[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Alan Vidler]

On 12/08/2010 12:08 PM Ivan Lazar Miljenovic sent:
> On 12 August 2010 11:50, Ben Nizette<bn at niasdigital.com>  wrote:
>>
>> As far as I've been able to tell Conroy doesn't see the introduction of a filter as a new radical policy, he sees it as closing a loop-hole.  At the moment you can't get Refused Classification media by book, as a game at EB, as a DVD at Video Ezy etc etc.  He has always couched the filter not in terms of the filter itself but rather as a means to implement the same restrictions on internet-delivered media as any physically-delivered media.  I'm not convinced he expected such a huge outcry, after all (with the exception of R18+ games) no-one really objects to the restrictions on this material in physical form.
>
> Not quite true: one of the items in the report submitted to the senate
> recently was an episode of Family Guy that should have been RC but was
> available to buy on DVD.
>
> Whilst the issue of RC material does seem to be the official reason,
> the Australian Christian Lobby (which does not represent my viewpoint
> as a Christian) seems to have a scary amount of influence...
>
>> Call me optimistic or naiive but I honestly don't think Conroy's trying to implement this as any kind of hush-machine, he regularly and vocally explains that he knows that this is no substitute for NetNanny etc for families, I think he just simply sees this as closing a loophole in our classification system.  The fact he refuses to see it's technically unenforceable and won't let it go I think can just be put down to pig-headedness, stubborn-mindedness and a disconnect with reality that, while scary, are hardly unique attributes amongst politicians!
>
> As opposed to, you know, parents ensuring their young children don't
> look at certain types of websites...

Not a topic I've got passionate about but what scares me is the 
insistence by all that the list of banned sites is to be kept 
secret under threat of draconian penalties.

We've already heard of sites on the list because they do not 
agree with Religious Right philosphy (eg. Exit International).

What guarantees have we that a future government will not use the 
mechanism to suppress sites advocating or revealing:
- Limiting population growth
- Taking action on climate change
- the converse, climate change denial
- the *fact* that a major sponsoring organisation has a history 
of hundreds of years of protecting paedophiles
- etc, leading to things like
- suggesting voting for the Opposition
- suggesting a government Minister demonstrably lied
- not attending church X
- sharing accommodation with a non-spouse

... I'm glad everyone with any technical knowledge thinks it is 
technically non-feasible.

Alan V