<html>
At 11:14 PM 14/08/1999 , you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>As has been brought up before, the issue isn't
porn. The issue is that<br>
the laws simply won't work, and will cause much collateral damage.
A<br>
much better option would be to subsidise packages like 'Net Nanny',
and<br>
educate the populace as to its existence. The problem with the law
is<br>
that it takes a centralised approach to a problem of decentralisation
-<br>
the government simply does not 'get' the net. Also in the legislation
is<br>
the allowance that no ISP will be liable for being over zellous.
This<br>
encourages the use of broad based filters which will block all sorts
of<br>
innoculous and perhaps important web sites. </blockquote><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>IIRC, software suggested by<br>
Sen. Alston was responsible for blocking Tim Fisher's favorite web
site<br>
- one devoted to whips. Also, the use of such software will slow an<br>
ISP's communications ability by a large factor. The porn is
irrelevant.</blockquote><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 .<br>
<br>
PS where was that whip site!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>John Menzies wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I bet the majority of Australians would support the Howard decision
on<br>
> censorship. I for one believe that porno on the web is a
blight on the<br>
> industry. Sure it reflects demand and it is profitable but I
bet that the<br>
> public execution of Christians and lion feeding would also be
popular if<br>
> the population was suitably educated.<br>
> <br>
> Participation in the industry is exploitative of the participants
in<br>
> product - do not tell me that a drug adict high on speed
screwing his or<br>
> brains out is doing so with full consent. As for child porno
which is<br>
> obviously widespread on the net - no more need be said - but it is
a<br>
> byproduct of the lack of regualtion and highly exploitative.<br>
> <br>
> I oppose porno from a philosophical persective as it sees the person
and<br>
> their unique gifts as more more than a commodity to buy and<br>
> <br>
> Anyone want a coffee and some vigorous discussion during the
week?</blockquote></html>