Mandatory Internet Censorship in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

No, they wouldn't block regular porn sites.

The only form of sites they would block would be websites that defame the government, encourage treason/sedition/terrorism and those that contain child porn, torture, sexual assault, murder, etc.

Regular porn sites are legal, therefore they would not be blocked (this was stated on abc news).

EDIT: KRudd originally said he would block pr0nz, but he took this back after realising he would inevitably lose next election.

Selling x-rated porn (effectively all porn is x-rated) is illegal in all states. Possession is legal though.

Online casino games are also illegal? Anything which is entirely based on chance is illegal online I believe, you can only place bets where there is a supposed element of skill.

Euthanasia, harm minimization resources will certainly be targeted. erowid.org, bluelight.ru, are sites you will not be allowed to see.

 

[abbeyroad]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

gg all you faggots who voted for labor and krud,as if the fact that he speaks mandarin and spent years in china isn't a big enough clue that he's a commie sleeper agent.

be prepared to run into the loving embrace of the motherland and accept chairman rudd as your glorious dear leader!`!!!1`~1!

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Politicians these days... our society is corrupt. Politicians play to the whims of their voters, not necessarilly because it is right but because it'll get them the votes to be popular.

who cares f they don't personally agree with something. as long as what they're doing satisfies the whim of the voters, then there's nothing wrong.

 

[scarybunny]

Euthanasia, harm minimization resources will certainly be targeted. erowid.org, bluelight.ru, are sites you will not be allowed to see.

This is what worries me the most. Limiting the free exchange of information and ideas just defeats the purpose of the internet.

Pretty much everyone (except China) has said that this is a bad idea. This is one instance where I would love Australia to listen to the US and scrap the filter.

 

[SnowFox]

No, they wouldn't block regular porn sites.

The only form of sites they would block would be websites that defame the government, encourage treason/sedition/terrorism and those that contain child porn, torture, sexual assault, murder, etc.

Regular porn sites are legal, therefore they would not be blocked (this was stated on abc news).

EDIT: KRudd originally said he would block pr0nz, but he took this back after realising he would inevitably lose next election.

Women wth small boobies and those who can explosively ejaculate are banned.

 

[SnowFox]

Yes
3%
No
96%
Indifferent
1%


Pwned?

 

[scarybunny]

The smh polls say similar things as well.

Do not want.

Australia does not want.

 

[thongetsu]

it's a definite no-no for me

 

[Absolutezero]

HungryBeast had a poll where 70% agreed with the filter. Does anyone know who took the survey, or did they do it themselves?

 

[scarybunny]

I think they did a phone poll.


I suppose I just think people don't want the filter because I know internet people. The people who actually use the internet don't want it.

 

[Absolutezero]

I think they did a phone poll.

Ok.

In that respect, pretty much any poll taken on the internet will have less support for the filter, mainly because those who vote will be the ones affected by it.

 

[SnowFox]

HungryBeast had a poll where 70% agreed with the filter. Does anyone know who took the survey, or did they do it themselves?

No one takes ABC seriously...do they?

 

[Absolutezero]

Moreso than the commercial networks.

 

[Slidey]

No one takes ABC seriously...do they?

ABC is one of the better journalistic sources out there. A lot of people take them seriously. And whether or not you take them seriously has nothing to do with whether or not you take a poll methodology seriously.

The unfortunate thing is that I've seen other, real polls (conducted similar to or alongside political voting intention polls) which support that number.

 

[thongetsu]

of course people take ABC seriously didnt you see what happened to The Chasers?

 

[SnowFox]

ABC is one of the better journalistic sources out there. A lot of people take them seriously. And whether or not you take them seriously has nothing to do with whether or not you take a poll methodology seriously.

The unfortunate thing is that I've seen other, real polls (conducted similar to or alongside political voting intention polls) which support that number.

Were they watched by scared parents who stll think the internet is evil?


Seriously, Australia needs to be told the filter will not filter ANYTHING that senator cockroy has said it will because theres a little thing called P2P that parents are only just hearing about that is not affected by a money eating filter.
He is pissing off everyone: Google has warned Aus they will piss off if it goes ahead, the US has warned Aus, the porn industry are truthfully pissed off with the whole "no small boobies cause it lookes like children" fuck up, along with ejaculating women (someone explain where this is illegal?)

 

[thongetsu]

The Chasers should totally make a show on this.

 

[Lolsmith]

On the topic of porn, its illegal to distribute/make (can't remember which one) porn that's considered 'derogatory' towards women. This means none of that insane craps like bondage and full handed lovin'. Golden showers are a no-no too. Not that I personally care that these particular genres are illegal, just seemed interesting to know.

If Rudd puts this filter in, he's going to lose the next election.

 

[thongetsu]

lol lolsmith you seem to be a porn expert

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Would depend if the opposition say they will remove it if elected, if he puts it in that wont cost him cos it doesn't necessarily mean it would be removed.