[plug] "Fuck" will NOT be banned. Lets have some reality.

[Nick Bannon]

On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 10:05:11AM +0800, Mike Holland wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Oliver White wrote:
> 
> > The Australian government actually suggested using 'iSherrif' and annother
> 
>  What do you mean by "The Australian government"? That implies an official
> status. Can you give names, dates, references?
[...]

Richard Alston, on Radio National, 24th March.

http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/report_isheriff.html

No, it's not as simple as the legislation saying that thou shalt use
these particular products, the committees that have been going over this
seem have finally started to grasp the idea that that's not helpful,
though they've grasped precious little else.

The fact remains that at least some of the head people who will propose,
amend, approve or veto a code of conduct on this matter seem to think
that at least one of these products will be "good enough".

Yes, under the letter of the legislation it's X and RC that must be banned
completely, and R that must only be allowed to adults, but if the sort
of tools that will demonstrate that you're following a code of conduct
happen to stop other things as well, then what?

You can't use nothing, that would open you up to criminal liability.
The legislation and its context makes it clear that you are to err on
the side of overblocking than underblocking.

[...]
> Specifically, where does it state that ISPs must dynamically assess the
> content of web-sites?

That's mostly up to the code of conduct, but do remember that the
legislation contains lots of "similar" wording. It not just that the
OFLC tells you "here's a list of URLs we've classified, block them",
you have to block content that is "substantially similar" to them as well.

> And by what grounds could language be classified as R,X, or RC?

On the basis on its contents - see the PDF guides on www.oflc.gov.au .
It instructs in matters of crime or violence, it's RC (ie bomb recipies),
if it depicts sex, cruelty, crime, etc in a manner unsuitable for a minor,
it's R.

There's nothing special about it being in textual form, indeed if
it's not a "computer game", it will be classified as a "film" under
the legislation. (As a sideline, seeing as only children play computer
games, you cannot have an R or X game in Australia. MA is as high as it
gets. Yes, this means strip poker is out)

Strong (or detailed or agressive), and gratuitous coarse language is R.
"Fuck me gently with a chainsaw"? Yes, it might be a quote from another
movie, but someone's going to have to defend that and argue for its
relevance. It sounds tenuous to me.

OK, practically, a compressed tgz file is unlikely to trigger the
filters we've mentioned. Does that mean that it's OK to send R material
to a minor if it's compressed? Erm - no, it just means that the filter
doesn't catch it - yet.

The filters will stop you from using the online source and patch browsers,
though.

Nick.

-- 
  Nick Bannon  | "I made this letter longer than usual because
nick at it.net.au | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal