[plug] [OT] Re: Internet Oppression (again)

[Oliver White]

As has been brought up before, the issue isn't porn. The issue is that
the laws simply won't work, and will cause much collateral damage. A
much better option would be to subsidise packages like 'Net Nanny', and
educate the populace as to its existence. The problem with the law is
that it takes a centralised approach to a problem of decentralisation -
the government simply does not 'get' the net. Also in the legislation is
the allowance that no ISP will be liable for being over zellous. This
encourages the use of broad based filters which will block all sorts of
innoculous and perhaps important web sites. IIRC, software suggested by
Sen. Alston was responsible for blocking Tim Fisher's favorite web site
- one devoted to whips. Also, the use of such software will slow an
ISP's communications ability by a large factor. The porn is irrelevant.

John Menzies wrote:
> 
> I bet the majority of Australians would support the Howard decision on
> censorship.  I for one believe that porno on the web is a blight on the
> industry.  Sure it reflects demand and it is profitable but I bet that the
> public execution of Christians and lion feeding would also be popular if
> the population was suitably educated.
> 
> Participation in the industry is exploitative of the participants in
> product - do not tell me that a drug adict high on speed  screwing his or
> brains out is doing so with full consent.  As for child porno which is
> obviously widespread on the net - no more need be said - but it is a
> byproduct of the lack of regualtion and highly exploitative.
> 
> I oppose porno from a philosophical persective as it sees the person and
> their unique gifts as more more than a commodity to buy and
> 
> Anyone want a coffee and some vigorous discussion during the week?