Rstuart

The EFA is right that there is no right of appeal for a person whose site finds its way onto the list. I didn't say otherwise. I'm merely saying that there's a right of appeal where a person is served with a link deletion notice (or indeed a content take-down notice).

I'm not defending censorship laws. I dislike them intensely. But the debate is not advanced by misinformation. Indeed, I've repeated seen claims that merely posting links that are on the prohibited list can result in $11,000 a day fines. These claims are probably leading to self censorship. It would be much better if people were posting such links all over the Australian internet, so as to overwhelm the ACMA who has the task of issuing link-deletion notices. The only downside is that because it's content service providers who have to deal with the notices, they may get upset if their users create all this extra work by posting links.

I think it's an exaggeration for you to say that my response is always that the law has been misapplied. In the Simpsons cartoon case (which I assume is what you were referring to) the law appears to have been correctly applied. That law seems rather absurd though, and it seems particularly worrying that it's possible for a person to draw a picture, and then be charged with a criminal offence for possessing it.

Yet we still need laws. The laws relating to child pornography are quite reasonable where the content involves real children suffering real harm. We want to prevent that harm, and limiting the market for such material seems a reasonable step. The problems arise when authorities start trying to apply those laws to situations to which they were never meant to apply, such as the baby swinging case, or the case where a man was filming semi-dressed children in a park. When that happens, people need to be willing to stand up for themselves, so that the authorities realise they need to pull their heads in.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else: "I dislike them intensely."

Given your previous posts on the issue that is both surprising and pleasant to hear.

Sylvia Else: "claims merely posting links ... can result in $11,000 a day fines ... lead to self censorship."

Yes. I agree. Its a pity the minister is making them. But given he is it might be difficult to squash.

Sylvia Else: "The laws relating to child pornography are quite reasonable ..."

Are they? No one argues laws relating to harming of children aren't absolutely necessary. We have them, and as far as I can tell they are enforced world-wide pretty well. If you really wanted catch the people doing the harm, you would not ban child porn. You would do the reverse - allow it to come out into the open where law enforcement could see it and follow the trail to the perpetrators. But no, we force the trade underground, into the dark corners of the internet, making it possible for the people who produce this stuff to go about their business in relative safety.

The ban on child porn is not about eliminating harm to children. It is about people feeling such disgust at the idea of someone looking at child porn they pass laws against it. The feelings are so strong they do this despite their actions cause more harm to children than not acting at all.

We then take it to the absurd lengths of implementing filtering. Again, if the idea was to stop harm to children you would not filter. If it is possible to block child porn, then it is possible to detect it. So you don't ban the porn and instead install detectors, and hunt the stuff to its source. This would be a far more effective strategy at preventing harm to children.

But no. People like you are duped into accepting the line that to protect the children we must have censorship. If you who thinks about things pretty deeply is conned by this line, what hope have the rest of the plebs got? It's all a bit depressing.

Rstuart

"Are they? No one argues laws relating to harming of children aren't absolutely necessary. We have them, and as far as I can tell they are enforced world-wide pretty well. If you really wanted catch the people doing the harm, you would not ban child porn."

Catching the people doing the harm is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to reduce the harm to children. Catching people is a deterrent, for sure, but destroying the market for the product by making it undeliverable would also be effective.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else: "but destroying the market for the product by making it undeliverable"

It would. Turning dirt into wheat would feed the starving too. However, as you full well know the filters doesn't make the product undeliverable. In fact the proposed filter will have no effect on the channels the product flows through whatsoever. Right now getting a filter that would do that seems as about as likely as turning dirt into wheat. A pipe dream.

However, putting in detectors for the stuff is not a pipe dream. In fact I read yesterday about the Queensland police building honey pots to do just that. Now if they turned possesing child porn into a misdemeanour so at least one end of the transaction didn't have a strong incentive to avoid them, they might even be able to prevent a great deal of harm. As it is the effect is likely to be small.

Much as such filth appalls me, I just can't see any real way of making it un-deliverable. There's always going to be ways around censorship and such measures, that's been shown time after time. Hunting down the perpetrators and producers seems far more effective, as long as they are suitably punished(I prefer the death sentence, no re-offending).
As for destroying the market, I wonder? It would seem that it's always been a part of the human race, from the earliest days, and if the rock-spiders can't get their fix of porn, perhaps we'd be increasing the danger of them seeking other outlets...our children?
Unfortunately, much as I'd like to, I can't offer a solution to this quandary, unless somehow someone can figure out a way of detecting and "curing" the perversion?

rstuart
Good to see you are so open-minded about this issue.

A good but well worn strategy is if your view does not match mine I will call it whingeing, that way it makes your view seem less worthy and mine by contrast becomes immune from attack or scrutiny.

While I have done something about my own internet arrangements, the same cannot be said about access for other children. My family is not an island.

You will do well to watch the Q&A episode that was on tonight. Stephen Conroy's answers might suprise you. The so called blacklist is not new and has been in force for 9 years, the dentist site that you use as a fine example of censorship gone mad was banned because of child porn spammed onto the site by the Russian mob. Things are not always as simple as they might appear. And there is not always a bad boogeyman conspiracy to censor our thoughts and freedoms.

Surprisingly you could have knocked me over with a feather but I totally agreed with Andrew Bolt's views on this issue.

People seem to be more worried about non-existent attacks on freedom of speech than on the very real dangers present to children on the net. It is becoming the populist catchcry for the sake of being a part of the 'in' crowd. But no doubt I will be accused of whingeing while rstuart's views which have never offered to even see the other point of view, will be to him, sacrosanct.

Perhaps we should wait and see what is actually offerred and what technology is available to support it.