Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

I suppose that is a rather puerile response. I will enlarge on it. I don't accept there is no place for censorship in society, neither the internet nor anywhere else. I am not talking about imposing the Taliban 'Ministry for Elimination of Vice and Promotion of Virtue'. But I think the sex industry is built around the ruthless exploitation of human sexuality and it should be stopped. That is my view, and I am sticking to it.

That's fine, you go back to burning copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

Sorry, we cross-posted.

I'm not completely opposed to censorship of the kind of material used to promote this filter, but a secret government blacklist banning of anything they damn well please is pure 1984 thought police.
In fact you put it rather well. IT IS the Taliban "Ministry for Elimination of Vice and Promotion of Virtue". They will have EXACTLY that level of power and control. They promise to be more free than the Taliban but they DON'T HAVE TO. It's a secret list. Even Conroy has implicitly admitted that the government can't have that kind of control.
The internet isn't some new thing that will be added to existing media, it's the entire future of all communication. This filter would be the end of a free country. Simple as that.

...and remember, this government isn't the same as the next, or the next. Once the filter is in you'll never get rid of it. You want a future Pauline Hanson controlling your information?

I think that's an exaggeration. I do wonder sometimes if the overwhelmingly hostile responses to regulation is not actually being driven by the financial interests behind the pornography business. The sex industry is, according to PBS documentary from earlier this decade, more lucrative than the sports and film industries combined.

Now I do wonder, when this generation comes of age, what effect this will have on marriage, the family and society. I don't want to sound like a religious conservative, but I think they have a point. These things have consequences. When 'civil liberty' is taken to means the conversion of human sexuality into a form of mass entertainment, well I'm sorry, but I think it poses a real threat to society. It will hollow it out from within.

If that's the way humanity is going, then that's the way it's going. Why can't you see FORCING them in a direction you'd prefer is inherently evil? It's like saying fast food restaurants are abused by some people and not the best for children, so all human consumption will now take place in private residences or you'll be arrested. Because, we all agree, fast food is bad, right?

...and no, I think the sex industry has been pretty quiet on the issue because they are too filthy to have much influence. I do see the Christians and the recording/film/TV industry having a lot gain though.

Restricting the circulation of pornography is not forcing anything on anyone. I am familiar with the arguments from liberalism, but John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith would surely would turn in their grave if they could see what is going on.

If the planet was populated with responsible mature adults then of course nothing like censorship would be necessary. But it isn't. If everyone kept the law and drove within the speed limit, there would not need to be any police or road rules. If nobody stole, there would need be no locks or home security. All laws are a restriction on human freedom, when it comes down to it. It is checks and balances. Liberty is not absolute, it is conditional. There are limits, and we have gone well and truly beyond them. It is not about freedom any more. I have decided I have to take a stand against that. If there were a political party that stood on that platform, I would vote for it. I am not a member of the Christian Right, in fact I am neither Christian nor right-wing. But libertarianism has gone too far.

Here's a question. There are women who will perform the most vile and degraded acts for money. If you ask them why, they may say that they do it because they like it, or because they need the money. Do they have a right to behave this way? I suppose the civil libertarian will say yes. The individual's choice is always sovereign, no matter how expressed. But I would argue that they are betraying their femininity and their humanity. They are actually letting every woman down. The same way that the men who use them are letting down manhood. OK, this is a moral judgment. I can't deal with this idea that moral judgment is itself wrong. There are some behaviors that ought not to be condoned. Libertarianism strikes me as just a pretext to provide a cover for the promotion of these behaviors.

And so we come to the crux of the issue.

I will defend your right to declare they are betraying feminity and humanity.
I will defend your right to make a moral judgement.
I will defend your right to refuse to condone whatever you like.

I will defend my right to have MY OWN views, and REFUSE that you have the right to FORCE YOUR views on me.

Ah, you are getting into some very complicated stuff here, jeeprs. Unfortunately, I don't have much time up my sleeve right this minute ...

But let me just say that (I think) limiting the exposure of children to totally inappropriate material (whether it be sexual in nature, extreme violence, or sexual predators, etc) is quite another matter to a blanket censorship of the material that adults have access to. Attempting to resolve how we address the very real concerns about children, while respecting the rights of adults at the same time, is certainly quite a challenge. However I don't believe that a "one size fits all" internet filtering approach is the answer to those concerns about children. And the "problem" (of what children are exposed to) is hardly restricted to the internet, either.

(Agreed)

fair enough. Maybe I just wanted to sound off. And it's ALL complicated - technically, politically, and morally.

I have my opinion about U@

It's extremely complicated, jeeprs ...

And once we allow governments to control information that adults can or cannot have access to on the internet, we are opening the door to possible abuse of the tools of censorship. Could future governments then consider censoring other "dubious" material (like "politically sensitive" information, in the name of "national security")? Then we'd get into further civil rights concerns! Governments are already not exactly adverse to limiting the flow of information to suit their own ends, as you'd already know. And I certainly don't want to give them any more control over information than they already have. I just don't want to go there!

Really?

And you're allowed to, jeeprs.

This is A2K.

well when Google went into business in China, I got onto their blog and flamed them. I said they should never get into bed with an authoritarian dictatorship. They responded and said that they believed it would help open China up, even if not all of the information on a topic could be presented. I said at the time "is 90% of the truth, the truth?" And actually I don't know if their decision to go in is vindicated yet. They came very close to withdrawing or being closed down (and in fact it has just been announced that their license has been renewed for 12 months.)

So in that situation, I am completely against government intervention and censorship. But I don't think what the Australian Government was trying to do was comparable to that, and I think the comparison is invidious.

And anyway, it is all dead in the water. It will never happen, the vested interests and the technology will far outpace any attempt to reign it in. Sure the internet is wonderful, it is allowing us to have this discussion, there are many great things about it. But it is also the source of an enormous amount of crime, corruption, and perfidy, and it is in every home and business in the country.

That's it for the East Timor Solution then ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/12/2951459.htm

yeah I just read that. It is a really bad look. My original comment on it said I thought she had gone off half cocked and it was a bad mistake. I think I was right, dammit. I don't want her to stuff up.

the Joker will be all over this like a bloody fox terrier after a rabbit.