CENSORING the INTERNET!?!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111255-Australias-Internet-Filter-Switches-On-In-July
I know i say this a lot, but i mean it more than ever this time: FUCK YOU, AUSTRALIA! >:( >:( >:(

Seems like all there changing is Child Abuse Websites.

Or...

That doesn't mean much to me personally, because i don't visit those sites, but still, it's a terrible thing to do for the people that do like those sites, and what's to say they won't start censoring other sites? What if they block Eastern Front, or Blistered Thumbs?

pariah wrote:
That doesn't mean much to me personally, because i don't visit those sites, but still, it's a terrible thing to do for the people that do like those sites, and what's to say they won't start censoring other sites? What if they block Eastern Front, or Blistered Thumbs?

People who like child abuse sites have a problem and should see a therapist. Furthermore, while I do not like the idea of putting a filter on random internet sites, I do agree with blocking out child abuse websites and such. As for being paranoid about the government following you and spying on you, do you really think they need a special filter for that?

Why are you so against child abuse websites? I don't know what they are, so i don't have an opinion on it.

Also, who brought up spying? ???

Sigh, It begins with taking Sawn-Offs away from Majors... now this. The bastards. :P

Ja. ;D

Child abuse websites are the ones which show pictures and films of children being sexually abused.

...And you would know this how? ;)

because its common sense, any adult knows what child abuse is. didnt your parents teach you not to talk to strangers, and dont let them touch your privates and if they do tell an adult or parent cus thats child abuse

I can't see how anybody could know that without actually visiting these websites...

But anyway, my point still stands: These arseholes should NOT be censoring our Internet access!

maybe he watches a lot of news, that sort of thing is on the news its controversial.

revolution to australia!

Yeah, i think it's about time we took up arms and revolted...

If it's in your constitution it's legal :)

You know, i didn't think revolution was ever legal...

To the best of my knowledge, there is no law which says revolution is forbidden :P
Just as escaping from prison is pretty much legal in certain countries, but yeah.

Hey, that's cool. When i become Dictator Of The Universe, the first law i will establish is NO REVOLTING! And the second being PLAY EASTERN FRONT! ;D

pariah wrote:
You know, i didn't think revolution was ever legal...

Hmmm...

US wrote:...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wow, America certainly seems to have a better system than Australia...

I don't think we are even completely independent from Britain yet, actually...

Pariah, the Commonwealth is no longer a politically binding organisation...

For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

Well, that's most terribly confusing... Australia has the queens picture on our currency, and her birthday is a public holiday, so it appears that we are still quite connected. Not to mention that our language is pretty much the same, unlike that of America...

It's similar in Canada too. Their currency has the Queen on it...

Huh, that's interesting... I betcha they don't have Australian animals on them, though! :P ;D

We got Canadian animals on them :)

Ummm... we are getting so off topic (ironic isnt it) however isn't it only really trying to censor child pornography sites so....

The Queen of England is still the Queen of Australia and Canada, and many many islands that are within the Commonwealth and some other nations...If England goes to war it is not illegal for the Commonwealth not to send troops, however it is expected for the main nations such as Canada and Austria to send a few troops (hence the reason why they are in Iraq and Afghanistan however they would have been there because of the coalition anyways)

Anyways on topic I don't think censoring certain websites is wrong....websites that promote wide spread death and destruction (LIKE YOUTUBE JK) and things such as certain pornography should be censord.

also if someone has a liking to such a thing it is commonly not there fault...normally these things happen to the person in some form or another in their childhood and many people hate themselves for liking such things so this could be a way to help them

...and btw you don't have to go to one of these websites to know you could have been told that it exists...also the US government is trying to block wiki-leaks (they did they had to move to a server in France) so it doesn't matter if they want to block something they will no mater what...they can be any government America recently passed a law (on Wikileaks) allowing them to block any site they deem will "harm or hinder" American soldiers....more like they were trying to protect their own ass

Last edited June 28, 2011 at 5:04 AM by ford_prefect

Paladin88 wrote:
Ummm... we are getting so off topic (ironic isnt it) however isn't it only really trying to censor child pornography sites so....

Perhaps, but that's just where it starts! You don't know when they will start censoring other sites (such as gaming) as well!

Hee hee, then I'd wait till they announced that and then I'll protest. If its Child porn then I really don't mind. But if this is the beginning of a new era...

WartyX wrote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."

God damn it Warty!

Alright I protest since its against civil liberties!!!

Do civil liberties make it ok to say that Hitler was a good man, that all jews must be killed, and that all muslims are terrorists and should be hunted down and shot? Because that is what unlimited civil liberty gives you.

Hey, if those blind motherfuckers want to think that, that's fine by me. I'm just happy to know that i'm better than them, and they will NEVER get any respect from decent people.

... Someone please lock this thread. Its now heading into dangerous waters and may turn into a flame war soon.

Sir requesting the lock!

Lets be diplomatic, if they have a good reason behind doing it its fine by me. If they can prove it'll be a help rather than a hinderance thats fine by me too.

Tico, Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to defend one's self, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family.

What you have suggested is completely not in line with this way of thinking. There are negative and positive ways of thinking and even if its says freedom of expression I think they refer to freedom of expression (as long as it doesn't interfere with another's civil liberties).

Pariah, don't respond to bait like that, seriously. Far from being perfect, it doesn't stop us from doing our best now does it. What you have just said was not very helpful to anyone, it doesn't help those who are twisted and need guidance, nor those working towards a better future, right?

...What bait? ??? We are just discussing, and stating our opinions, man. Nobody is insulting anybody else. There is no reason for this topic to be locked.

Nothing wrong with lively debate, and I haven't seen any reason to lock yet.

In that case, I'll continue (and yes, I'll keep it civilised ;) ).
Pariah, you are saying that it is ok for them to think this, that, is freedom of thought, I am talking about unlimited freedom of speech.
In my country, we have freedom of speech, so long as it is not specifically and deliberately insulting against groups of people. Our law makes groups like the KKK and the Nazi party illegal (just examples, it applies to way more), which in my opinion, is a good thing because I can't see how allowing those groups is a good thing.

I hate those racist people as well, but what i'm saying is that you're not going to be able to change them. Racists are, by their very nature, short-sighted, and any amount of debate is unlikely to sway their opinions.

So long as you keep to yourself, and don't hurt anybody else, i think it should be legal to think what you will, even if it is totally fucked up.

Think about it - How would you like it if they tried to make you share their views that, for example, Jews aren't real people, and should be exterminated? I wouldn't like it if somebody tried to force that ideology on me, so i'm sure they wouldn't like it if i tried to force mine on them.

True, but again, you are talking about freedom of thought, I am talking about freedom of speech. Freedom of thought gives you the right to say what you want. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want (depending on how limited it is).

Well, yeah, you shouldn't be allowed to say things that offend other people, unless you have good grounds to do so, in my opinion. But drawing the line with something like that is quite impossible...

With this whole censoring of the Internet, it's not about freedom of thought, nor freedom of speech, but rather freedom to do what you want, in your own home! It boggles my mind that something like this could be legal...

Well to use the very reason this law was put into place (which are to block child abuse websites), it is illegal to abuse children, or to make pornographic footage of people under the age of 18 (21 in some countries). Also, according to most countries laws, it is illegal to make, own, or spread child porno
This law, which blocks these kinds of sites, is put in place to prevent the ease of spreading pornographic material which contains children. This in turn makes it less profitable to make this kind of porn. Which in turn should lessen or preferably stop child abuse and child pornography all together.

This isn't a law enacted by the government; This is being done by the corporations.

And as WartyX said:

WartyX wrote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."

I don't care if these sites get blocked, because i don't visit them, but you just don't know where it will end...

pariah wrote:
This isn't a law enacted by the government; This is being done by the corporations.

And as WartyX said:

WartyX wrote:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."

I don't care if these sites get blocked, because i don't visit them, but you just don't know where it will end...

Would you say the same if your little sister or later in life, your daughter would end up on such a website? Knowing, that such a law would have prevented it, if it were implemented?

Hmm, having no siblings nor kids makes it hard for me to judge, but if they did exist, and wanted to be in a porno, who am i to stop them?

I think he's referring to if they are still young children. They would have no choice whether they end up on these websites, and sometimes they might not even know what is happening to them is bad so they won't speak up.

Indeed I am wartyx, again, the term child abuse, means abusing children (as in, against their will). I don't know how often you read the papers, but sometimes, babies as young as 3 months are abused. As far as I know, babies of 3 months old don't really have a say in the matter do they?

I can't help what other people do, man. I've got my own life to focus on.

You do realise the irony of saying what you just said in connection to the part you quoted from wartyx?

Hmm, nope...

What i'm trying to say is, i can't control other people. Nobody can. All i want is my basic freedom. Is that too much to ask?

The quote Wartyx gave roughly means the following: "I did not object because they weren't after me, but now that they are after me, it's too late." Pretty much, as long as other people don't bother you, they can do what they want. Your words imply that as long as they don't do it to you, other people can steal, rape, and murder as much as they want.
Specifically  to this case: as long as you aren't bothered by it, it is ok for other people to abuse little children, often mentally damaging them for life.
You want basic freedom, you have it, and this "censoring" of yours is not interfering with your so called "freedom". As you said, you aren't bothered by it, so what does it matter what others want?

You misunderstand, dude. I'm sure we all want a peaceful world, but there is nothing i can do to make it happen. I'm trying to say that censoring the Internet holds back our freedom. So, it shouldn't happen.