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 > Clive Hamilton the Net Nanny > Comments

Clive Hamilton the Net Nanny : Comments

By Kerry Miller, published 24/11/2008

Christian Right follows Clive Hamilton's lessons in their push for Internet censorship.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. All
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.
Posted by chandralekha, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 9:39:12 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
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.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:36:22 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
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.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:41:27 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
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.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 12:19:16 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
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.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 3:55:06 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
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.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 4:38:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. All

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