The Australian Communications and Media Authority,
ACMA, deemed the Anti-Abortion site as "prohibited
online content," according to the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992.

The question we need to ask - is should things be
censored? Or is it a case of - allow everything?
That covers quite a variety of explicit and graphic
material. How do we decide what to censor?

Apparently we don't - it's up to bodies like the ACMA
to decide, right? They've been appointed for a reason,
I presume.

Do I object to the Anti-Abortion site? Yes I do.
To me it falls under the heading of inappropriate
material. I object to sites that feel compelled
to play the role of social worker

Perhaps I was too subtle. My excuse it is it was late when I wrote the post, and possibly after a glass or two as well.

The web page concerned is a political statement. A forceful, in your face statement certainly, but nonetheless an honest one. It says "we dislike abortion, and this is why". If you find the images deeply disturbing but nonetheless support abortion, then perhaps it is time to rethink your position as the images are an accurate portrayal of the consequences of supporting it.

The question I was asking was not about abortion. It was about the prospect of the Australian government censoring web sites that make strong statements on abortion. If it isn't obvious the question was specifically aimed at the runners, the Gibo's and Bronwyn's of this world - those that have taken an absolute position on censorship and are outspoken in their support of the current filtering proposal. I mean absolute support in that sense that we should absolutely protect the children from all harm, regardless of the cost.

Well here is a cost you may not of considered. So far, with your unstinting support of the government filtering proposal, you have been arguing for the right of the majority to gag the minority. Well, this time _you_ are clearly the minority, and so you have been unwittingly arguing against your right to speak strongly in defence of the unborn child against their murder (to borrow runners words).

So, runner et al, is the cost worth the benefits?

rstuart

I doubt whether these graphic pictures would change a calloused heart. In some ways it would make the humanist more rebellious.

I can't see a correlation between blocking pervert sights that lead to rape, unwanted pregnancies and degradtion however I would not be concerned if the anti abortion sight was blocked.

We already have had Governments limit the freedom of speech among Christians for decades in this country. Blocking a few anti abortion sights would mean little to me especially if it meant less degradation, depression, hatred, destroyed families etc that result from pornography. No doubt our mate Bill Henson will receive an exemption and still be allowed to photograph young girls nude and call it art.

RStuart,

Nothing should be banned really but for snuff and rape and that obvious kinda stuff.

This actually leads to the "kids seeing stuff on the net" and the censorship question, it is a hard one, but I believe the parents need to monitor it not the government.

I am not saying I think it is great for us to overload on heavy info and images but loss of free speech is worse.

Foxy “Apparently we don't - it's up to bodies like the ACMA
to decide, right? They've been appointed for a reason,
I presume.”

That assumes I am incapable of making the decision for myself.

Yet our democratic system assumes I am capable of electing those who appoint the people who act in the role as censor for ACMA.

I find that completely contradictory….

If there is any line to be drawn, in terms of censorship, it should be based on some legislated for legal limit.

Viz… if we are to have any "censorship", not that I am in favour of Censorship by the State, I find such notions dangerous in the extreme, through their concentration of Power into the hands of what we know are the seriously flawed creatures we call politicians (the late Bob Collins coming to mind),

it should be limited only to actions which are illegal

That covers terrorist sites amd sites affiliated with terrorist organizations, like Hamas,
It would cover pedophilia sites and sites which illustrate how to perform a bank robbery or criminal fraud but
It would not cover legal Pornography or the sites of anti-abortionists who express a view, which I happen to disagree with, but are not pursuing something illegal…
However, I suppose if they showed how to blow up an abortion clinic, then they should be blocked.

Simply because someone feels the need for a nanny does not mean we should all suffer the inconvenience and tax expense of such pointless exercises in the futile.

I wonder if the church groups are now in two minds about the proposed internet filter. What a dilemma this must be for them. They want our internet access to be filtered against our wishes in a vain attempt to protect children, but this very same filter could prevent them from showing their graphic images.

That aside, I can’t help but wonder if all Christians are technological illiterates. Surely some church group out there has someone with the knowledge to say: “This won’t work, so there’s no point in supporting it”. Or is the zealotry of the pro-filter Christians so extreme that they don’t care that it won’t work?

I can imagine that many of these “protected” children will be quite annoyed, when they’re adults, to learn that their internet had been screwed-up, and their freedom of speech had been affected, all in the name of protecting them (I know I would be). Or will they feel that they were "used" in a cynical attempt for the current government to impose censorship for other more underhanded reasons?