This request by Senator Conroy emerged in an interview with ABC’s Hungry Beast, as he finally appeared to accept the long-standing argument put forward by critics that applying ISP filters to high-traffic sites such as YouTube would slow down the internet.
Google Australia's head of policy, Iarla Flynn, confirmed that Google can give no assurances that it would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube. She added: "The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
"RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy."
Despite this, a poll this week (also for Hungry Beast) has been promoted as showing widespread support for the government’s proposed internet filter. However, this poll obscures rather more than it illuminates. In answer to a question as to whether they are in favour of the government acting to help prevent children being exposed to inappropriate material on the internet, a resounding 94 per cent said yes.
This muddies the water greatly. The RC category includes not just child abuse material, but also "bestiality, sexual violence, gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs". From Senator Conroy’s latest remarks, this would just be the start point for future Australian censorship.
Another question, which has received slightly less publicity, was whether website filtering might in future be used to block free speech. The answer to that was an almost equally resounding 70 per cent affirmative. The debate goes on. ®
Vote yes on prop 11 or you hate children
"prevent children being exposed to inappropriate material on the internet"
So a loaded question gave the wanted loaded answer. The mere fact that they had to load the question confirms that the unloaded question couldn't be asked.
Whenever you see games like this, it means he was afraid that asking the real question (whether smut as defined by the government should be filtered for everyone from the aussie internet by law), so instead he pretends that some how the filtering only affects children.
But his filter affects adults, and the definiton of smut is secret decisions made by censors. When we saw the list it was clear they had already, even at the trial stage, gone far beyond their remit.
It's a bad choice, the filter should only be available for parents to filter their childrens internet connection by their own choices. Not for papa Conroy to filter adult Aussies internet. A parent is the legal guardian of a child, but Conroy is not the legal guardian of Aussies, he is their servant, their employee.
Please all you democratic poms, with your Speakers Corner soap boxes PLEASE spread the word around as much as possible so that the Lord Protector Conroy gets as much press as possible exposing the stupidity of his "filter" in a democratic society.
Hopefully it will then become apparent to the mass of Australians too busy on redtube.com and betfair.com to notice that very soon their screen will be blank. (those two sites being RC and on the leaked Blacklist that Wikkileaks posted)
By an amazing coincidence, I had a dream last night about porny activism here in the UK, in relation to the extreme porn law.
In the dream, BDSM activists were planning on making extreme activism porn, inspired by the recent tiger porn case.
The idea was that by making extreme porn that was overtly, explicitly political or otherwise activistic, it wouldn't be "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." It would, instead, be of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced principally for the purpose of political activism.
As a bonus, it would be extreme porn that could legally be possessed, exploiting the "loophole" in the current definition of "pornographic" given in subsection (3) of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
But the main point of it was to challenge ignorance and prejudice, raise awareness, and expose the extreme porn law as flawed, unreasonable, and ultimately unworkable.
What would the police, CPS and courts do in cases of possession of such material? Give the activists the publicity they seek? Or let people get away with possession of extreme porn in the guise of political material?
Political activism, in opposition to ignorance, prejudice and discrimination, through the medium of porn. What would the government make of that?