The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Filtering the Internet > Comments

Filtering the Internet : Comments

By Kevin Rennie, published 16/8/2007

The Government's Internet filter program: is it an appropriate role for government? Will we be getting value for money? Is it practicable? Who will control the regulators?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
"You'll understand when you're younger"

http://www.peacefire.org/
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 16 August 2007 9:56:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tend to think that if your an adult you should be able to see and read what you want,all of this is Howard and co pandering to the Religious right.
Why you would want to pander to a bunch of fools whose main thing in life seems to be interfering in everyone else,s is beyond me,these clods (Hillsong AoG ect)are like the old snake oil sales men, why anyone would believe the crap the pastor peddles just proves the old saying "theres a sucker born ever minute"
If you cant control what your kids see and read don,t expect someone else to do it for you
Posted by j5o6hn, Thursday, 16 August 2007 10:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am opposed to Internet filtering for several reasons. One is once it starts you no longer know just what is being filtered. I fervently believe adults should be able to see and read anything, excluding obvious illegal items.

I certainly believe children should be protected from being exposed to unsuitable material, but this is for the parents to manage. I do not support filtering by government, even to protect children for one very important reason.

I believe parents depending on government filtering is far more dangerous than a parent having to take 100% of the responsibility. No matter what software filters are in place- the internet is NOT safe. This mantra must be drummed into the heads of parents. You can bet that any software control will be breached and every kid at school will know how to do it. Whilst the parents are patting themselves on the back because they feel confident their children are protected.
Posted by valter, Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:36:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isnt this also related to the attempt by the government to ban and censor books and internet sights which promote or glamorize political violence and/or terrorism.

Most of our his-story is a glorification of violence. A chronicle of "important wars".
Wasnt the USA War of Independence from the British a sustained act of terrorism? And an integral part of the collective USA identity/narrative?
Under the current definitions of terrorism it would be totally unacceptable. Should we therefore ban the study of it.

What about the violent struggles for independence and freedom that are a part of the history of most countries in the world---and their civil wars, including those of the UK.

Wasnt the suppression and wholesale slaughter of the Catholic Irish by Cromwell and his hard heads one of the first acts at Cultural genocide or ethnic cleansing? Yet it is a celebrated aspect of some peoples his-stories.

What about the USA civil war. This carnage is almost glorified by scholars and various entusiasts---recreated and re-enacted year after year even.

Under todays definitions they were all sustained acts of terrorism, ethnic cleansing etc etc.

Nelson Mandela is a hero to dark skinned South Africans. As far as I know John Howard (our champion of "freedom") was opposed to him being released from jail.

Michael Collins is a hero to some Irish. Simon Bolivar is a hero to the people of Bolivia. Garibaldi to the Italians. And so on.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have enough room to post the comments I've already made on this topic so here's the link:

http://jamespurser.com.au/blog/Internet_Filtering_-_Lets_Face_Reality
Posted by James Purser, Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin is spot on. There are plenty of filters out there. And you can't beat good old fashioned parental supervision. This is a complete waste of taxpayer's money and a blatant election ploy. Then again what isn't in the lead up to one.
Posted by StabInTheDark, Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would say that even if one poor little boy or girl is prevented from being sexually abused by the depraved minds that insist on their rights to use this junk as appetisers then the money is well spent.Amazing that those who insist on human rights could not care less about the damaging effect that results in our community because we treat teenagers and old boilers as sex objects. I would of thought the womens groups would have the sense to see the correlation. Their silence is deafening!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 August 2007 5:01:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So runner, by your logic, we should ban cars which kill and maim people. We should also ban cigarettes and tobacco. Wait, lets ban everything. I am sure that every human activity has some risk to children.
What are we trying to do? Protect children from accessing porn or prevent molesters from accessing porn?
I agree that children need to be protected and the most effective method to do this is by good parenting. You cannot prevent those who wish to access porn with any current technology short of banning the internet.
This latest sop from John Howard is unworkable. There is just no way this will work.
Posted by IanH, Thursday, 16 August 2007 5:36:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" would say that even if one poor little boy or girl is prevented from being sexually abused by the depraved minds that insist on their rights to use this junk as appetisers " - yeah but the government insists on putting chaplains into schools. My son is exposed to that sick message in other places as well.

I've seen no sign that the filters will cut out myths about ancient middle eastern gods determined to cause unending suffering those who don't follow them. It's about time that we stopped kids being exposed to that stuff.

On the other hand some research suggests that teenage boys with access to porn may be less likely to become rapists. Maybe we could spend some of that money on reseach into how we can help better teenagers deal with sexuality in a non destructive manner.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 August 2007 6:36:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not only because of the outrageous attempt to impose Chinese style censorship on Australians is this suggestion obscene. It is also outrageous that parents are not deemed capable enough to rear their children without government supervision. What are we good for? Just to breed?

Get your hands off my children. No government of any political flavour is to decide for me what my children will or will not see, read or hear. That is MY responsibility.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 16 August 2007 7:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am totally against the filtering the internet cause everyone now are fighting for the rights to information and this rules is trying to keep people away from this right.. Every age group has right to have information required for them. I think adult can have every information they want beside if it is illegal..
Posted by Asian Girl, Thursday, 16 August 2007 8:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is just another vote catcher, I have seen one of these filters you have to use your password for every page you open even ebay, it drives you nuts.
Will it filter killing I bet not.
I find killing more offensive than sex, as a friend of mine asks "Would you sooner be phuked or killed", me I go with the phuking.
Perhaps we should ban public toilets too, all that graffati.
Posted by alanpoi, Thursday, 16 August 2007 9:48:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lot's of opinions, but what are you going do do about it?

nothing. that's what you can do about it, and you're satisfied with that. saves having to be responsible and informed citizens. so much easier to whinge about the pollies, and turn to the celeb pages.
Posted by DEMOS, Friday, 17 August 2007 7:52:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS,

I look forward to reading your announcement that you are running as a candidate. Obviously you want to do something constructive.
Posted by James Purser, Friday, 17 August 2007 8:01:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a government that goes on endlessly about personal responsibility, they're certainly keen to remove it at every possible opportunity.

I was under the impression the government's job is to run the country and leave the micro management of individual lives up to individuals. Wrong, apparently.
Posted by chainsmoker, Friday, 17 August 2007 10:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Filtering the Internet" has a great deal in common with burning books.

In the first place, someone has to decide what books are to be burned.

Whether or not you agree with the underlying rationale - that burning books is necessary to protect the citizenry from corruption - it is a racing certainty that you will disagree with many titles that they select for destruction. Inevitably, therefore, far more books will be burned than is necessary to carry out the initial purpose.

Furthermore, burning books is not the end of the story. You would have to destroy all the printing presses too. Because sure as eggs, someone sees the lack of a particular book as a market opportunity, and finds a way to publish and distribute.

The only conclusion therefore is to ban the internet completely.

Unfortunately, that is as impracticable as destroying printing presses. Because anyone with a computer and a telephone line, or a wireless connection, is able to make contact with another computer and lo! the key ingredients of the internet still exist.

So, who has the guts to ban computers...?

The answer, as always, is to delegate the responsibility to protect the children to their parents or guardians, safe in the knowledge that they are far better placed than the government to discover what the kids are up to, and perform local rectification (you and your computer are grounded) where necessary.

I think we are giving the government far too much of our money. They simply cannot find enough places to spend it, so they have to invent new ones.

As the great Christopher Fildes was wont to say: they're like a drunk with a skinful - it's not a matter of what they will do, the question is simply which wall will they use.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 17 August 2007 3:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m inclined to think that the motive for the article has more to do with anti-Howardism than anti-censorship:

Government directed censorship is pervasive in Aust society, has long been so…
All of what you read in the media has been run through a filter.
What you’re ‘aloud’ to say at your work place is censored.
School texts have been moulded so as not to ‘offend’ select interests groups.
Advertising agencies have been coached to accentuate the ‘positive’ aspects of select groups .
This very site is heavily censored …

The offence seems to stem from the personage making the filtering proposal(s) rather than the principal of censorship.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 19 August 2007 8:52:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy