Conroy's Gap.

No longer just a place name from the collected works of A.B.Patterson, but the short title of a proposed 'censorship central' for all Australia. rstuart has hit the nail on the head in highlighting the fact that it is politician imposed censorship, not the suppression of pornography, that the term 'unwanted content' really masks.

I am getting the sense that there is another dimension to the advancement of this repressive proposal beyond that of the political agenda suggested by Sylvia Else. Could it be that there is a desire or intent, being advanced via the machinery of government, to make the internet as we all know it unworkable in a general sense? Could the motivating force for such an intent be coming from large trans-national corporations experiencing the problem that the way the internet and ICT generally has developed no longer suits their monopolistic business models?

Perhaps I am only feeling this way because of what I see as implications of concurrent ICT proposals being advanced under the cover of what could be a 'green fog' of claimed environmental concerns. These proposals would seem to be one way or another promoting web-based applications and centralization of data storage, with consumers being forced to pay all over again for functionality they already own outright and that works quite satisfacorily in conjunction with the internet as it is, uncensored.

As to what is being said on OLO with respect to internet censorship, check out the following:

Link to comments on the article 'Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship': http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8162&page=0 Antony Loewenstein's OLO article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8162

Link to OLO article by Mark Newton 'The Perplexing Internet Debate': http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8098 Comments on that article: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8098

Neither discussion thread is yet closed to new comment.

Also: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2277

Gershon Report: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/ICT-Review/

rstuart
I will certainly look at the links and into the issue more. There is always some censorship in societies but the question is where do we draw the line - when does censorship become oppressive or undemocratic as opposed to protective (as in the case of movie classifications or filtering porn out of the classroom).

It would be concerning if issues like euthanasia (as was mentioned) were included in this and does beg the question of where does it stop?

Thanks, RawMustard for starting this vital forum.

Sylvia Else wrote, "One has to wonder at what's driving this politically. Clearly the electorate doesn't want it. It must be some deal with a minor party, with Family First being the obvious candidate."

From the Age article at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1,

... Senators Stephen Fielding and Nick Xenophon, who otherwise seem to play a relatively constructive role in politics, appear to be the principle drivers behind this, but I very much doubt that it would be happening unless the Government, and, behind them, corporate interests, truly want them as Forrest Gump argues.

It needs to be noted that the Murdoch newsmedia is taking what appears to be an outspoken stance against censorship, but I think this is most likely no more than posturing. If they really wanted to stop it, they could do so by putting the truth about the Internet filtering proposals on the front page of its newspapers and demand honest answers from the Government every day until the legislation is withdrawn.

I believe that, contrary to superficial appearances, the corporate newsmedia want censorship in order to be able to control us better and in order to be able to extract more money from us in the longer term as Forrest Gump argues.

As to why they are doing it. It would be hard to put it better than US Air Force (retired) Lieutenant Colonel Dr Robert Bowman who said recently in Cincinnati:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKHySWNyFc "Bob Bowman Speaks Before Cincinnati 9/11 Truth part 2"

"Our problems are not due to incompetence or inexperience
or a government which is to big or too small. We have these
problems because those in government no longer serve us.
They server their corporate masters and benefactors and have
deliberately chosen policies which harm our nation and its people."

However, it is paradoxical that some, who (correctly) argue against Government censorship, nevertheless seem desperate to discredit Robert Bowman and others like him, who reject the official US Government explanation for the 'false flag' September 11 terrorist attacks. (See the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#50194)

(tobecontinued)

(contiunedfromabove)

In fact, this censorship concerning the 9/11 issue has been far more systematic in Australia than just merely subjecting those who question the Official Conspiracy Theory to scorn and ridicule. See, for example, the supposedly alternative web site http://webdiary.com.au which refused my request to publish an article on the 9/11 controversy.

It's stated policy is:

Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following
matters:

1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the
United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.

Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because
experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the
two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other
side isn't listening. ... (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2584#comment-86540
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/4)

---

So censorship is already with us and it is not just censorship by the corporate newsmedia and the Government.

I believe that this censorship on the part of the ostensible left in addition to that of the corporate newsmedia, has had the practical consequence of preventing the grass roots movement against the invasion of Iraq from succeeding in 2003 and of getting John Howard re-elected in 2004.

I believe that if the official US government 9/11 myth had been exposed for what it was, then John Howard would not have gotten away with committing this country to war in the face of the most massive mass protests since the time of the Vietnam War.

Instead, some of the original majority who opposed the war waned in their resolve, because, as Hermann Goering once put it, people will support war if they are made to believe that they face an external threat.

Clearly Internet filtering will make a bad situation far worse, and, perhaps, irrevocably so, but we need to also do what we can to end the needless censorship we face now.

daggett: << Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other side isn't listening >>

It's called quality control, James. I don't suppose the fact that both OLO and Webdiary have knocked back your obsessive rants about crackpot conspiracy theories indicates anything to you about the basis for them?

I imagine that Webdiary has just as many attention-seeking nutters submitting their paranoid fantasies, dressed up as articles, as OLO does. Their refusal to publish such rubbish wouldn't be regarded as censorship by most rational people, unlike Conroy's proposals.

Of course, you're quite free to publish whatever nonsense you like on your own site - where I'm sure at least a dozen people will bother to read it.

CJ, I am going to pick a nit here. I agree with everything you say of course. But ... you used the words "would not be regarded as censorship". That is best miss-leading. You leave room for some doubt, as in "a tomato can not be regarded as a vegetable."

There is no room doubt in this case. Censorship is the act of preventing someone from publishing something they want to publish. What dagget was talking about here is forcing to someone to publish something they want nothing to do with.

I can't think of a word to describe it right now. The closest analogy I can think of to forcing someone to say something they don't wish to is torture. Its close, but no cigar.