[plug] Arguments in favour?

[Mark J Gaynor]

At 11:30 AM 5/28/99 +0800, you wrote:

I agree with most if not all of what has been said.

This bill, as unworkable that it is reminds me of the debate that followed
the release of vcr's on copywrite. That has not stopped the illegal recordings
of the average citizen. To persue the issue of prosecuting eveyone would tie
up the judicial system for thousands of years, and that is seen as unworkable.

The bill is a document that politicans can point to and say they have done 
something about the problem. It is now not their problem, but one for law
enforcement, as always. As I said to people when all this started, the only
way for it to work is to unplug Australia from the internet. Like I see that
happening. It would last a day, if that, after business takes class action 
for lost income against the government.

A good way to get your point across is to have a standard, well drafted
document
that supporters against the bill can sign etc. and give them a list of fax
numbers
they can fax it to. ALL the POLIES in Canbera and their local reps. They
will get
the drift from their constituents if you threaten to change your support.
This is 
where the real power for change is, at the grass roots, and it is a long
haul. The
most that may happen is a delay in the final implimentation. If it can be
shown 
it is really unworkable and that the size of Australian internet content is 
insignificant compared to the rest of the GLOBAL internet content, who
knows it
may just make the pollies wake up to themselves. They may realize that team
play 
may be better than dictatorship.

When it all boils down, the problem lies with the failure of parents to
properly
supervise their children effectively and want someone else to do it for
them. That
brings us full circle again.

It is unworkable, unfair, uneforceable maybe, but we will probably have to
live with
it.

That's my $0.05 worth (inflation plus TAX/GST)

Mark
--

>Hi all,
>
>> With all this debate on the censorship bill I'm seeing all the old
>> arguments (that I certainly agree with) as to why censoring the internet
>> is a bad idea and unworkable and unfair etc. - are there actually any
>> arguments in favour of it?  From what I read in the paper the other day,
>> everyone (including their own consultants) told the government that such
>> censorship was unworkable so why are they pursuing it?  I know
>> politicans aren't always the brightest (or at least, sensible) of people
>> but they're totally stupid.  Harradine's ditched the GST, (close to)
>> everyone hates it and everyone says it's unworkable - so why is the
>> government pursuing this?
>
>I believe censorship is based on stopping the wrong people being exposed to
>the wrong material. As to how you define what material is wrong for who,
>you have a whole other kettle of swimming animals. I agree to this
>sentiment. This is what parents to for their children every day of their
>young lives. What's the problem here? The second stage to censorship is
>when it is distanced from the individual. The ruling body decides that this
>choice is too dangerous to be left up to the individual, and so it takes a
>hand. We see this in the banning of certain movies or books.
>
>The Australian government believes that they are in a better position to
>decided what people should be viewing, and this does not just relate to
>internet content. Unfortunately there are people in our society for which
>this is true. The 'average' person is who this stuff is aimed at...
>
>Basically choice must be informed. Our society seems to have forgotten that
>in its ponderous cultural meanderings... Social change is the only
>evolution left to us, but the government seems to forget that individual
>choice is a large factor in this.
>
>There is of course another hand :) What the governemt is doing is taking a
>position. Lets call this their thesis. There is an obvious negation to that
>position (us), lets call this antithesis. Deep in the arguement there are
>many issues that really should be raised, and these would not be aired at
>all without this situation. Some questions that I have asked myself during
>this episode are "Who should lead a country?", "How do we decide who should
>lead the country?", "What is individual freedom?", "What is choice?", "What
>is social evolution?" and "How can we change society?"...
>
>Somewhere in the midst of all the crap that is flying around is a gem of
>truth. Culturally, socially and individually relevant truth. Lets call this
>truth synthesis. Sometime in the future this will all change, just like it
>has changed from the past.
>
>Hmm, rambling is good... This is something I believe in strongly, there is
>no absolute truth. Quite a few people I have talked to actually believe
>that censoring at the level the government is talking about is a good
>thing. Illegal meterial should be banned and sensitive material should be
>rated so that users can make informed choice as to what they view. They
>accept that this is not technically workable, but the carrot has to lead
>the horse.
>
>I don't think any of the above was really considered by the governent, they
>are a selfish bunch of hypocritical posturers. Self interest seems to be
>the guiding light, but some of them even believe they are doing the right
>thing :(
>
>
>My $0.02 with inflation....
>
>
>Mark
>
>