WN = the Wired News reporter.
Alston = Senator Richard Alston, Australia's minister for communications,
information technology, and the arts.
bold = added stress (by me).
((sarcasm mode: ON))
Aw, c’mon people. What’s the problem with such a “reasonable” policy
requested by nearly every rational, literate, and concerned adult?
Alston “authored the controversial bill....” but it’s a “non-issue”. “... it's
about time someone made an effort to limit access to Net porn.”
It’s not about free speech for heaven’s sake, “There are always going to
be constraints on crying fire in a crowded theater. ... (Most) of the adult
population regard (porn) as either illegal or highly undesirable. There is
no reason, in principle, why that shouldn't apply to any medium.”
((Free speech is not a principle to interfere with what we say
your morals are. If you disagree with us superior beings, you merely
“engaged in an exchange of prejudices.”))
Alston goes on to explain how reasonable this policy is.
WN: “So if they (ISPs) make their best effort to perform blocking services,
but still fail to block some percentage of the targeted content, then they're
legally OK?”
Alston: “If they're doing their best, that's right. If they're simply turning a
blind eye, then they're not complying with the law. But we've never
pretended that you're going to get 100 percent compliance.”
((How reasonable. We’ll pass a law and if you can comply, that’s fine. But if
you can not comply, all you have to do is “do your best”. That’s all they did
with guns and knives, right?))
All Alston wants is “do what you can to protect mainstream Australia.”
((Aussies should feel much safer knowing the government will protect them
from the obligation of determining their own morals and the burden of free
speech. The superior thinkers will do all that hard work for them, then
ensure compliance with the moral value judgements of their government...))
But, contrary to what has been said on TFL, “Alton: The basis isn't going to
be sort of blindly blocking sites because of the appearance of particular
keywords. This is going to be a matter of a complaint made about a
particular site, which will then be investigated to see if there's a reason [to
block it]. It's a case-by-case analysis. ... (using) "guessing engines," which
enable you to detect the characteristics of [content] without actually
inspecting the site. And that gives you a very high level of probability about
pornography, which has a number of unique characteristics. So it
certainly doesn't have to be keyword-driven. You're able to do a hell of a lot
mechanically.” Note that keywords WON’T be used!
Then he says, “In other words, you
don't say because the site is thrown up by a guessing engine or a keyword search that
then it's automatically banned without checking what's on them.” Note that keywords WILL be used! He can’t keep his story straight within the
same minute!
But, relax, it can’t affect TFL because, “the bulk of the offensive services will be international and subscription-based. They'll be readily identified.” Oh,
wait, is TFL “international”? Hmmm.
“WN: Many are going to say that's a pipe dream, taking that kind of control
over Internet content.
Alton: Well, I think it will continue to evolve. There's no exceptional
solution to any of this. That's why you have a test which operates all
the way through. Different solutions may get adopted as time goes
by.
WN: Then people worried that important, needed information might be
blocked can rest assured?
Alton: If it's contained on a site, I can't see how that site can be blocked.
Because it's only after the complaint's been made and investigated that the
action would have to be taken. If the site is actually having a [legitimate]
purpose then there would be no basis for blocking it.
WN: A human being would make that decision?
Alton: The broadcasting authority [which regulates film and TV content]
would. ((Certainly not the ignorant populace, right?))
WN: Critics say the solution to this problem is to educate parents on
how to control what their kids see.
Alton: Well, that's the ultimate pipe dream. ... a significant
percentage of the population that is not only computer illiterate ... and we just don't think that they're doing much more than turning a blind eye.”
((Apparently Australians are too ignorant, illiterate, and just plain stupid to
protect themselves from potty words or nasty pictures. No wonder you can’t
be trusted with sharp objects or guns.))
((sarcasm mode; OFF))
-----------------------------------------------
The perceived subject is pornography. But the abused principle is free
speech. No matter how vehemently we disagree with HCI and Sarah Brady, we would fight for her right to free speech. But even the treasured principle of free speech is a secondary concept.
Who creates our moral values? Who should control what we may or may not believe, believe in, see or say? Are we so intellectually bankrupt that we must select from one or two people (pre-selected by our government) who will establish and direct our private thoughts?
- If pornography is undesired, their webs will wither from lack of use. Are they earning millions of dollars or are they going broke? Somebody is buying that stuff! Do people anywhere have the right to tell their "subjects" what they can read? Shall we “burn the books” we think they shouldn’t have?
I say it should be personal choice! Who disagrees? Who says the parents are
not, indeed CAN not be responsible for their children’s access to the family
computer?
Who says the librarian or school teacher can not put “blocks” on computers used by children?
- I don’t like porn. If one of my daughters did that stuff it would break my heart, I don’t know how I would cope with it - but I would cope. I wouldn’t say it was your fault, or the government’s fault. I would cope.
Any power given to or taken by a government only grows - it never goes away - it becomes more encompassing and more severe. The government should not have the keys to our bedrooms, or computers, our bank accounts, or our minds. That, simply put, is not an option.
----------------------
Aussies, I really am so sorry you let your government get away from you. Whatever control you may have had has died. God only knows IF you can regain freedom without shedding innocent blood.
Yanks, looking at Australia is like going “through the looking glass”. It
should make you gag, make you shake with fear, for the Aussies are a good,
strong, and powerful people; and they have been conquered by their own government. Be afraid. For America is on the same path, the same slippery slope, we are merely a step or two behind them. The Democratic/Republican
oligarchy will betray us just as the Aussie's government betrayed them. We
have little choice at the ballot box, except:
Vote Libertarian - for a change.
Dennis
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 04, 1999).]
