The government does it again

The government is hoping to curtail our freedom of speech (and reading) even further, by not allowing us to access all of the internet. Apparently. The following was posted on Mashable.com: Several privacy advocates are in an uproar in response to a bill introduced by Australia’s Parliament, which would grant the country’s federal police the power to control which sites can be accessed by users of the Internet. Titled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007, the federal police would have the power to add onto (or remove from) the blacklist, naming sites that are currently banned from Australia , as determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. This extends the rights of the ACMA onto the federal police, which appears to some as a way of limiting the rights of freedom of speech. The legislation is being promoted as a way to target phishing and terrorist sites, as well as those that publish information on other criminal activity. However, we’ve all been subjected to politicians taking action under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, and the result is several privacy groups that are wary of this bill being passed. Next thing we know, Australia will be blocking YouTube. Read more about it here.

So you want the right to access child porn?

Obviously you are not familiar with the right to free speech. No I don't want to view porn. But a law like this suggests that, like China, the government could potentially ban sites that they simply don't want us to see. Like some random blog complaining about legitimate problems in the government. Or perhaps like this site, on which we have many times extolled the issues of lack of government interest in the arts. Like the sedition laws, it can be used to harm us artists. The right to a free exchange of ideas does not exist in this country, and if we tighten the government's grip on the media, we only continue to reduce our chances of having better free speech laws. Not only that, but if you had been paying attention, our media and technology minister (yes, lower case for any editors/proofreaders out there) has been notorious at encouraging less independent media, and more corporate greed: recently they allowed big media empires to buy up more (and smaller) publications, TV stations, etc. which will only mean more crap American TV for us... So yes, it's important. And yes, you can keep your porn, I don't want it. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

I am fascinated that someone out there who chooses to remain anonymous equates the right to free speech to watching porn. Oh and yes I do want consenting adults who wish to, to be able to watch legal porn in their own homes. That does not equate to a right to watch illegal child porn, bestial porn or any of a number of other illegal types. Limiting access to sites on the internet that the government disaproves of on the possibly specious opinion of the federal police is yet another nail in the coffin of your right to remain informed. If we only know the information that the Government wants us to know about then how can we make rational decisions about anything. If the right to access to information makes life a bit more complicated for you poor sheep who just do what you are told and follow along then so be it. Does the internet disturb you? Then get rid of your computer and go back to listening to the carefully censored opinions of the TV moguls, After all I'm sure Rupert Murdoch only has your best interests at heart. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Couldn't agree more. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Did anyone watch Insight on SBS tonight? It was a great conversation on this very issue of free speech and freedom of information. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Today's Herald Sun has Andrew Bolt going at the Melbourne Fringe festival and the fact that tax payers are paying to have artists perform anti-Howard shows. -Note: 'This tax payer funding' isn't direct to the festival but comes through sponorship by several Universities, the City council and both Liberal and Labour parties. This piece annoyed me for a few reasons- Bolt is often...no always, displaying his point of view on various topics and gets paid to do so. Yet when an artist, with a vision and an opinion decides to mount a show on the stage during a festival to display their opinion that is wrong? Because many shows are left wing? Because they are identifying faults? I guess a ban on freedom of speech online would lead to the end of the Fringe Festival and similar festivals across the country. And then I guess Andrew Bolt would be happy... Although they'd surely be knocking opinion pieces out of the paper too. ____________________________________________________________ Currently working on: A nice break before jumping into my next project.

Andrew Bolt is renown for his annoying opinions. I believe that's why he writes for the HS; he's controversial. There's a great episode on The West Wing where a woman working for the NEA (the US version of the arts council) wants her boss kicked off the board. Why? Because she didn't agree with his idea of what is 'good' art to fund. Everybody should stop asking what 'good' art is - and ask instead, have we funded enough art? I wish people would remove the 'good' from the concept of art, as if there was a right or wrong answer. Art is art. You can't define it. On a side note, I read that our government has written a consultation paper on whether or not they should establish a consultation blog. (In other words, the government is asking for opinions on whether or not they should be seeking opinions via blog)... Anyway, sorry for the rant. I'm in a terrible mood today. :( Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

I perosnally loved the way Bolt tried to redeem himself from his attack on the fringe artists by saying he enjoyed the film 'Ratatouille' because of the way it portrays critics and something or other like that... I might have accepted this further opinion article if it had been an Australian, fringe show production that had changed his mind. ____________________________________________________________ Currently working on: A nice break before jumping into my next project.

Yes... fringe artists = multibillion dollar movie funded by Disney. :nuts: Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

I find the possibilty of the federal police having the ability to censor the information that we as free citizens in a democratic society view/read/engage with repugnant. This is a similar strategy to those utilised by the goverments in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia... Have we learned nothing from the past?? What comes after the banning of internet site access - book burning? This issue has nothing to do with pornography - there are other systems in place to deal with illegal pornographic material. I admit, these systems are far from perfect, but they do not impinge upon the civil liberties of our society - this concept of governmental censorship does! In Australia we are lucky enough to live in a relatively enlightened world - do we really want to follow the examples set by goverments that oppressed their people to the point od genocide? I certainly hope not!

We live in a democracy, and as long as we are willing to vote our politicians in based on the scaremongering and other asst distasteful and ignorant methods used in politics particularly over the last decade or so, well we deserve what we get. I think the idea of any government deciding what I can and can't see frightening and appalling. Unfortunately, as our first reply post points out above, it is far easier to make this debate completely simplistic, and appeal to the base instinct of humans. i.e., make it about terrorism or child porn and no-one will dare challenge you. (unless they are a terrorist or child pornographer/peodophile...) It's so easy...think child overboard, AWB, any other scandal you like- how has this government managed to survive?! I can't help but be impressed by their capacity to survive despite being so obviously morally corrupt. On the other hand, don't really know that the other side won't just join in when they take over... Thoroughly disillusioned Nev It's the simple things stupid...

Of course the other side will take over. There will be no real roll back of IR laws nor will there be any lessening of the sedition or anti terrorist laws. Playing on our fears allows the Govt to take away our freedoms. Eventually we will be muzzled completely and it is easier to govern uninformed people whose knowledge is guided by a controlled press. The issue does not hinge on what is becoming a purely theoretical difference between left and right but the very real difference between libertarian and authoritarian. While the Labour party has always been to a degree authoritarian we used to be able to rely on the inherent libertarianism of the right to back pedal a bit but the current leadership of the Liberals is totally authoritarian. They are even upsetting Malcolm Fraser. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

On the Insight program that I was watching, one government person (I can't remember if they were a secretary or what) said something along the lines of, "Oh, these laws are only in place because we are in a time of wane [war time] and the laws will go away when we don't need them". Naturally the journalists in the group spoke up and said it was too late, the laws are there, and nobody's going to try and remove them now. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

I find this: New Zealand puts its law on a wiki for public editing by Cory Doctorow Sara sez, "The New Zeland police have launched a wiki open at anyone wanting to edit and make suggestions to the Police Act as part of a wider revamp. New Zealand's current Police Act is nearly 50 years old. In March 2006 a review undertaken. Following this a new website wiki.policeact.govt.nz has been launched to allow people to suggest wording for the new Policing Act. It uses similar wiki technology to the popular user-generated site Wikipedia. The wiki version of the Policing Act will be viewed by New Zealand parliamentarians, before an official bill is introduced into Parliament." NZ Police Superintendent Hamish McCardle, the officer in charge of developing the new act, said the initiative had already been described as a "new frontier of democracy". "People are calling it 'extreme democracy' and perhaps it is," he said. "It's a novel move but when it comes to the principles that go into policing, the person on the street has a good idea ... as they are a customer," he said. "They've got the best idea about how they want to be policed." http://www.stuff.co.nz/4215797a10.html Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Yeah, it's very interesting. Compare it to the recent controversy of the Aussie government who has been caught editing Wikipedia articles to suit their purposes. (I wonder - does it have to do with the fact that there is a woman in power in NZ?) Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Bolt is not a critic: he is a neo-con ideologue Jim

I had this discussion in class about editing Wikipedia when the CIA was also caught doing it. I do not see why it is such an issue that someone was editing data- as far as I'm aware anyone can do it! Infact I know people who have tried to put things on Wikipedia, changed things etc. That kind of site CAN be edited by anyone- so why the outrage when someone does? On that line as far as I'm aware the entire net can be edited. We all add data to this site. If the government posted and then edited content on here would we be shocked? Sure they were probably editing things that especially related to themselves and was in bad taste or whatever. But think- on Wikipedia, WHO posted the original details, HOW accurate were the original details...was the Government body that edited technically making things right. Aren't there departments within the police that can close down websites anyway? Or is that something that is just overblown in police TV dramas... See what I mean about everybody being able to edit. Restricted free speech is an appropriate term for today I feel. ____________________________________________________________ Currently working on: A nice break before jumping into my next project.

The outrage comes when people try to edit information which is supposed to inform people. Wikipedia was created to provide a free access, community-built information service, which was to provide reliable, proven encyclopedic explanations. The problem is that anyone can edit it, which means that instead of providing reliable information, it can become a war of words (find the site Wikirage and see how much is edited) over opinion, rather than fact. In other words - anyone can edit the page on the Holocaust and say it never happened. To many people around the world, this is beyond an insult. And what if people edit medical pages, which results in people taking bad advice on medical conditions, operations, etc. What people need to do is sign up for Citizendium. It is the same premise of Wikipedia, except that the site admins request you provide a verifiable identification before editing or contributing. It was founded by one of Wikipedia's founders. The issue isn't that there should be free speech; the issue is that this is a resource that has put itself in the forefront of 'reliable' and 'accurate', researched articles, and that it cannot sustain the level of uneducated editings that it has come to take. The point of allowing other people to write and edit was to aim to create articles that became more accurate as more people contributed providing a collective insight and depth. Instead it backfired. You will find that across the net, many people are now encouraging others not to use the site because of the issues of everyone editing. And I doubt the cops will close down wikipedia. It's an American company remember... and they have free speech in their constitution. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

And the right to carry arms. Which is all because they were afraid of having the English come back. However the CIA has been found editing Wikipedia...so once again free speech limited. At school Wikipedia is blocked by our 'net nanny' software. Librarians don't even encourage using Google as a search engine. Awhile ago I had an idea for a play about freedom of speech. I think I may jot it down now that it's become such a good discussion point and forefront in my mind again ____________________________________________________________ Currently working on: A nice break before jumping into my next project.

I like the fact that they are using "terrorist" as a excuse for their new legislation... the are starting to use that in almost everything...(or if not that then it is "illegal" people *hint of sarcasm*) talking about trying to gain votes... so what your saying is that the Govt is now allowed to look over the blogs and other things like you tube and able to ban what ever they want that is online? if that is the case then yes free speech now going to soon be in the past... as a performing artist does that mean that this "war on free speech" that started by the govt.. would soon literally have the capabilities to really REALLY oversee what is performance or if it is some sort of a "terrorist" attack?... i can see that now... what a sad future...

plue, the existing sedition laws already make it possible for the government to censor material that criticises their anti terrorist or anti sedition laws. This means that not only could a play that criticises those laws be stopped but the playwright can be arrested. This is not what might happen these laws exist now today. People are already held in camps because of who they are not what they have done, how long will it be before people can be arrested on the street because their appearance is wrong or because they belong to the wrong religion. Our rights are being eroded daily and we have no protection. And Sean you are half right about the second amendment which is the one used to protect the right to bear arms. The amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The fledgling USA could not afford a standing army (or Navy) of any size so the right to form militia was enshrined as part of the bill of rights. In order to from militia it is necessary to have the right to bear arms. You also have to recognise that the founding fathers of the USA were libertarian in essence and believed that individual rights and responsibilties were above those of the state. This made this amendment very right and applicable at the time. It probably needs looking into now. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Incidently Sean, in the USA the free speech amendment has successfully been used by High School students to protect their right to access the entire range of sites such as Wikipedia and to stop schools censoring news and inforamtion sites even if the school disapproves of the political slant of the site. Even in private schools. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Let's not forget that academics have actually been investigated because they were interviewing terrorists... to find out what makes them tick. Naturally, the government didn't think it would be important to anti-terrorism to, you know, actually understand what's behind it. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip My puppets www.collectzing.com/collection/137/

Trust the USA! We decided the Bear Arms ammended needed rethinking when we studied the American Revolution last year in history. However what is interesting is that although created in the 18th Century the Bill Or Rights still has so many points relevant to todays society. Then again it also has a great deal of points that are more 'Keep The King Of England Away!' which are pointless in today's society. Interesting to see how people in Burma are wanting their rights to free speech etc at the moment. And how their local news is saying that the Western news channels such as BBC are liars. That is definately restricted speech. ...Might pull the 'freedom of speech at school' plug next time a librarian catches me on Theatre Australia :P ____________________________________________________________ Currently working on: A nice break before jumping into my next project.