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

[John Menzies]

At 11:14 PM 14/08/1999 , you wrote:
>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.


Like the XXXX (beer) site which I have heard was "banned" by one of the 
engines!  I am not sure that AOL does not use these already - or maybe that 
is there wonderful propreitary software.


>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.


The move by the governemnt to demand that ISPs filter content is clelary 
absurd and reflects a real lack of understangin if nothing else of the 
state of technology in this area - right now to filter content accurately 
is not possible.  Even the conventional search engines a way behind - so 
there will always be holes.  Can not be denied.

I do agree that the issue here is not censorship etc but whether in fact it 
can be applied as our pollies believe it can - there is some education to 
do here and it has zip to do with content.

Does not mean we can not have an interesting discussion about censorship 
however - was this a Linux discussion group?  I think we have a gone a 
little off subject .

PS where was that whip site!

Maybe the solution to this dilema is to employ about 100,000 public 
servants and we could submit our request for a page first to them - they 
would view it and then forward it on to us.  That should slow the techno 
revolution by a sufficient degree such that no-one would feel that life was 
going too fast! even our pollies.


>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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/19990815/75964550/attachment.html>