that such a category is definable)

The core issue is this: Do we dare to be free? Being free does mean being exposed to unsavoury things. Do we as adults want some other adults to protect us from those unsavoury things, without even full knowledge of what they are.

If another adult is going to protect me from unsavoury things then I want to know why that adult feels that he or she is superior to me? Why does that adult feel that he/she can handle freedom but I can't?

Q&A, I think you owe it to us to explain a little further why david f has "prove(n) ... (your) point", that is, unless you are trying to imply that simply because that david f has defended the political philosophy known as 'anarchy' that he is necessarily a ratbag with no credibility.

Personally I am not an anarchist, but I respect many who are (and hope they respect me). (I didn't realise that Orwell was an anarchist, BTW. I thought he was a socialist of sorts. Whatever, it would be interesting to ponder what Orwell would have to say about Clive Hamilton and mandatory Internet filtering, if he were around today.)

---

Q&A wrote, "What Hamilton is doing is challenging all of us who live in a modern, democratic society ... to question our own actions and beliefs."

No, he's not.

For reasons know only to himself, he is abusing the trust that many, like myself, had placed in him in order to sell, on behalf of secretive, unconscionable, powerful vested interests, measures that would effectively take free speech away from ordinary people.

---

Q&A wrote "At the outset, I am against internet filtering - as proposed by Senator Conroy."

If this outrage is to be stopped, we will need to adopt an attitude that is a little more than just an apparently academic and philosophical objection to it.

We need to be bloody angry, and particularly angry with people like Clive Hamilton who seem, as Syd Walker pointed out (http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/), to be far more bothered by images of one form of alleged 'obscenity' being viewed by adults in the privacy of their own homes than by real and ongoing obscenities of hundreds of thousands of people having been killed and maimed since at least 1990 on the basis of such lies as the 'incubator babies', the official US Government Conspiracy Theory (see http://www.911oz.com ) and Iraqi WMD's.

So, again, I urge everyone who values free speech and democracy to attend those rallies against mandatory Internet Filtering on Saturday 13 December (see again, http://wearechange.org.au for further details).

When a person openly refuses to obey a law on the grounds that the law is unjust that person is committing an act of anarchy.

Henry Thoreau wrote his "Essay on Civil Disobedience" after reflecting on the meaning of his being put in jail for refusing to pay a tax to support the Mexican War which he thought was unjust.

Thoreau influenced Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. King led people in refusing to obey the unjust laws requiring segregation of people by race, and Gandhi led people in refusing to pay the Salt Tax required by the British occupiers of his country.

George Orwell fought in the P.OU.M., a Spanish anarchist group, and was wounded fighting against the fascists, His book, "Homage to Catalonia", tells the story.

Q&A's original post contrasted anarchy and freedom. Anarchy is the utmost freedom on the other end of the scale from totalitarianism. I fail to see how I made her or his point.

The solution to the problem of children accessing pornography, without giving unlimited powers to the Government to secretly censor the Internet may, in fact, lie in Clive Hamilton's own works.

I recall that in "Growth Fetish" he wrote that we simply need to slow down the pace of work. Perhaps we could even return to having only one wage earner per household as was the case until the 1970's.

As it was possible to support ourselves in this way once before it should be possible to do so again.

Of course our ability to buy and consume material items (manufactured by destroying humankind's endowment of natural capital) would be reduced, but given the extra time we would have to spend with each other and with our children, our quality of live would surely dramatically improve.

As parents would be around their children a lot more, it would be far easier to supervise children and prevent them from seeing unsuitable material including porn. This could be complemented by Internet filters installed at home.

If this were done, there would simply be no need to give governments the vast additional powers that mandatory net filtering would provide.

---

david f,

I think you will find that the P.O.U.M., of which George Orwell was a member, was, in fact, socialist and not anarchist. The English translation of its name is Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Marxist_Unification).

The P.O.U.M. did, in fact, defend the anarchists when they were suppressed by the Communist Party dominated Republican Government in May 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days) but they were not themselves anarchists. After the anarchists were suppressed, Andreu Nin the leader of the P.O.U.M themselves was arrested and executed.

George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/books/homagetocatalonia.htm http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html) includes an excellent narrative of these events.

Also, if you read George Orwell's somewhat critical "Reflections On Gandhi" (http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell) it seems clear that neither Orwell nor Gandhi were anarchists in the true sense:

"Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed (Gandhi) for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines."

daggett

"The solution to the problem of children accessing pornography, without giving unlimited powers to the Government to secretly censor the Internet may, in fact, lie in Clive Hamilton's own works. I recall that in "Growth Fetish" he wrote that we simply need to slow down the pace of work. Perhaps we could even return to having only one wage earner per household as was the case until the 1970's."

While the prospect of internet censorship doesn't concern me as much as it does you, I agree with your thinking that a winding back of the ratrace that is our current mode of living would indeed be the ideal solution to this and many other of society's problems.

It seems a long way off at the moment, but the momentum of climate change, over-population, peak oil, resource depletion and mental illness will I think eventually converge to force us into settling for a much simpler and saner way of living. It would be nice to think that the recent bursting of the Wall Street bubble, and the ongoing ramifications rippling throughout economies around the world, will prompt many to start reassessing their priorities in life.

In the meantime, I still think we need to halt the rampant proliferation of any pornography which is exploitative of either animals, children or women (which wouldn't leave much!) I have yet to see a compelling argument anywhere as to the benefit this type of pornography has for society.

This debate seems to divide largely along gender lines. It often seems that the fiercest defenders of the right to access pornography are men. I would suggest there is a much smaller number of females agitating on this issue.

I see some merit in Pelican's suggestion of a two-tiered internet system, and being able to choose either the protected or unprotected version. But personally, that doesn't go far enough for me. The rights of women, children and animals will always, in my view, be compromised while ever this pernicious and degrading pornography proliferates and influences the minds and attitudes of boys and men.

Just because others live sheltered, hollow lives doesn't mean anyone should. As I said, many people simply need to admit they do, and stop imposing their faux morality on others, because they are so frigid and close-minded on the issue (could be a sign of age(old) or religion(christianity/islam/feminism) beliefs, doesn't really matter)

"In the meantime, I still think we need to halt the rampant proliferation of any pornography which is exploitative of either animals, children or women (which wouldn't leave much!) I have yet to see a compelling argument anywhere as to the benefit this type of pornography has for society."

bronwyn, there is a compelling argument for neither you nor the government determining from what i can reasonably derive pleasure or meaning. or do you simply want to ignore the frightful and farcical history of censorship?

the majority of oh-so-horrible-it-must-be-banned "pornography" from 60 years ago is either harmless now (bare breasts), or is considered literature (lawrence). i don't consider your certainty of the threat of current "pornography" as anything but the modern version of the same moral panic, and i don't give it any more evidentiary weight.

Hi billkerr. The EFA link you provided will also lead you to the opinion piece written in 2003 refuting Hamilton's argument.

However, stakeholders should update the details in the following excerpt:

"While Dr Clive Hamilton of The Australia Institute remarked on ABC Radio National on 6 March 2003 that it is easy to find pornographic material and one only needs to type sex pictures into a search engine (Hamilton, 2003b), it should be noted that blocking all 3,200,000 pages that result from such a search on e.g. Google (as at 17 March 2003) would also block, for example, newspaper articles reporting Dr Hamilton's remarks." (Electronic frontiers Australia)

Many may be delighted to learn that googling "sex pictures" now provides not 3,200,000 pages but 17,500,000 pages (in English) as at Sunday 30 Nov. 2008.

I am wrong in calling the P.O.U.M. an anarchist group. As Daggett pointed out they were a group that defended the anarchists.

However Daggett also wrote:

Also, if you read George Orwell's somewhat critical "Reflections On Gandhi" (http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell) it seems clear that neither Orwell nor Gandhi were anarchists in the true sense:

"Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have claimed (Gandhi) for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines."

I had written:

When a person openly refuses to obey a law on the grounds that the law is unjust that person is committing an act of anarchy.

Henry Thoreau wrote his "Essay on Civil Disobedience" after reflecting on the meaning of his being put in jail for refusing to pay a tax to support the Mexican War which he thought was unjust.

Thoreau influenced Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. King led people in refusing to obey the unjust laws requiring segregation of people by race, and Gandhi led people in refusing to pay the Salt Tax required by the British occupiers of his country.

The above does not label Gandhi or King as anarchists. It claims that their civil disobedience was acts of anarchy. I don’t know what a true anarchist is, but their civil disobedience remains acts of anarchy.

Not quite Bushbasher.

Sixty years ago, one did not see such public moral indifference to the exploitation of children but again I see a male who speaks only of his own pleasures. Sixty years ago there was not the jaded and ego-driven addictions to pleasuring one self with electronically visual aids (and readily available to kids).

This industry is the actual foundation for a fake new economy and there are plenty of poor saps craving smut and fueling this so-called prosperity.

In addition, the male spends billions annually on Viagra etc for erectile dysfunction. Viva Viagra! Well not quite - there's more!

Now there's the antidepressants, and medically unnecessary sex-enhancement surgery. This includes untold numbers of innovative penile implants, tattooed eyebrows, hair transplants and more. You could probably make a case for Johnny Howard but mainly as a public-health measure!

And many wives and partners seek similar treatments to hold their man - submissive to the male’s sexual fantasies, driven by porn.

The objections to censorship are understandable, however the males on this thread are far more vociferous over the risk of losing their porn sites than their right to free speech or FOI on other important matters.

Where were they when the esteemed Sir Charles Court in WA introduced the innocuous 54B clause forbidding a public gathering in excess of three people? Silent!

Or Costello’s bill last year which would allow the ACCC to bring representative court actions for breaches of secondary boycott provisions where we, the taxpayer, would compensate businesses which may be operating unethically? This bill was planned to catch lone campaigners, community groups, NGOs, lobby groups and even the media -anyone whose campaign for what the law calls a "secondary boycott" would be gagged and prosecuted to suffer the burden of financial pain.

However, one must not allow one’s vision to be tainted by the few sad sacks here who, driven by an addiction to a sumptuous banquet of perverse porn sites, refuse to offer solutions which would mitigate the electronically aided sexualisation of little kids.

Bronwyn wrote, "... the prospect of internet censorship doesn't concern me as much as it does you, ..."

Well, if it doesn't, it should.

Or do you happen to believe that the corporate newsmedia and the Government can be relied upon to tell us the truth about, for example, Iraqi WMD's, the babies said to be thrown out of incubators in Kuwait in 1990 (http://911review.com/precedent/decade/incubators.html), the 'false flag' terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 (http://911blogger.com http://911research.wtc7.net/) the out-of -control destruction of Australia's environment in order to line the pockets of corporations, privatisation, etc?

It astonishes me that supposedly informed and intelligent people on this forum are clamouring to hand across the decisions as to what they can and cannot view in the privacy of their own homes to faceless government bureaucrats.

---

dickie,

You have not provided any evidence that access to porn is the cause of all the social ills and commercial exploitation that you have described.

Even if it could be proven, and it could be proven that mandatory Internet filtering would prevent access to porn, both legal and illegal, how could the harm prevented possibly be greater than the actual harm caused in recent years by the deliberate withholding of information from us by our corporate newsmedia?

I am talking about:

* the election and re-election of President Bush and John Howard,
* deregulation of the U.S. economy and the consequent world-wide financial calamity,
* the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter, which may well end up costing $3trillion (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2199248.htm) and may well have caused the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html),
* global environmental devastation.

Our only possible hope of preventing or mitigating such calamities is by having our own means to bypass the misinformation fed to us by governments and the corporate newsmedia.

Dickie wrote, "Where were they when ... Sir Charles Court ... introduced the innocuous 54B clause forbidding a public gathering in excess of three people? Silent!"

How do you know this, and, in any case, isn't it beside the point?

dickie, you seem to have a real problem understanding/coming to term with what a human being is. Seriously, you need to re-think your entire world view (as do some others) whereby people do not deserve to pursue their lives (and happiness) *however they choose* without others dictating how to live their lives (usually in the absence of freedom). This is what the end point of your argument is, no matter how you would go about implementing your totalitarianist view of society.

dickie>"Where were they when the esteemed Sir Charles Court in WA introduced the innocuous 54B clause forbidding a public gathering in excess of three people? Silent!"

The expectation that members of the public in their day to day lives know about every piece of legislation passing through government is disingenuous and phony. Secondly people object to many laws passed and nothing can ever be done about it, because the government chooses to do whatever it wants anyway. We have seen this on numerous occassions in the past.

dickie, You appear to have really bought into the acidic mentality of believing no individual has personal responsibility (those electing to do cosmetic surgery) and society is to blame. How about you start urging that sesame street and play school is played at all times so that no adults learn any indecency. How about you ask to ban alcohol because of all the evil violence and anti-social drinking behaviour it causes? There is no end to the selective imposition of your own personal values that you project onto others. And I can't stress how much it tests my patience to have someone else state their authoritarian, close-minded, evil, repressive values as superior to my own or any others' and are of any worth at all. It's generally not worth my time, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and i try to do my little part to stem the tidal wave of bigots and fearful people.

Your honesty in your two posts here is refreshing, Bronwyn. Yes, women like filters because they don't like porn, and equally the reason most men oppose them is because the do like porn. The rest of the noise here is mostly smokescreen. Arguing these points alone gets you nowhere, so it would be nice if the discussion progressed onto looking at the merits of the proposal itself.

Clive argues filtering is just an extension of the current ratings scheme. If this is true it is a good argument for the filters, as the current scheme represents a working compromise. So lets look at where his analogy breaks down.

Clive says what is censored now won't change, but Conroy said the scope will broadened and specifically mentioned euthanasia. I assume Clive thinks our democracy will bring such plans to heel. Probably.

The filters are computers and thus moronically apply rules. Unlike the ratings board they will censor things they shouldn't - like gynaecological diseases, contraception, sex crime reporting and midwifery. The best (and slowest) filters do this around 1% of the time, the worst around 10% of the time. Most people come to find it very irritating.

The blacklist is a list of juiciest sites on the internet. It has to be given to Australia's 400 ISP's. There are a lot of similar lists around the world, and they have all leaked. After all what school boy could resist a list of the worst sites on the 'net?

Clive says this list won't be abused, just as our existing censorship mechanisms aren't abused. They aren't abused because they are transparent - we can see what is censored and why. A URL black list can't work this way as the filter is too porous. We won't know what's on there, why it was put there, or who did it. Clive is wrong - it will be abused. For example, invariably, the filtering companies manage to filter sites critical of their product.

So girls, is joy of controlling what we guys do in the privacy of our own time worth the compromises involved?

I’ve often been described as an anarchist (probably long before david f was out of his nappy :-)

One particular anarchist who I’ve always admired, respected and taken immense pleasure from is the French poet and writer, Francois Marie Arouet. So it is completely vacuous, disingenuous and misguided to imply I have no appreciation for what anarchy is.

Some posters here are using anarchy (and freedom) as a crutch to defend their reasoning. I would go so far as to say (judging by their comments) that they haven’t a clue of what responsible anarchism is about.

By definition, anarchists argue that it is the individual’s right to nurture their own morals and behave according to their own view of what is right or wrong, and good or bad. They argue that if enough people of like mind can come together in a common cause, they can overturn the accepted norm.

It’s true; anarchists do support an absence of government intervention. One problem (as I see it) is that many anarchists are not responsible. They use the pursuit of freedom in the name of anarchy to give credence to their own sometimes perverted behaviour, without due respect to others who may be hurt by their actions. Anarchists reject the idea of state or government intervention (promoting individualistic and economic self control), they can’t have one without the other – particularly in a society like we have here in Australia.

Corollary: Can you imagine government MPs (of any persuasion) dressing up in their fish-net stockings and demanding their right to individual freedom in the Cabinet room?

What people do in their own privacy does not concern me. What does is the direction a post-modern western society is heading. These are the ethical questions Hamilton is challenging us with.

I would go to the demonstrations to see ‘democracy’ in action.

Oh ... Francois Marie Arouet, he is better known as Voltaire, one of our greatest philosophers. He penned the line “Once a philosopher, twice a pervert” – david f, I suggest you look it up, you might learn something. Vive le revolution!

Q&A wrote: “I’ve often been described as an anarchist (probably long before david f was out of his nappy :-)”

David f is 83. You’re over a hundred?

Anarchists believe that ordinary people without the external compulsion of government can form a decent society.

I am quite familiar with Voltaire. He did not share that belief and had contempt for the common people.

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

Voltaire believed that religion was necessary as a means of control.

Another statement of his contempt.

“Once the people begin to reason, all is lost.”

Fortunately for him he died the year before the French Revolution.

Q&A wrote: Oh ... Francois Marie Arouet, he is better known as Voltaire, one of our greatest philosophers. He penned the line “Once a philosopher, twice a pervert” – david f, I suggest you look it up, you might learn something.

I suggest you look more into Voltaire and correct your misconceptions.

An 83 yr old pornographer? Each to their own I suppose.

You obviously don't know Voltaire. I've had to study him and his works.

What do you think of his meetings with small groups of students, teachers and clergy discussing and writing poetry and prose against the state's censorship laws, or how he was incarcerated for it - all in the name of freedom of speech?

Q&A wrote:

What do you think of his meetings with small groups of students, teachers and clergy discussing and writing poetry and prose against the state's censorship laws, or how he was incarcerated for it - all in the name of freedom of speech?

Dear Q&A,

I’m quite aware of Voltaire’s devotion to freedom of speech and think it admirable. He defended Rousseau’s right to promote his ideas even though he disagreed with those ideas.

However, you referred to Voltaire as an anarchist. Being for freedom of speech does not make a person an anarchist.

Please cite the writing or acts of Voltaire which shows his anarchism.

dickie, your response is absurd.

1) i don't believe there is "public moral indifference to the exploitation of children". but if there is, how is it connected to the current argument? child sex sites are already banned. internet filtering will not address that. and if it did, it would fail miserably.

2) you are wrong. i am not "a male speaking for his own pleasures", certainly not primarily. i'm not thrilled with popular tastes for pornography. or for macdonalds. or for the mind rotting swill on tv. i'm not at all pleased with the insular and nihilistic choices of modern society. but, people have a right to make what i regard as bad choices. and, it is hugely dangerous to permit government and self-assigned moral police to proscribe choices for them. it was dangerous 60 years ago and it's dangerous now.

3) the sex industry is not a fake economy, it is a real economy. sex is a powerful drive. you can howl at the moon all you want, but plenty of people will always be ready to cash in.

4) what you call a "perverse porn site" will probably be mainstream in a decade or two. get used to it. oral sex was once illegal. as was homosexuality. bestiality used to get you executed, but is now legal in some countries. why? because, as rstuart pointed out, no on gets hurt and some gain pleasure. why is it banned in australia? only because the moral guardians, though weakened, still have a hold. you are probably happy about that: i think it's religiously tinged barbarism.

as you use it, the word "perverse" means nothing except that you don't like it. i might neither. the difference is, i don't act as if god is seated next to me, nodding approval.

"people have a right to make what i regard as bad choices. and, it is hugely dangerous to permit government and self-assigned moral police to proscribe choices for them. it was dangerous 60 years ago and it's dangerous now".

Yes I would agree that adults should be left up to their own devices when it comes to porn. The whole industry is sad and exploitative and makes viewers into incompetent lovers, self-focussed w**nkers, or at best nervously giggling office dweebs out of a cringe comedy, but yes adults have the right to look at it.

But are children capable of such choice?

There are age barriers to voting and joining the army and, indeed consent to sex. Officially people under 18 cannot view pornography or drink alcohol. This is presumably done because younger people have, on average, less ability to judge the consequences of their actions.

Uncensored internet access enables this law to be transgressed not just occasionally but frequently. The heart of this debate is essentially - are we happy with teenage boys and girls looking at typical pornography(with its focus on anal sex, ejaculating on the female face etc., ie male as active and dominating and woman as passive dominated object.) They are at an age when their sexual attitudes are forming. Do we want their sexual attitudes to be primarily shaped by these images? What a wonderful inheritance.

Forget about attitudes being 30-50 years out of date, we'll be back to the neanderthals if mainstream porn becomes the primary model for gender relations.

chandralekha and dickie,

In the unlikely event either of you take up the art of making porn you might consider posting a message to that effect on OLO. You both have lush and vivid imaginations, so there is a real possibility you will be very good at it. I am sure some of the guys here would really appreciate you letting them know.

Indeed, rstuart - it seems that the OLO prude contingent have very active imaginations. Mind you, it doesn't seem to correspond much with either experience or reality.

I stopped taking this discussion seriously when I read this gem from dickie:

<< ...the promotion of cunnilingus on the internet has meant many young men now see this activity as highly desirable >>

Just about every woman friend of mine would consider that to be a positive development!

Seriously, I think Hamilton's uncharacteristically off-beam with this proposal, but the fact that wowsers like Rudd and Conroy have run with it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Now that the children's support groups have come out and said that:

The filter will have no effect on child porn,
There is no link between existing porn and child abuse

The filter is dead.

Child molestation prevention would be better served by neutering priests.

Bushbasher

When you state: “the difference is, i don't act as if god is seated next to me, nodding approval” you speak with forked tongue. Sure - you don’t believe you are seated next to your God – you believe you are God when you dictate to your opponents that a six week, live field trial in internet filtering will not be permitted by you or your cabal.

What right have you to deprive others an opportunity for a field trial, with an optional tier to block material unsuitable for kids, which will not be mandatory? So you and the other fascists tell us a TRIAL is verboten - sieg heil to you too sir!

Included in your hysterical diatribe, is the extremely inane assertion: “bestiality used to get you executed, but is now legal in some countries. why? because, as rstuart pointed out, no on gets hurt and some gain pleasure.”

Why do I get the impression that you are both pig-ignorant? In Sweden, bestiality (which is not consensual) is a growing problem in and in many cases the animals suffer physical injury, according to the country's first government-commissioned study on this issue.

Horses are the species most often abused, the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency said a report, which it handed to the government.

A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s, the agency said. It based its figures on responses to questionnaires sent to veterinarians, animal welfare inspectors and police agencies across the country.

In the period 2000 to 2004, 119 cases of bestiality were documented, compared to just three known cases in the 1970s, 17 in the 1980s and 70 in the 1990s.

A national petition has been launched, supported by equestrians anxious about the number of cases of people who clamber over farm fences at night and attempt to rape female horses. A similar wave of horse abuse has been noted in Germany.

contd......

Brought forward:

And in Norway, a new dissertation from the Institute of Criminology at the University of Oslo showed that Norwegian veterinarians know of at least 124 cases of animal sex abuse in Norway. The thesis reports that 22 percent of Norwegian veterinarians suspect or are sure that they have treated animals that have been sexually abused by humans.

Additionally, Denmark’s animal bordellos—in which people pay for sex with horses and other beasts—are advertising on the Net and drawing customers from as far away as Norway, Germany, Holland and Sweden.

Therefore, since we are witnessing a rapid descent into an acceptance of bestiality, which is not consensual, why not incest too? Well copulating with one’s mother is probably consensual. Ah but the skies the limit eh? Come come, don’t be prudish. And just fantasise about the possibilities. You could rape a pig and then cook him up with apple sauce.

Recently though, of 335 emerging infectious diseases identified, 60.3 percent are zoonotic in origin. So psssst…..don’t forget the condoms. Oh……glorious…… and I wonder when we can expect to see some tasty tips on cannibalism on the Net?

“Just about every woman friend of mine would consider that to be a positive development!” C J Morgan. It is not a “development” and no doubt "just about every woman friend of (yours)" and others enjoy this (off camera I trust) particularly when dealing with clumsy and ignorant morgans…..errrrr.... morons – those “Casanovas” who are oblivious to which buttons to press, rendering the victim, bruised, battered and bow-legged!

On the other hand, I care not if Bushbasher, Rstuart and Morgan hip-hopped a herring since my “lush and vivid imagination” tells me they would indeed, be anatomically compatible.

david f: “Please cite the writing or acts of Voltaire which shows his anarchism.”

You may be an irresponsible anarchist (87! When are you going to grow up?), but you can’t be that ignorant ... but?

You have unfettered use of the internet (thank someone)... so, please refer to the events and acts during the Enlightenment and leading up to the French Revolution.

These may stretch your imagination:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Unquotable:Voltaire

http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/08/niemller-voltaire-and-tyranny-of.html

Just kidding :-)

Dear Q&A,

You are the one who claims to be a Voltaire expert. You tell me the reason you called him an anarchist. I am not going to search through Voltaire's works. I also feel no necessity to insult you. I am ignorant of any anarchist tendencies in Voltaire.

This thread kinda lingers. Where can I get a dickie filter?

dickie: << A national petition has been launched, supported by equestrians anxious about the number of cases of people who clamber over farm fences at night and attempt to rape female horses. >>

Cripes. I'd better install razor wire and electric fences lest there's some Swedes among the backpackers!

I thought dickie's earlier comment was pretty funny, but the image of libidinous Swedes "clambering" over my fences to have their wicked ways with the horses is hilarious.

Thanks dickie. I'm very glad that people like you are vocal supporters of this idiocy.

David

My point has always been ... this thread was not just about pornography or Clive Hamilton. Deny it if you want, but these little tete-e-tetes further demonstrate this is the case.

Now, I'm going to a demo and I've already signed Getup's petition. There will be many against this draconian internet filtering proposal, including totalitarians and anarchists (you will even see the delusional and those in denial - see original post).

See you there?

dickie,

1) you don't have god on your side because you're defending your rights, and neither do i. you have god on your side because you presume your stance to have unquestionable moral virtue.

2) if people want to screw up their internet, that's fine with me. the issue here is of *mandatory* filtering, of their screwing up *my* internet.

3) stop pretending that your issue with bestiality is one of animal welfare. if you really want to tackle animal cruelty, then your time would be better spent discussing corporatisation of meat production. by comparison, a few sexually abused swedish horses is an absolutely trivial issue.

and to imply that my contention that bestiality is a moral beat-up is to somehow condone animal abuse is ludicrous.

4) you can't understand that the moral issues of incest are distinct from the moral issues of bestiality? you must have an interesting family.

Dickie,

It is good to see that there are still loyal supporters of the National Enquirer and other reiable sources.

Get a life

dickie, how does your statistic show that we are rapidly descending into acceptance of bestiality. Sick people have been molesting animals since we were animals, and we'll never know in what numbers. But please don't put loving worship at the holy gates in the same category. Although, I must be doing it wrong - I've never left my partner bruised, battered or bow-legged. Just in a state of blissful satisfaction, with a smile that won't go away. But, hey, I'm blowing my own trumpet...

"Let me tell you stud,
You're life's been wasted,
Till you've got down on your knees and tasted,
A red-headed woman..." - Bruce Springsteen

Thank someone for the internet, Q&A? It was Al Gore wasn't it?

chandralekha,

1) it is not that the "think of the children" argument doesn't in general have merit. but it is hugely easy to overplay. so, janet jackson accidentally reveals a tit, and america acts like satan has started his rule. i don't believe children are nearly as fragile as some would suggest.

2) i'd say an example of that is your describing "people under 18" as children. teenagers may not be legally adults, but they're not children either. they don't have children's bodies, or desires, or questions. like it or not, they are going to stumble through and experiment.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about teenagers' and children's access to and approach to sex and drugs. but it does mean it will always have a howling at the moon aspect. and i doubt that any governmental controls will ever be as meaningful as proper parental guidance and supervision. i'd suggest it's less a matter of pretending these things don't exist in the world, and more a matter of fostering a healthy reaction to their existence.

3) i don't know how sexual practices of teenagers (and adults) have been altered by pornography, or the general sexual permissivness. but, unlike you, i do not presume that any such alteration is for the worse.

for one, i am very happy that our culture now tells people, especially women, that they are allowed to like sex. that it's supposed to be fun, even when not loving. and that it's not dirty. this is a huge step forward. and i doubt very much that today's women are more sexually passive than in times past.

and as for particular sexual practices? again, oral sex used to be illegal. now, it's compulsory! (that's a joke, joyce). whatever sexual practices people are now engaging in, i would presume they are generally enjoying them, unless someone provides clear evidence otherwise.

Dear Bushbasher

You state: “if you really want to tackle animal cruelty, then your time would be better spent discussing corporatisation of meat production.”

Oh but I do Bushbasher as you well know. I am motivated by environmental concerns and a call to mercy. What would your motive be? I would suggest you’re savage because corporations have put a dent in your profits as a small farmer but no doubt there are many rural gentlemen who don tiaras and black lacy suspenders to seek comfort in the "arms" of their livestock.

“you can't understand that the moral issues of incest are distinct from the moral issues of bestiality?” No what is that distinction Bushbasher? Is it because animals don’t speak your lingo? After all, they too are vulnerable, they too lack the ability to give consent and they too are victims of physical and sexual abuse. However, without human intervention, there is far more law and order in the animal kingdom than the dark place in which you reside.

“2) i'd say an example of that is your describing "people under 18" as children. teenagers may not be legally adults, but they're not children either. they don't have children's bodies, or desires, or questions. like it or not, they are going to stumble through and experiment.”

My you do live in la la land Bushbasher and how selective are you? What do you suggest for the 5 and 6 year olds who are computer literate but don’t care much for reading - they just like to look at “pretty” pictures. On which planet do you reside?

Following is a survey for the Marquis de Sades, the narcissists and the hedonists. And no, it’s not about “a few sexually abused swedish horses....” It’s an Australian survey for sexual predators who dwell in subterranean hidey holes.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pNqcIbWxHqoJ:www.opinion.com.au/4889_Does_beastiality_(sex_with_animals)_turn_you_on%253F.htm+australians+bestiality+charges&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

“I've never left my partner bruised, battered or bow-legged. Just in a state of blissful satisfaction, with a smile that won't go away……”

Funguschumley - take your hand off it.

1) "then your time would be better spent discussing corporatisation of meat production.” "Oh but I do Bushbasher as you well know".

o.k. i do now. it doesn't change the facts that:
a) animal cruelty due to sexual abuse is trivial in comparison to other forms of animal abuse;
b) it's a red herring. you're pretending to condone bestiality if there is no abuse?

2) “you can't understand that the moral issues of incest are distinct from the moral issues of bestiality?” "No what is that distinction Bushbasher?"

family members can offer consent. the question is whether that consent has legal weight, and whether the laws of incest reflect accepted notions of morality. if you think the morality and legality of incest is clear, you're kidding yourself.

animals cannot consent. we are responsible for the welfare of our animals, and necessarily make decisions for them. why you think that automatically precludes bestiality, any more than it precludes taking fido for a walk, is beyond me.

3)"i'd say an example of that is your describing "people under 18" as children." "My you do live in la la land Bushbasher and how selective are you?"

i was responding to chandralekha, who was discussing teenagers: who's being selective here? i have no problem talking about 5 year olds and 6 year olds. are you proposing that we filter the internet of everything only suitable for 7 year olds?

dickie, perhaps you should froth a little less, lower the moral outrage, and work towards coming up with a cogent argument. you can start easy: maybe debate some of those 5 year olds and see how you go.

You circumcised my words about blowing my own trumpet, little dickie. If you have a repressed fantasy about being battered and bruised, it's not one I'd choose to satisfy. See a shrink, or you may like to watch a film like the Piano Teacher with parental guidance. Your tone and moral superiority is the biggest wank here.

"the OLO prude contingent"

CJ, there's nothing prudish about objecting to the way in which pornography objectifies and exploits women. As pointed out by chandralekha, the vast bulk of pornography depicts women in the mode of 'passive dominated object', their own interests completely subordinated and lost in an obsessive sea of penis worship.

I'm no prude. I've no objection to CONSENSUAL couples using pornography to enhance their relationship if that's what they BOTH agree to. No doubt there's some evocative material out there that is of a high standard. But, gee, you would need to know where to look to find it. From both an artistic and intellectual perspective, most of what's available truly emanates from the gutter end of the spectrum.

The problem with internet pornography is the sheer scale and the unfettered proliferation of endless masses of this crass and tasteless rubbish, so much of which openly and unashamedly exploits, degrades and objectifies women, children and animals. How someone of your sensibility and intellect can defend the right of this garbage to a life is absolutely beyond me, CJ.

Bronwyn wrote:

"The problem with internet pornography is the sheer scale and the unfettered proliferation of endless masses of this crass and tasteless rubbish, so much of which openly and unashamedly exploits, degrades and objectifies women, children and animals. How someone of your sensibility and intellect can defend the right of this garbage to a life is absolutely beyond me, CJ."

Dear Bronwyn,

You have made a criticism not of pornography alone but of popular culture in general.

Rock music sounds to me mostly like a cacophony of tasteless thumps. Waiting for a light to change at an intersection I often hear boompa-boompa-boompa from an nearby car's loudspeaker. There is a genre called country music which laments man's sorrows concerning women, drink and motor vehicles. TV has a plethora of mindless sitcoms. Mills & Boon novels carry an unreal idea of romantic relationships. However, I defend the right of those who wish to subject themselves to this tasteless rubbish to do so. Why single out the tasteless rubbish which is much of pornography?

Yes, the solution is to bring back the rhythms of Gershwin, the wit of Cole Porter, the music of Mozart, the plays of Shakespeare and to produce tasteful and rubbish free pornography. How are we to implement this? How will we get people to appreciate it?

Bushbasher

“animal cruelty due to sexual abuse is trivial in comparison to other forms of animal abuse;” “Trivial” BB? So that makes it acceptable eh?

“ it's a red herring. you're pretending to condone bestiality if there is no abuse?” Such stupefying swill!

Bestiality in Australia is unlawful. Whether suffering occurs or not, bestiality is abuse and a criminal act. State legislation is in place throughout the nation.

In NSW under the Crimes Act Section 79, any person who commits an act of bestiality with any animal shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years. Under Section 80, any person who attempts to commit an act of bestiality with any animal shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.

In Victoria under Section 59 the penality is 5 years maximum imprisonment.

I trust your duplicitous (or ignorant) statement on incest does not impress on others BB. Incest is unlawful – a criminal act.

In no Australian state or territory is consent a defence to the crime of incest. A conviction for incest attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years in SA, 20 years in WA and the ACT, 25 years in the NT, Victoria, Tasmania, and New South Wales, and life imprisonment in Queensland.

I reiterate, the topic of the IT filtering proposal is a live TRIAL. There is no legislation in place but the recalcitrant dictators are gearing up for protest marches.

The trial is not dissimilar to the daylight saving trial in WA - a three-year period which commenced in December 2006. The trial gives Western Australians (some reluctantly) an opportunity to “try before they buy” and a referendum will be held in 2009.

The opponents (bordering on the hysterical) to an Internet trial are not lobbying for a democratic referendum. Indeed not, these dictators tell us that citizens are NOT entitled to a TRIAL of only six weeks duration.

It is democracy which is being censored here Bushbasher, when you and others accuse me of what you, yourselves, are doing. Nice try!

Bronwyn: "the vast bulk of pornography depicts women in the mode of 'passive dominated object'"

You are now going on the same flights of fancy as chandralekha and dickie. For most porn pictures I see, it is almost impossible to tell who initiated what.

In video you can tell, and unsurprisingly porn reflects real life. The males initiate, the females have the final say. Unlike real life, the females usually say "yes" to all sorts of odd requests, but it is porn after all. I imagine it is that aspect you really have issue with. However, your claim that in "vast bulk of pornography depicts women in the mode of 'passive dominated object'" is, to put it charitably, badly ill-informed. To put it not so charitably - I don't believe for a second you are so ill-informed.

Bronwyn: "pornography which is exploitative of either animals, children or women (which wouldn't leave much!)"

I wasn't going to comment on this, but since I am here ... I'd say it leaves rather a lot. Despite the hysteria displayed here there ain't that much child porn out there. That leaves women and animals. I have not actually seen any porn involving female animals, and given the length of time I have been on the internet that is saying something. (Actually dickie's flights of fantasy are the first I have read about it in some time. Reading about it again reminded me why I don't seek it.) I can't imagine a mammalian male feeling in the slightest bit exploited at being fellated, and being one myself I'd say I have some expertise in the matter - unlike you. As for the women, if they aren't there because they want to be then it is illegal. You say they are exploited. They say they aren't, and often sound peeved at people like you putting words into their mouth. Who am I going to believe?

You are sounding like a bunch of teenage girls taking fright at your own fantasies. If you started behaving like women it would be easier to take you seriously.

Those who support the proposed government censorship of the Internet are yet to respond to a succinct and excellent comment by billkerr in this thread. He said: "The core issue is this: Do we dare to be free? Being free does mean being exposed to unsavoury things. Do we as adults want some other adults to protect us from those unsavoury things, without even full knowledge of what they are. If another adult is going to protect me from unsavoury things then I want to know why that adult feels that he or she is superior to me? Why does that adult feel that he/she can handle freedom but I can't?"
Well, can one of the pro-censorship people respond to this?

Australians I have found have a very infantile understanding of freedom and what it constitutes. I expect this comes from not having a bill of rights. In not having one, many authoritarians who would easily belong in various dictatorships around the world, such as Bronwyn, feel it's only natural to deprive others of freedom for the sake of some abstract concept that is currently politically correct and fashionable to clamour for (in this case, the idea that society must bend to it's knees in the name of it's chilren)

Bronwyn: << How someone of your sensibility and intellect can defend the right of this garbage to a life is absolutely beyond me, CJ. >>

Hi Bronwyn - thanks for the compliment. Believe it or not, I'm not a great fan of pornography. If all the hard core stuff disappeared from the face of the Earth and the Internet I probably wouldn't notice. However, I do appreciate various forms of erotica which I wouldn't necessarily define as "pornographic" but which I suspect you might - and therein lies one of my major objections to this push for censorship.

Just because material is deemed by some to be "exploitative" or tasteless doesn't mean it should be banned, if the people who produce and consume are consenting adults. Hell, you can't impose taste or equity on people in a free society. Further, some prudes label all kinds of stuff as pornographic that isn't - the recent brouhaha over Bill Henson's photographic art comes to mind, in which the PM referred to the art as "repulsive". Is this the kind of thing that the government will decide is "unwanted", although legal?

However, my main objection to this 'Net Nanny' stuff remains my commitment to freedom of speech and expression. While some people may be sufficiently alarmed by what they see as the threats to our society posed by images and texts that are available on the Internet to acquiesce to the State censoring what the rest of us can read and look at, I think that the act of censorship itself carries far more risks than does the problem it purports to solve.

Which it won't anyway, according to just about everybody who is more expert on the technical aspects than I am. The whole exercise seems that it will be expensive, authoritarian, inefficient and ineffective - and to achieve what end?

three cheers for david f.

dickie, no animal abuse is trivial to the animal, and not to me. but it is trivial for the purposes of your cheap moralising.

and your moralising just got cheaper. we discuss morality and you simply quote a bunch of laws at me? you really want to equate legality and morality? if not, what's your point?

and, your stance of "democracy" as unquestionable lord is equally silly. if you think democratically elected governments are incapable of making stupid and immoral decisions, then you haven't been paying much attention to the bush era.

1) pornography is evil and should be censored
2) pornography is evil but censorship is a greater evil
3) anti-pornography campaigns are themselves morally evil

I vote for (3)

CJ stated:

"However, my main objection to this 'Net Nanny' stuff remains my commitment to freedom of speech and expression."

I agree, but with some misgiving; I despair at the thought of teenage children learning about sex via the depiction of women being humiliated by males (and vice versa - but that seems to be rare), suffice to say that I find humiliation of any creature offensive. To counter the psychological impact of such I can only repeat that education is the key. Full understanding of ourselves as sexual beings enable us to distinguish between what is erotic and what is nothing less than exploitation. Although where that line is many would disagree; I have no problems with Bill Hensons but I do with child porn which is rightly illegal.

"One problem for the Government is that blocking child porn may unintentionally block acceptable sites.

The history of the internet is full of such examples; one blogger found that, due to spamware set to block ads for sex drug Cialis, he was unable to publish the word "socialist".

Another problem, according to civil libertarians, is that policing the net should be left to parents - not a big brother-style bureaucracy.

And, if it is disingenuous to compare Labor's policy to China's malevolent control over web access to its citizens, it is equally disingenuous of Rudd's Government to claim the issue simply relates to child pornography.

There are genuine concerns that the Government - backed by morals groups like Family First - will in time extend the powers outside of their intended target area.

Also of concern is that, under the Government's plan, users would be permitted to "opt out" of the scheme - and might therefore find themselves listed as possible deviants.

.... Besides, what evidence is there that young children using the web are regularly stumbling across child pornography?

Sites used by paedophiles are well hidden and frequently relocated to avoid detection.

On a practical level, ISPs fear the mass blocking of sites could slow internet speeds and cost millions of dollars to implement."

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22997280-15306,00.html

Fractelle>"I agree, but with some misgiving; I despair at the thought of teenage children learning about sex via the depiction of women being humiliated by males (and vice versa - but that seems to be rare), suffice to say that I find humiliation of any creature offensive"

You are mischaracterising it. Many women enjoy submissive roles. They do not feel humiliated at all and if they do it's there own choice.

Stop spreading psychologist activist propaganda.

You do not know how men see women nor how these women react, you do not speak for either these women and men them and how DARE you presume to.

Oh the horror, Steel has found me out:

Expressing an Opinion while being female.

On a website called On Line Opinion no less. Uppity women!

How remiss of me, I'd better unlace my docs immediately and head straight to the kitchen. Before Steel's head explodes - thinking is clearly painful for him.

Yeah Fractelle - how DARE you!

Shame on you for not being one of those women that Steel apparently knows who "enjoy submissive roles".

And "Stop spreading psychologist activist propaganda".

CJ, Fractelle, Steel,

I too have yet to make the acquaintance of one of these submissive females. Not that I am complaining, I like them how they are. But it does raise a point ...

Fractelle: "I despair at the thought of teenage children learning about sex via the depiction of women being humiliated by males (and vice versa - but that seems to be rare)"

I thought a powerful man being tied up and whipped in a bordello was almost a cliche. You'd think it was common place how often you see it in mainstream movies. (After writing that a vision of GW Bush tied up in leather crosses my mind, and my imagination is stretched beyond breaking point. No wait, it could be worse, it could be Cheney ...)

I wouldn't worry about what boys learn from porn. Whatever they pick up, it is bound to have a more solid basis in reality than their most common source of information on girls and sex - the bragging of their mates. And regardless of what they learn, I can assure you that unless they happen across one of those rare submissive females, the first girl they meet will bring them back to reality with a thud.

Which means all the hand wringing by you girls here is over the top, doesn't it? After the tongue lashing we have just received here, you don't really expect us to believe any husband would be game to step too far out of line in the bedroom - regardless of how good it looked in the magazine. There would be hell to pay at the time. Eventually our transgression would be forgiven, but we all know full well it would never be forgotten.

And now you are smiling, because you know this is sooo true.

Fractelle>"Expressing an Opinion while being..."

You are focussing on your gender too much Fractelle. I only mentioned it because you presume to know the psychology of the individuals involved, both men and women. Even I know that women have a variety of standards and tastes, so why put words into their mouths?

CJMorgan, even though she does a lousy job, Fractelle doesn't need you to quote my accurate words back at her. If you have no opinion other than to play games maybe you should be quiet.

Fractelle's recital *is* feminist/psychologist propaganda that we see all the time. maybe i've read more widely than you, but the idea is obviously fraudulent as it makes blanket assumptions about the actors involved! There is a bad strain of political debate in this country that is truly damaging it and making it a whole lot worse rather than better. We can see this with the government isp filter, that would make Australia comparable to some of the most oppressive regimes in the world...no western government has tried to impose a solution that is so open to abuse... This is happening for a reason! And it's because *everyone* is buying into the media attacks and manipulations of people like MTR, who appear to have strong Catholic/religious motivations and connections (that are deliberately hidden-check her profile on OLO) and Hamilton.

Feminism used to be about female empowerment. Now it's about control of women. Women freely expressing themselves are now the "sluts", feminists used to defend and champion. Feminists advocate the same kind of policies as Muslims and Christians: too much sexualisation, not enough clothing. This is why you find posters like runner and Gibo openly endorsing MTR.

Steel

What an imagination you have! You are reading meanings into my posts that aren't even there.

I am concerned that children do not receive adequate education about human sexuality - hence my concern.I am NOT in favour of censoring the net - haven't you read ANY of my posts?

Of course not - I am a WOMAN expressing HER opinion, which clearly makes me a subversive, hairy feminazi whose goal is the complete subjugation of men.

RStuart - I suggest you read the following post, I do have a great deal of faith in men.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8176&page=0#129203

However I also believe we could do a lot better with teaching our children about each other and generating much more respect between the sexes. I am a confident woman now, but there was a time when very young I was unsure of myself and much more easily manipulated by men who knew a lot more about life than I. I learned about sex by having sex - not the best way for anyone. Fortunately my intelligence and determination got me through my teens, but I have to say a lot of luck was involved too.

Cheers guys

Fractelle: "I learned about sex by having sex - not the best way"

Assuming you aren't saying the awkward talk we all received about the birds and bees is learning, then on the contrary Fractelle, I'd say learning about sex by doing it is the only way. In that respect it is no different from driving a car, maths, or cricket.

To suggest that porn is going to warp some teenagers perception of sex for the rest of their life is just absurd. You might as well say watching car racing on TV is going to turn us all into speeding lunatics, or that it is responsible for the dumb things kids do in cars. Or you could say watching our cricketing greats smash every ball in a 20/20 game is going to destroy our next generation of cricket players.

At the other end of the scale I recall sitting and watching some afternoon television show with my then teenage daughter and her friends. The males in it weren't a species I recognised. They were very considerate of the girls, empathising with them, to the extent of having discussions between themselves about the girls feelings and needs. After watching this for a while it crossed my mind that if the girls thought they were going to find a boy like this they were in for a big disappointment. So I said to them something along the lines of "you realise no male on the planet behaves like this", to which they earnestly replied "yes they do!". Hmmm. What now? Was my little girl doomed to go through life, single, looking for the perfect man? Nah - the thought was absurd.

Learning by doing is how it should happen. There are two worse scenarios. The first is learning without doing, then insisting you know more than someone who has real experience. The second is doing and not learning. Like for instance, watching the Internet bringing a flood of porn over the past decade, noticing no measurable increasing in anything, then claiming porn causes harm. Now that is a real worry.

An opportunity to have your say on CONROY'S WEBSITE ABOUT FILTERING.

see it here: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/digital_economy_benefit

Today (10 Dec 2008) Conroy's Department put up a short post on his website. Those concerned about the many problems of the Conroy/Labor/Rudd policy of FILTERING are having their say. Checkout the link above.

The response so far is strongly against such technical idiocy. Yet some groups may use the Website to turn the stats in Favour of filtering.

Watchout. If you want to use the opportunity offered to make a difference about censorship and internet slowing due to Filtering p just express your democratic rights at the following http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/digital_economy_benefit

Pete