Col

'nothing short of pathetic. “

Those last 4 words sound like what I would use to describe your entire existence.

Thankfully I really don't need your endorsement. You just ain't that important.

runeer "Thankfully I really don't need your endorsement. You just ain't that important."

I never consider myself to be "important"

and it was not an endorsement, merely a confirmation to the obvious

Col is right about the vague wording which is a problem with both the existing and proposed censorship regimes. Words like 'objectionable' and 'unsuitable' revolve around the subjective, rather than the specific. They just create giant loopholes.

There's no way to resolve the contradictions around internet censorship. The government is trying to treat it as just another content provider, like a cinema or dvd store. It's relatively easy to rate content and control access in those situations.

When it comes to the internet you can't control who gets access to what, so the challenge is to make all content suitable for the lowest common denominator.

The whole proposal begins with the assumption that the internet is a cesspit and everyone on it is a violent, perverted, terrorist, child-abusing copyright infringer. That would include the likes of pro-lifers like runner.

Put the issue of abortion aside and we're all in this together. I lose access to Tarantino trailers on YouTube and runner loses access to pictures of dead babies

Chainsmoker

'I lose access to Tarantino trailers on YouTube and runner loses access to pictures of dead babies'

Until this post commenced I had never seen pictures of murdered babies on the internet before. Your assumption is wrong.

Chainsmoker “Col is right about the vague wording which is a problem with both the existing and proposed censorship regimes. Words like 'objectionable' and 'unsuitable' revolve around the subjective, rather than the specific. They just create giant loopholes.”

Thanks for your input, you have identified exactly what I was trying to get my head around.

My original suggestion was if there were to be any censorship, it should be formulated around what is illegal and what is “legal” is there fore, excluded from consideration by the government appointed censors

and my point with using those parameters is because they do, by definition, make the process

less subjective and more specific/objective

and the definitions being predetermined by elected representatives in through their enactment of legislation to guide the censor, rather than leaving the censor with any discretionary authority whatsoever.

Of course the whole internet censorship exercise is a complete hoax.

No one can go on the internet these days and stay active for more than an hour without using anti-virus and firewall software and those application packages come with childproofing functions which can be implemented by parents when children are using the PC or not-implemented when a PC is used by adults, who should not be the subjects of censorship.

When a government feels entitled to censor the reading and viewing sources of its electorate, it reflects seriously upon the very morals and motivations of that government.

Firstly we see how Power corrupts…

And we also know how absolute power corrupts too

>>My original suggestion was if there were to be any censorship, it should be formulated around what is illegal and what is “legal” is there fore, excluded from consideration by the government appointed censors<<

- which leads to yet another problem for the government's justification for the whole package. It is justified on the grounds that illegal material is banned in meatworld and should be banned online as well.

This would be all well and good had the ACMA not cut Conroy and Rudd off mid-sentence by blacklisting a site for a photo, the likes of which are routinely distributed by pro-lifers. I have yet to see them dragged off in a paddy wagon for it.

>>No one can go on the internet these days and stay active for more than an hour without...

True. Another truth is that the sort of violence, porn and combos of those thought to leap from the screen upon pressing the On button are actually hard to find and difficult to access.

So when you say "it reflects seriously upon the very morals and motivations of that government", I'd argue that it suggests something less than complementary about that government's opinion of the people who elected it.

Contemporary governments are all morally and motivationally shonky. For the record, I wouldn't expect a government with Tony Abbott in it to behave any differently.

More worrying, this is being contemplated by an Australian government. You'd hardly call Australians a nation of trouble makers. What we are though, is a nation without any constitutional protection from this sort of thing.