Terry Spek
23 January 2009, 12:30PM

Another fools errand, just like a certain SA govenors mission to ensure R18+ ratings are never applied to interactive media.

These people are clear in there intent to protect children, but haven’t the slightest idea that what there proposing does nothing of the sort.

Peter
12 December 2008, 12:21PM

Can’t see a problem with the proposal.

Suzi
11 December 2008, 09:54AM

Another exampel of the Nanny State. Of all of us being responsible for everyone else’s children - why are not the parents doing this with local software? Or, would it be possible for all porn sites to have a URL of .sex? Why waste $m of our money on broadband rollout and then slow down the net? Rocks in head?!!! And has any clever programmer thought about exactly how the filtering will work, what the criteria will be for “unacceptable” material, and how on earth to write those programs? Will we end up like a friend of mine who couldn’t download recipes because they contained “unaccptable” words like “BBreast” (of chicken) and “virgin” (olive oil)?
We are grown up now and perfectly capable of deciding what we want to watch, read and access, and responsible for what our children ditto. We don’t need any more censorship or removal of our basic rights. This whole policy is a total no-brainer and should be abandoned forthwith!

Martin
11 December 2008, 08:04AM

I repeat Dan’s question to Nicola: “How is porn a problem and how does it have a negative impact on society?”. Many people automatically assume that porn is a problem, but where are the proper studies that show that it is? Is ALL porn a problem? Soft porn? Nudity? People having loving sexual intercourse? Where do you draw the line, and who draws it?
I think the only positive aspect of the proposed filter will be a generation of kids more computer-savvy than ever before as they find ways around it.
It’s time for the government to admit, at least to itself, that the filter was a poorly thought-through election promise to win votes from people with a knee-jerk reaction to this issue. It would be un-workable and would do great damage to the “democracy” we go to war to force on others.

Dan
11 December 2008, 12:54AM

Nicola,

Perhaps you could explain to me.
How is porn a problem and how does it have negative a negative impact on society?

Why should I have my right to free-speech revoked due to yours, or anyone else’s failures to look after their own kids?

I would also like to know, how is ISP based filtering any less fool proof than a PC based filter?

“how is
censoring porn any different to censoring other socio-political evils such
as hate speech?”

Neither should be blocked, they are both free-speech and whether you like it or not people have the right to say it. Just as you have the right to say things that other people don’t like.

If you oppose free-speech you should try living in a country such as China, then you might be grateful for what we have.

Nicola Saad
10 December 2008, 11:15PM

As a parent (who won’t even let her teenager watch M rated movies) but whose 10 yr old child accessed porn online, I actively resent the implication that people whose kids access porn are “unfit” (I think that was how Dan put it!).  Even excellent parents cannot be everywhere at all times, PC-based filtering software is NOT foolproof (especially considering the computer-savvy of the next generation) and despite comments to the contrary porn IS a serious problem with lifelong consequences, which people who care about the future of society should be doing more to prevent. 

I am all for accountability - it should always be the foundation of government - but in this instance I side with the move to protect the children.  Sometimes, censorship isn’t a bad thing - in fact, how is censoring porn any different to censoring other socio-political evils such as hate speech??  Bet Amnesty wouldn’t be crying foul of THAT being censored.

Dan
6 December 2008, 07:56PM

Ab,

You are spot-on, K Rudd is following China on this one because the system works well over there.

If this can happen to Australia then it can happen to anyone, we are one of the most free nations in the world and have no problem defending that freedom when needed.

The free-people of the world must watch out, if we fall so can you.

Ab
6 December 2008, 07:50PM

This is terrible, amnesty gotta act. The only thing won is the government control over regular peoples sites and free-speech. Australian people gotta stand up from the digital illitterat politicians. Anyone thinking this would stop some badthing should take a IT-lesson to learn that the scum already uses encryption and other methods. This proposal will only do one thing: stop free speech!

Russell Blackford
5 December 2008, 12:13AM

I always thought that Amnesty International should have quite a narrow remit, and I left it some years ago because I saw it as getting involved in too many extraneous issues (beyond seeking amnesty for political prisoners). But you could just about win me back with activism on this particular issue.

It will be disastrous if even liberal Western countries such as Australia take the view that repressive legislation such as this - with its enormous potential to grow and cut out more and more speech and expression - is politically acceptable. We must all oppose this legislation with all the vigour we can muster.

Dan
4 December 2008, 02:15PM

Protecting children doesn’t get you money or power.

Suppressing free-speech does.

Joyce
4 December 2008, 02:03PM

It’s a shame that in Australia, ridiculous policies can progress this far on the premise of “Thinking of the Children”. It’s disgusting how often children are used as a method to further personal agendas, and in many cases, forcing censorship on the adult population while being ineffective in “protecting the children”.

jason
3 December 2008, 09:56PM

simone according to the salvation army pornography is a christian problem

simone
3 December 2008, 09:52PM

Pornography is not limited to the internet. To suggest that something like an internet filter seems to be largely a bad solution to appease the public.
Control what children see by responsible adults monitoring what they view on the internet just as we monitor what they watch on tv.
And let us adults choose what we view. Not what is allowed by some government board.

jason
3 December 2008, 01:53PM

childwise has used fake information to glean govt funding and push for this filter. A criminal investigation into childwise is called for along with a review of how govts hand out grants based on fake data.

Jason
3 December 2008, 11:36AM

One problem we have in Australia is that our stable society has led a lot of people to fail to truly appreciate just how important our freedoms are. For people who have experienced oppressive regimes its a no-brainer, freedom comes first. Governments that are not kept on a leash can get very nasty and are very dangerous. Freedom of speech protects all of us from the abuse of power. That is far more important than preventing kids from looking at porn.

Dan
2 December 2008, 11:40PM

We should not lose our right to free-speech just because some unfit parents might let their kids read hardcore pornography.

A
2 December 2008, 09:42PM

It’s hard to say whether or not I’m for this.
I do agree that minors should NOT be exposed to this kind of material on the internet. But then again, there are softwares to stop this from happening. I’m on the fence for this one.

Dan Buzzard
2 December 2008, 04:42PM

Australians won’t tolerate oppressive regimes such as the Labour government for long. I am sure this attack against our freedom will not be forgotten the next election.

The term “Terrorists, attacking our freedom” seems to have a new face.

Solomon
2 December 2008, 10:28AM

You don’t know how much I support a bill of rights for Australia, however, I do not hold the opinion that we only commence to be entitled to our rights when a bill of rights is enacted. I believe, human rights is universal, therefore, we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness whether there is a bill of rights or not. A bill of rights does not establish our rights, it only confirms them. Just like an asylum seeker does not become a refugee only when he is recognised as one, but he has been a refugee in the first place, and the recognition only declares him a refugee.
Come back to the topic, I support James’ comment.

Solomon
2 December 2008, 10:28AM

I am all for a Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights does not establish our rights, it is meant to declare our rights, just as in the US Declaration of Independence, something I hold dearly, says.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.