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 > Conroy will be censoring people, not the internet > Comments

Conroy will be censoring people, not the internet : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 23/12/2009

The government should not have the right to block information that can inform debate of controversial issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The Christian lobby wants to take us back to the dark ages where "wise men" sit around and decide for the rest of us.
These "wise men" are always corrupt, hypocritical, ignorant fools.
Conroy is a fool for supposing Australians will take this blow to freedom. Rudd is a fool for letting the wacky Christian Power lobby have a large say in government.
Labour supporters don't like arrogant churchy types dictating what they can read or write, especially using their sneaky back-room "boys club". Only religious groups would consider corrupting government, misleading the press and lying to children an OK thing to do. Their childish selfishness is justified by invoking God, but really it is just immaturity: "I don't like it so you can't do it!".
These folks think freedom is a suspect hippie concept, not a proven necessity in the way society needs to be run!
Once again the church is trying to commit evil on a population whilst claiming they are doing good. Sorry guys, you are not fooling anyone.
For social divisiveness, the Christians are getting pretty hard-core. First there was Howard's "culture wars", largely based on Christian Values...now we have Conroy's attempt to redefine the internet and "freedom of speech", again due to Christian egos.
These folks obviously need an education in history, or perhaps just a rap across the knuckles and a firm "pull your bloody heads in". Either way, soon their aggression will have to be dealt with.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 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
I don’t know anything about the Australian Christian Lobby – never heard of them in fact. But I would have thought that Red Rudd, a socialist oligarch is the problem here. He likes the way his Chinese counterparts block certain internet information, and the Chinese can’t be accused of listening to any religious groups.

As a socialist oligarch, Rudd is power crazy; he wants to control everything in Australia. Rudd doesn’t listen to anyone, including minority pressure groups. He is the big cheese, the boss. He doesn’t care what a few religious nuts think. He doesn’t care about anyone but himself.

Democracy went out the door when Rudd became Prime Minister of Australia. His ministers and the Labor Party are nothing to him. He is determined to dictate, and dictate he will until enough of the stupid Australians who put him in wake up to the sort of person he really is.

Conroy’s only part in censorship of the internet is as the patsy: the slow talking, slow-witted stooge for Rudd.

So, if only 4% of Australians want the Nanny State ‘protecting’ their children, why aren’t the rest screaming and shouting about socialist censorship? Because they are the same idiots who put Rudd into power and anything was better than Howard, so they told us.

Yeah!

Google got it wrong when it said that an internet filter would the first of its kind “amongst Western democracies”.

Thanks to Rudd the Red, Australia is no longer a Western democracy or any other democracy.

Rudd has kept the details of illegal immigration into Australia quiet; he has refused to reveal the details of just how his huge taxation grab would help reduce greenhouse gases, often abusing and disparaging dissenters; and now, he wants to interfere with the internet information (against the will of users, it appears) under the veil of ‘protecting’ children. If he gets away with that, it will just be the beginning of Australia being engineered along the lines of China or any other totalitarian state.

Don’t blame a few religious loonies. Look at the real threat: Kevin Rudd.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 1:59:14 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 refuse to believe that Conroy is contemplating Communist-Chinese-style Mandatory Internet Filtering just to please the extreme moral wing of the Christian lobby.

I believe that this only a smokescreen to conceal a far more sinister purpose, that is, to take away from ordinary citizens, the right the Internet now gives us to tell the truth and expose the lies of Governments and the corporate newsmedia.

Thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for ordinary citizens to be politically effective in spite of their comparative lack of money and resources in relation to the corporate sector. We stand a chance of defeating the Queensland 'Labor' Government's despicable attempt to undemocratically sell off $15 billion in publicly owned assets. We stand a chance of stopping the rotten North South Pipeline or the massive Desalination plant on the Bass Coast, and, of course, we stand a chance of defeating this rotten legislation.

But nearly all of that will go if that legislation gets through.

Any web site that the Government feels threatened could easily be added to the black list before most of us become aware.

In a period of crisis, whether real or contrived, that ability would be magnified. Where there may be outcry, it would be easy to see that such sites could be proclaimed as sites advocating terrorism, or, if not that, then, with some superficial degree of plausibility, as guilty of advocating somewhat lower levels of violence as happened to Scott Parkin (http://www.scottparkin.org/)

The fact that this rotten law has got as far as it has, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, shows just how little actual content there is in Australia's supposed democratic system.

This is only one of almost countless examples where, in recent years, our supposed political 'representatives' have imposed laws that are harmful to our best interests.

Our only safeguard against such abuses of power by the likes of Conroy are laws that enable Binding Citizens Initiatives.

I have written a letter to the Greens to ask that they introduce such legislation into Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity at http://candobetter.org/node/1725
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 2:15:27 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
>> Don’t blame a few religious loonies. Look at the real threat: Kevin Rudd.

right on! the liberals would never ever tighten censorship laws, or cave into religious loons!

>> Thanks to Rudd the Red, Australia is no longer a Western democracy or any other democracy.

your pills, leigh. don't forget to take your pills.

honestly, i loathe rudd more than a little, and this internet censorship is dumb and abhorrent. but how hard is it for you to admit that this kind of authoritarian censoriousness is hugely popular in australia, always has been, and is manipulated by all major parties?
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 3:24:51 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
Why is it that both Australian main parties just love to copy the US except when it comes to free speech? I will not be voting labour at the next election for the first time in my life. I will be handing out how to vote cards to get rid of Conroy.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 4:17:48 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
Sorry Nina, this contribution to this topic, is as worthless as a letter to the editor in the the paper from whence it came.

You may well be right that the letters to the editor writing fraternity may see it in your framework; superficial, biased and self interested,in sensitive and politically negative.

First of all you fail to address either the need or the targets preferring to go off on some idealistic journalistic self interested justification.

Most telling you didn't even consider any, let alone easy modifications and alternatives, preferring to snipe than attempt to be constructive.

The article is about is money (yours), not being constructive or objective isn't it?
How much research into the *need to do something* did you do?...two cents worth of none.

For an alleged *thought piece* this article is remarkable for its year 10 perspective. I expect more from you and OLO thought pieces.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 6:07:44 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 always find this author's work 'difficult'. This time she seems primarily fearful of internet censorship being used to ban some fringe sexual fetish material such as spanking and wax dripping.

I think the main point has been missed.

Government control of the internet in this new age of Eco totalitarianism is extremely dangerous. I have never been a conspiracy theorist but it is now clear that peoples reliance on the internet make it a prime target for information manipulation and opinion censoring. Its already happening at the Google level particularly if you criticise the new world order.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/358098/un-critic-accuses-google-of-censorship

This type of censoring can easily be used to stifle debate and manipulate opinions. Freedom of the Press is the basis of a good democracy. Restriction of the press is the basis of a totalitarian regime.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 6:54:01 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
What fun ! I wish I was younger I would fix a Shingle to our front door "Bletchley Park". www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/hist/history.rhtm

A whole new age for Software Developers , Heep's more mega Millionaires , half the Country working for "The Big Bunny", Conroy and the other half in Code Development.
Posted by ShazBaz001, Thursday, 24 December 2009 5:53:36 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
We need to get the opposition's policy on internet censorship also.It is no good voting in Tony Abbott when he will just continue the policy.

If Kevin Rudd is successful,then we should make them detail every item or website they censor.

We have an insidious,creeping,corportate facism that must be defeated.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 24 December 2009 8:13:14 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
Examinator, now i KNOW, you are a "true believer", or hard core, card carrying member of the ALP. Probably even red/green, socialist, loony, left faction at that. This very web site and others like it, is the target of this government's legislation. Loony left academics have always hated the proletariat and sought to restrict debate so that they can more easily dictate their "born to rule" social engineering on all of us.

Any idiot knows that law enforcement have been catching paedophiles by following them on "kiddy porn" sites. Any parent who is allowing their child unrestricted access to the Internet at home is abusing them. No child needs to have an Internet phone in their pocket 24/7, or be using a computer in their room alone, the family room with at least one parent present, is just fine.

You betrayed your true, "evil intent" when on another similar article you said that "citizen initiated referendum" could be abused by radical, extremist minority groups. ER, no referendum will pass without majority support & even if a minority group gets a proposal up that is unpopular, the cost is negligible, because it would be going through with other proposals at the next scheduled election.

Before blog sites like OLO became popular. The Mass media fed their lies to us. Australia was no different to George Orwell's "1984" nightmare. Big Brother needs no storm troopers, if the propaganda is working.

Leigh & daggett, it is wrong to concentrate on KRUD the leader as the entire green/red labour coalition is rotten to the core. There is not one single, honest, decent, politician among them & never will be, left wing politics is pure devil worship.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 24 December 2009 9:22:36 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
Nina's article should be handed out along with 'how to vote' cards.
It also needs to be mad painfully clear to every voter that the ONLY way Australia is going to dodge this little Orwellian bullet is to NOT VOTE FOR LABOR OR LIBERAL- because they will both happily pull through with it- especially while Tony's in charge. Put your preferred independents or minor candidates on TOP of the paper, put Libs, Labor, the Nats and the Christian-oriented parties LAST (to prevent them from shooting back ahead with preferencing deals).
It should be made clear on GetUp ads.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 December 2009 3:50:43 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
Great article, Nina. I also wonder how the Australian Christian Lobby get to be 'stakeholders' on this issue - not to mention being briefed by Conroy's department before anybody else.

Examinator, I think you're being unduly harsh on Ms Funnell here. Many of us share her concerns.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 24 December 2009 4:01:08 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 have to agree Nina, well written & yes, correct to the core.

Kevin Rudd is behind this & self proclamation about his leadership is what seals it. The excuse of religious groups are just a support measure & it is the government that make the decisions.

Kevin Rudd that I have personally had dealing's with, is a slimy religious grub that apologizes for one thing & does the same thing another way & through someone else. Don't be fooled, the man is a coward.

Oh, & well said Formersnag & I believe this is the second time I've agreed with you.
Posted by Atheistno1, Friday, 25 December 2009 3:32:33 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
Nina,

Great article.

With all the smoke screen of climate change and border control, the pr*ck Conroy is trying to sneak this odious piece of legislation through.

What would be useful is for some software engineers to publicly free issue software to bypass this information obstruction.

The more people know about the real impact of this big brother legislation the better.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 25 December 2009 6:49:21 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
Former snag,

It's christmas so good manners and a day of relative good cheer prevent me from telling you explicitly how apparently superficial your response appears.
If you had read my responses in the equivalent topic in the "general" section and thought about what I said you would understand how superficial this article is. Add to that my constant criticism for *all* things Political (including labor) you would realize I don't fit your stereotypical models of people. In no way does this impugn your intellect I just ask all to look at the issue beyond the parameters of some political extreme of an ethereal non existent right.

I tend to be a secular humanist not a socialist, lefty or any other such nonsensical name in the repertoire non conservative ad hominems.

It's consistent to suggest that I'm wrong or as CJ does, too harsh
with the author.
____________________________

CJ

I don't think that popularity is necessarily a determinant on correctness.

I still believe that a thought piece should make an attempt to look at the issue objectively and address the reasons for not jump onto "the bugger you I'm ok, so measure up to me" bull wagon.

Nina doesn't even attempt to be anything other than myopic popularist.
I don't believe that GY trawls the largely irrational Letters to the Editor for thought pieces.

By and large, most impress me as have something interesting to say, regardless, of if I agree with them or not, this piece simply doesn't.

Of course, Graham is entitled both as the owner and an individual to post what he thinks is appropriate.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 25 December 2009 9:55:01 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
Examinator, i do humbly apologise for offending you by suggesting that you may be a labour, "true believer". Do hope, that you are not, like C J Morgan a "green", which is, even worse. They were set up by "true believers", to fool disgruntled labour voters into thinking, they could have a protest vote & then directing the preferences back to labour anyway. If Bob Brown cared, even slightly, about the environment, then he would not, have "split the vote" & joined the "Australian democrats" instead.

After all, he had seen already, how perfectly, "big brother/labour" did exactly the same trick in "1984" with the "nuclear disarmament party". A more devious fraud has never before been perpetrated on the hapless "Aussie voter". Where is Peter Garrett now? BTW have you googled "Global Dimming" yet, are you willing to admit it's possible existence? I do sincerely wish you a happy new year.

Atheistno1, BTW when i first tried your link to the "sex party" article, i was at the local Maccas on their free wifi service checking my email etc. They would not let me through to their web site. This kind of censorship i can live with, they are a free enterprise organisation claiming to be a "family restaurant". If they wish to push those credentials by not allowing anybody to use their free wifi to go on porn sites or even the "sex party" web site then so be it. That is their right. Same as any parent has the right to "program" their own computer & children away from Internet porn, But that is completely different from the swifty, "big brother Conroy" is trying to pull over "the sheeple's eyes".
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 26 December 2009 12:59:09 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
"If Bob Brown cared, even slightly, about the environment, then he would not, have "split the vote" & joined the "Australian democrats" instead."
Are you referring to the party which is considerably different to the Greens and has voted in a clearly different manner on many issues in the senate (esp Privatizations). But on that note- why don't the Democrats members join the Greens alternatively?

I think it's something to admire that some parties actually stick to their principles and let the voters take it or leave it- instead of desperately trying to pander to religious loons and wowsers like the Libs and Labor are stumbling over themselves to do, as far as most of their policies show.

And the last thing Australia needs is to have parties compromising in a similar way the public were expected to vote for the Australian Republic they didn't want, and the Carbon Trading Scheme hitting snags of opposition in parliament/senate who are expected to take it for the sake of having a superficial environmental badge on our nation.

And I'm saying this as someone who can't wait to see the back of the two contemptible mobs currently in Parliament soon enough.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 26 December 2009 9:17:45 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
Formersnag, that link I gave you wasn't for the sex industry web site, I got it from the legal cases web site when I was looking for human rights legislation. The sex party is a legally registered parliamentary group (party), the same as the Greens, Labor, Liberal & Pauline Hanson.

I have to also clarify that in my earlier post, I said I agreed with you, wasn't on what you said about examinator but that it was the second time I agreed with you on something.
Posted by Atheistno1, Sunday, 27 December 2009 2:59:20 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
King Hazza,

The Greens didn't fit with the Dems either they have/had very different policies. You are becoming aware of why I don't support any party. I support policies.
_________________________

Formersnag,

I'm not offended, I simply have a view that doesn't accept political parties or their group think. For that reason I support or reject individual policies. I also don't accept argument that are selective and one sided or based on political ad hominem. I try to the best of my ability to be objective, take in all the facts then come up with a conclusion.
This article did none of the above.
As a general broad view I am my version of a secular humanist.

BTW off topic,global dimming? you should read more scientific data. It's the difference between weather and climate change. Global warming isn't going to effect the whole world in the same way. You should read some of the latest satellite data.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 27 December 2009 10:03:00 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
Examinator,

I am not clear on what actual policy you support.

Do you support:
a) Complete unfettered access to the net,
b) Filtering of illegal child porn,
C) filtering of all porn,
d) filtering of porn and all other inappropriate material as decided by a secretive government appointed panel.

Because Conroy is pushing option d)

Given the tepid, politically correct drivel served up to us as news and current affairs on the free to air channels, it would appear that free and non politically correct expression is not long for these shores.

I don't care who is responsible, but this toxic bill being fed to us under the guise of "protecting the children" is the most serious threat to our democracy since WWII.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 28 December 2009 8:28:44 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
Shadow Minister,

Most are aware that d) is the policy that is being pushed & regardless of the policy, any of those multiple choice will be an invasion of our civil right's.

It is always the governments excuse to hide behind religion & children, as they go hand in hand for the religious child molesters, whilst they feed a wall of lies to go with the underhanded secrecy that is actually being implemented with the uttermost anti-patriotic measures of suppression against the public.

Kevin Rudd is a Catholic that insists on removing children from their parents & this is just another way to remove the onus of responsibility from the parents & have his dictatorial measures of control implemented.

Religious child molesters will always be religious child molesters. They think & breath the way they do & no one has the power to stop them as long as they control the major seats of politics or power, constantly forcing their measures of suppression & dictatorship. Rudd not only learned Chinese, he inherited their suppressive mentality as well & has worked hard to impose their culture on this country.
Posted by Atheistno1, Monday, 28 December 2009 2:31:50 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
This is a good article from Nina. Too much control of the internet by any government gives them way too much control over what people are allowed to know and think.
The way governments govern without revolution is by convincing the people ,that something while not popular, is good for the country or the people as a whole. If they talk about how it is necessary for long enough the people start to believe them and they will grudgingly accept it.

Where is our secular Western government ? Why are there so many people of strong religious beliefs wielding political power. Ideologically, what is the difference between a person of strong religious belief and a priest . Absolutley none. They will both attempt to pass religious laws through government. Yet the law only prohibits clergymen from running for parliament.
Posted by sharkfin, Tuesday, 29 December 2009 12:44:24 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. 4
  6. All

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