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.