# Internet Censorship



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

Does this sort of thing bother anyone else?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Maybe they'll block further threads about black suits.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Maybe they'll block further threads about black suits.


Then I won't get to tell my story about my friend at Marshall Field's and her strip club experience!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Good heavens! I'll be banded forever on the internet. My spelling and grammar is to much of a bad example.

_"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said._ But then, they have to add this. _The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia. _Greedy politicans never know when to quit.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This is the same party in power that banned several classes of firearms and knives,said objects often finding themselves packed in grease and large PVC capped pipes buried secretly.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

*Uhhhhh...*

What the hell is so contraversial about anorexia? If that is the best example of "contraversial" they could come up with, I'd be moving to Vanuatu too.

Maybe we can still read websites about Balck suits, pronography, stirppers, annorexia....


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Presumably they're referring to the infamous "starving yourself is good, here's how" websites.


----------



## Mark Anthony (Apr 2, 2007)

*Very troubled*

A slippery slope indeed. Tyranny has always begun by governments implementing a program that is hard to argue against. Mussolini did it as did Hitler they all began with motherhood and apple pie social programs helping the poor, education, health care etc - and things didn't end well there did they?

Here it is child pornography which any decent person knows is repugnant, problem is that it never ends with something so black and white.

Remember the German pastor who told us how when they first they came for the Jews and he said nothing because he was not a Jew and ends that when they came for him there was no one left to stand up for him.

The internet is the last bastion of freedom left in this world, lose it and we are all slaves to government. Allowing some evil to exist means that true freedom and the good it brings will survive because the evil that is strong governments is far worse, just ask the Italians and Germans.

Unfortunately many of us in the west, here in Canada and our English, Australian and American friends are living in societies too eager to accept the same early errors Italy and Germany made in the 20s and 30s and don't realize it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> Then I won't get to tell my story about my friend at Marshall Field's and her strip club experience!


Perhaps we can make an exception just this once.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Whoa is me, whoa is me...the sky is falling, the SKY is FALLING! Now where-o-where did I put that really heavy duty umbrella? Internet activities are well over-due for some adult supervision...and the world will not end. I promise!


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

I wonder if there is any porno on those anorexia websites? That would surely get the Aussie-NSA-or-whatever after me!

Yeah, no one said anything about the end of the world. The end of the world hasn't even happened in North Korea, a country with lots of "adult supervision". That really isnt the issue. 

Getting locked away in jail for child endangerment and your kids sent to foster care because big brother caught you looking at porno isn't technically the end of the world either. At least that thought can console you!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

"Adult supervision."

Wow. That's a wonderful euphemism for what we're actually talking about -- police.

And, incidentally, the term 'police' means men in knocking at your door, fresh off multiple tours in Iraq, armed with Tasers supplied by grants from the Department of Homeland Security. Or, not knocking, as the case may be.

Maybe the government can cut out the middle-man, and take the electro-schock bracelets designed for airplane travelers, and just modify them to be used at all times while one is surfing the net.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> I wonder if there is any porno on those anorexia websites? That would surely get the Aussie-NSA-or-whatever after me!


God,I hope not!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Whoa is me, whoa is me...the sky is falling, the SKY is FALLING! Now where-o-where did I put that really heavy duty umbrella? Internet activities are well over-due for some adult supervision...and the world will not end. I promise!


Why are you so eager to give up freedoms? With all the examples of government waste, incompetence, fraud and mismanagement, why are you so eager to have them police what you and others say? People like you who sit idly back while freedoms are eroded, without even the minimal effort of complaining, are the problem. Governments consolidate power, that's what they do. Eventually they consolidate so much power they become corrupt and tyrranical. I guess there will always be a fair few people who prefer this sort of thing, it prevents them from having to do any thinking on their own.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Internet activities are well over-due for some adult supervision...and the world will not end. I promise!


Do you *really* want some bureaucrat determining what you can and can't look at on the internet?

This is so inconceivably stupid - more busywork for the government. I hope it doesn't give the US gov. any ideas.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I can see banning child pornography, seeing actually having sex with a minor is illegal, video taping it can't exactly be legal.

For the other stuff, I don't know about the Aussie's Constitution, but here we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Perhaps it makes me happy to view websites about anorexic strippers.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I can see banning child pornography, seeing actually having sex with a minor is illegal, video taping it can't exactly be legal.


The problem is, it's already illegal, at least in the US. Child porn, threatening the president, harassing people, stealing from people - are all already illegal. Making it illegal to do it on the internet doesn't make it any *more* illegal.

This is the same reactionary crap that makes the legal system awful. Murdering somebody is illegal, but there's also a law against murdering someone with a knife, and another one making it illegal to shoot someone, and another against running someone over with your car, and another about killing a road worker, etc... Killing someone is illegal - that's all we really need.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

George Orwell must be laughing in his grave.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I can see banning child pornography, seeing actually having sex with a minor is illegal, video taping it can't exactly be legal.
> 
> For the other stuff, I don't know about the Aussie's Constitution, but here we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Perhaps it makes me happy to view websites about anorexic strippers.


Actually, IIRC, the website is more like:

"Starving yourself is good. Here's how, and here's how to hide it from your parents."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What was brought up in the article is the end of political debate, such as _euthanasia. _Whatever the government says we are supposed to acept without question. When the people have no say, then that is _tyranny._

Australia is supposed to be like the rest of Western Europe, not like the USSR and the old China where freedom of speech didn't exist.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

jbmcb said:


> The problem is, it's already illegal, at least in the US. Child porn, threatening the president, harassing people, stealing from people - are all already illegal. Making it illegal to do it on the internet doesn't make it any *more* illegal.
> 
> This is the same reactionary crap that makes the legal system awful. Murdering somebody is illegal, but there's also a law against murdering someone with a knife, and another one making it illegal to shoot someone, and another against running someone over with your car, and another about killing a road worker, etc... Killing someone is illegal - that's all we really need.


Actually this is about going from a doctrine of no prior restraint on free speech to government being given the presumption of correctness on deciding what speech is permissible.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Actually, IIRC, the website is more like:
> 
> "Starving yourself is good. Here's how, and here's how to hide it from your parents."


Okay. Well maybe it makes me happy to be anorexic. I like being able to count my ribs.

Sad thing is I'm not anorexic (3000 calorie diet) and I can still count my ribs. =(


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Why are you so eager to give up freedoms? With all the examples of government waste, incompetence, fraud and mismanagement, why are you so eager to have them police what you and others say? People like you who sit idly back while freedoms are eroded, without even the minimal effort of complaining, are the problem. Governments consolidate power, that's what they do. Eventually they consolidate so much power they become corrupt and tyrranical. I guess there will always be a fair few people who prefer this sort of thing, it prevents them from having to do any thinking on their own.





jbmcb said:


> Do you *really* want some bureaucrat determining what you can and can't look at on the internet?
> 
> This is so inconceivably stupid - more busywork for the government. I hope it doesn't give the US gov. any ideas.


I don't think I said anything about advocating the forfeiture of perceived freedoms. The thrust of my comment was, a lot more is being assumed or read into the article than is warranted and that, sometimes, the evil or wrong being dealt with, requires something more than a bit of 'mamby-pamby', let's talk about it forever but, not do anything response! SPAM, cyber-slander, cyber-bullying, child porn, unsolicited adult porn, and the list goes on and on. When would you say, enough is enough. IMHO, that time is long overdue! Consider this; in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, this Nation passed The Patriot Act. Talk about a potential loss of constitutionally protected liberties? However, that Act made my former job a lot more workable and a shocking number of terror acts in planning have been interrupted and prevented. Has the sacrifice been worth it? Why don't you ask the families of the 9/11 victims?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Is this the thread about ejecting three reporters writing for opposition newspapers from the campaign plane?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Is this the thread about ejecting three reporters writing for opposition newspapers from the campaign plane?


You mean the gossip half hour of Katie Couric?

I wonder when the last time it was that that company gave us news. It must have been before Dan Rather.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Obama's campaign ejected three reporters from his campaign plane to make room for more important reporters (one of the reporters they were making room for was Maureen Dowd, who was previously kicked off McCain's campaign plane). All three came from newspapers that endorsed McCain. This comes as a follow up to the background investigation on Joe the Plumber and two news stations (one in FL and one in Philly) being told that they will not get any further interviews with Biden or Obama, because the campaign did not like the questions that Biden was asked when he appeared on those stations.

If Obama wins I expect a round of IRS investigations for Conservative journalists and talk radio personalities.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> I don't think I said anything about advocating the forfeiture of perceived freedoms. The thrust of my comment was, a lot more is being assumed or read into the article than is warranted and that, sometimes, the evil or wrong being dealt with, requires something more than a bit of 'mamby-pamby', let's talk about it forever but, not do anything response! SPAM, cyber-slander, cyber-bullying, child porn, unsolicited adult porn, and the list goes on and on. When would you say, enough is enough. IMHO, that time is long overdue! Consider this; in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, this Nation passed The Patriot Act. Talk about a potential loss of constitutionally protected liberties? However, that Act made my former job a lot more workable and a shocking number of terror acts in planning have been interrupted and prevented. Has the sacrifice been worth it? Why don't you ask the families of the 9/11 victims?


Child Porn: Already illegal
Cyber-Slander: Slander is slander. Sue the person.
Cyber-bullying: For this to be effective you have to belong to a physical community, like a school, where you can physically intimidate someone. Most schools have rules against it, and it's best handled at the local level. If you can't understand that, than you are the sort of person who is dumb enough to be robbed by mail.

Spam/Unsolicited Adult Porn: Use a spam filter. Pretty much any decent email client has one. If yours doesn't get a better one.

I don't know if the Patriot Act provisions have done anything to prevent terrorism. The government claims they have, but of course they would, they are justifying the Act in the first place. If terrorists force our government to curtail the freedoms of the people, than that is a victory for them. I'd rather be free.

If you don't realize that this is only a preliminary step, you are naive. The government will use things like child porn to justify limiting freedoms and then eventually expand the list of things you can't do until it includes criticizing the government.

All of your examples are examples of things that are already illegal or easily remedied. But instead of dealing with them through already existent and easily applied methods, you'd rather give the government the power to regulate what we do on the internet. I stand by my previous assertion that people like you are the problem.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> ...All of your examples are examples of things that are already illegal or easily remedied. But instead of dealing with them through already existent and easily applied methods, you'd rather give the government the power to regulate what we do on the internet. I stand by my previous assertion that people like you are the problem.


If it is already adequately regulated or can be remedied so easily, why do the endless cyber-violations continue to occur with such regularity. The fact is you are full of sh*t. In this world of ours, you find two types of people: those who stand up and get involved and attempt to contribute to the betterment of society and those who like to sit back, in their cheap seats, and ***** about others attempts to correct a wrong. I know which type I am...and suspect I know where you are coming from!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> If it is already adequately regulated or can be remedied so easily, why do the endless cyber-violations continue to occur with such regularity. The fact is you are full of sh*t. In this world of ours, you find two types of people: those who stand up and get involved and attempt to contribute to the betterment of society and those who like to sit back, in their cheap seats, and ***** about others attempts to correct a wrong. I know which type I am...and suspect I know where you are coming from!


So you want the government to be given power to regulate the internet so that you won't be inconvenienced by spam? Get a spam filter and let the adults enjoy their freedom. Exactly what sort of person do you think you are? I'd say your a fascist. Oh and by the way, you are trying to cyberbully me with your profane language. You won't be able to do that anymore once you and your other cyber fascist buddies start policing the internet.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Terpoxon said:


> Obama's campaign ejected three reporters from his campaign plane to make room for more important reporters (one of the reporters they were making room for was Maureen Dowd, who was previously kicked off McCain's campaign plane). All three came from newspapers that endorsed McCain. This comes as a follow up to the background investigation on Joe the Plumber and two news stations (one in FL and one in Philly) being told that they will not get any further interviews with Biden or Obama, because the campaign did not like the questions that Biden was asked when he appeared on those stations.
> 
> If Obama wins I expect a round of IRS investigations for Conservative journalists and talk radio personalities.


According to Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the ejections were to make space for reporters from _Essence_ and _Jet_.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> According to Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the ejections were to make space for reporters from _Essence_ and _Jet_.


I in the article I read, they mentioned those two and Maureen Dowd. The trend of both parties bullying reporters, and worse yet, the reporters succumbing to the bullying is troubling.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> If Obama wins I expect a round of IRS investigations for Conservative journalists and talk radio personalities.


Dick Cavett wrote about his experience with this for the _New York Times_ in the last year or so. He had John Lennon on his program several times during the Nixon administration and every single member of his staff was audited.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> So you want the government to be given power to regulate the internet so that you won't be inconvenienced by spam? Get a spam filter and let the adults enjoy their freedom. Exactly what sort of person do you think you are? I'd say your a fascist. Oh and by the way, you are trying to cyberbully me with your profane language. You won't be able to do that anymore once you and your other cyber fascist buddies start policing the internet.


LOL! First the wife suggests I might be an a**hole, albeit a lovable one; then my kids allege I'm arbitrary, capricious, and inflexible; and now Terpoxon calls me a fascist(?). Will this ongoing denigration of my good character never cease(!)?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> If it is already adequately regulated or can be remedied so easily, why do the endless cyber-violations continue to occur with such regularity. The fact is you are full of sh*t. In this world of ours, you find two types of people: those who stand up and get involved and attempt to contribute to the betterment of society and those who like to sit back, in their cheap seats, and ***** about others attempts to correct a wrong. I know which type I am...and suspect I know where you are coming from!


I'm with you, eagle. I guess that makes me a fascist also. I hope our uniforms are nicely tailored. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL! First the wife suggests I might be an a**hole, albeit a lovable one; then my kids allege I'm arbitrary, capricious, and inflexible; and now Terpoxon calls me a fascist(?). Will this ongoing denigration of my good character never cease(!)?


Well if you'd stop advocating massive expansion of government powers in order to regulate a few minor inconveniences that would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> Dick Cavett wrote about his experience with this for the _New York Times_ in the last year or so. He had John Lennon on his program several times during the Nixon administration and every single member of his staff was audited.


The Clintons used it against right wing talk show hosts. Whoever does it, it's wrong. Another reason we need to reign in government power. And, as far as I am concerned, getting rid of the IRS and the abuses that go along with it, is one major reason to support the flat tax.


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

Mark Anthony said:


> A slippery slope indeed. Tyranny has always begun by governments implementing a program that is hard to argue against. Mussolini did it as did Hitler they all began with motherhood and apple pie social programs helping the poor, education, health care etc - and things didn't end well there did they?
> 
> Here it is child pornography which any decent person knows is repugnant, problem is that it never ends with something so black and white.
> 
> ...


Thats how everything is snuck in. The income tax in the U.S. was originally only imposed on the super rich and it was only a small percentage. Now everybody is taxed and the wealthy lose half their income.


----------

