The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 58-42 for the third successive week. Also included are leadership approval ratings (Kevin Rudd predictably little changed on a fortnight ago; Tony Abbott with mediocre ratings, which is much better than Turnbull had been doing); Copenhagen (important, but unlikely to reach agreement); and “Christmas spending”. We’ve also had a 400-sample of Western Australian voters from Westpoll (see right) which has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West Australian takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.
[sites dedicated to publishing all known sites on the list, and these will naturally attract a lot of attention, as well as attention for the sites on the list that many people might not otherwise have known existed.]
Plus the sites commenting on, and/or linking, or repeating the information on the sites listing the banned sites will have to be banned too, and … gee … hang on … wouldn’t those include PB …
The Commonwealth Crimes Act looks as if it is about to double in size. Better start building bigger jails now. 🙂
The wowsers want it so the wowsers will get it, whether it makes any practical difference, one way or the other, or not. It will happen regardless of the opportunity cost. They wowsers will want it regardless of whether the funds would be better spent on focusing prevention and deterrence where child-sex mostly happens, which, I understand, is in the family home at the behest of family, friends and neighbours.
Rudd promised the filter, I believe, in the run up the election? If so, the Rudd Government has a mandate to implement it. Practically speaking, the only real difference it might make is to make it hard for the economic far right to get into bed with the socially conservative religious right.
There is a rather lengthy history of anti-democratic forces using technology to aid their anti-democratic tendencies. The filter will provide such an opportunity. It is likely that sooner or later some self-deluded lunatic of the right or left will use the opportunity. My bet is that a conservative will have first go at it, but that is not to be taken for granted.
That apart, I would have like to have seen a sensible debate on sexual relations between humans and non-humans, but I sense that Australians are not quite ready for such a debate right now.
Diog
You misunderstand me.
I suppose that much porn is made in USA, Europe and Australia etc under some sort
of reasonably effective legal regime and under some sort of policies which try to prevent sex slavery etc. (Not sure of the right terminology here). I guess that this would get classified by the Australian authority and so be unfiltered.
The examples I give of other sorts of more dubious porn are ones which I will hope do not make it through the classification system. They are somewhat mild examples of what might be getting delivered to Australia under the current, anything-goes situation.
Do you believe that anything which can be put on the web anywhere in the world should be able to be viewed by Australians?
All right, I’m going down, but for the sake of democracy, here’s one of the sites that’ll be on the blacklist: Exceptional Dental.
Tell my mother I love her…
I hope Conroy’s minions are reading the comments under the (linked above) SMH article. Talk about ‘not happy Stephen’. One part-example:
[In news just to hand, Senator Stephen Conroy has announced that the anticipated success of his internet filtering system in making the internet entirely free (“100%”) from nasty things without any degradation in service has led him to write legislation to implement a similar method for phone conversations. “Paedophiles use phones all the time,” Senator Conroy said, “and anyone who opposes this legislation is clearly a paedophile”. The new legislation will provide for a change in how telephone calls are made in this country. Instead of the current system where you ring someone up and talk to them, from now on, you will be connected to a faceless government bureaucrat who will then phone the person you want to speak to. You will say what you want to say to the bureaucrat, and if he finds it is not on the blacklist of things that aren’t allowed to be said, he will then repeat it to the other person on the other line.]
🙂
Dr Good went:
[Do you believe that anything which can be put on the web anywhere in the world should be able to be viewed by Australians?]
I don’t beleive that it should be able to be viewed anymore than I think global poverty should be allowed to continue, war crimes should be allowed to be committed and people trafficking should be let continue its trade in human misery.
Conroy’s proposed filter will have the same impact on preventing each of those things.
While placing additional economic and technology costs on top.
How will the filter deal with the fact that websites are continually changing? If it’s true that only material that is refused classification, like a film, will be blocked, how will they let through all the benign stuff on the same site? I guess they won’t. Or suppose a site has some repugnant material on it for only a week; will the site stay on the list, and if so, for how long?
Inner Westie
[here’s one of the sites that’ll be on the blacklist: Exceptional Dental.]
Courageous move. But really, we can’t have those tooth fetish sites freely available. They might be accidentally (get it?) stumbled upon by the browsing toothless.
[The wowsers want it so the wowsers will get it, whether it makes any practical difference, one way or the other, or not.]
As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t make any practical difference then no harm done for those who oppose (which are using this as a reason not to do anything) and if it works then that is a good thing surely. Can’t see the problem myself.
[They might be accidentally (get it?)]
Ugh… That’s truly dreadful JV 😀
[Do you believe that anything which can be put on the web anywhere in the world should be able to be viewed by Australians?]
Ahh, the straw man again.
I love the smell of straw in the morning; it smells like victory.
[I suppose that much porn is made in USA, Europe and Australia etc under some sort
of reasonably effective legal regime and under some sort of policies which try to prevent sex slavery etc. (Not sure of the right terminology here). I guess that this would get classified by the Australian authority and so be unfiltered.]
You suppose incorrectly. Most porn on the internet is never submitted to the Australian authority for classification so your argument has no merit.
I have come across porn sites accidentally once or twice in my work.
One seemed to be in Russia and seemed to involve youngish looking females. I clicked on a link while looking for tourist sights in Ekaterinburg via a web page that was mostly in Russian. This was a surprise which I can deal with. However, if some crime boss is getting paid by (advertisers) on the number of views of a web page involving underage imprisoned foreign girls then I am not happy. Will such a site get classified under the new system if that is the case?
Another came up in a search for online interactive artificial intelligent agents and despite the fact that the main activity on the page was an animation (albeit a skimpily dressed one) there were links with official looking USA legal statements with warnings and information if you wanted to follow them. I guess that the other pages of this site was based in USA and that we could trust that the models were over 18 etc. I guess that such a site would be classified and unfiltered.
Diog, I am not happy being accused of coming up with silly arguments when I am trying to argue something honestly and have thought about it. And I am not happy being called part of Labor’s cheer squad just because I can see some possible merit in this proposal while I have already said that I oppose censorship, especially of such things as pro-euthanasia discussion and information.
[Diog, I am not happy being accused of coming up with silly arguments]
Well stop coming up with stupid arguments and pathetic strawmen.
[And I am not happy being called part of Labor’s cheer squad just because I can see some possible merit in this proposal while I have already said that I oppose censorship, especially of such things as pro-euthanasia discussion and information.]
I’m afraid some here still use this line of argument in a debate. Getting personal and questioning a person’s motivation for saying something or agreeing with something is a sign that the argument isn’t going very well for them. I’m surprised Dio is using this line though. He usually argues a very case.
The first word that comes to mind after reading comment 2012 is gratuitous. The second is unworthy.
Diogenes #1988
Mt first use of what’s now Internet: Summer 1971/2; uni on-line library catalogue (Stanford U, I think)
Full-time substitution of WP for hand-writing (at least 75% of my job was writing & background reading before writing): 1990
Was taught by enterprising students the basics of hacking (not then illegal) to locate on-line manuals & research reports: 1994
Number of times I’ve accidentally come across porn: (except for the spammed porn that infested a board many of us read) 1, Uno – only a few weeks ago (trying key words to locate a quite old book) & what little I saw was tamer than the spammed stuff
Number of times I’ve accidentally come across kiddie porn or a snuff movie: 0, null, zero!
Yes, anyone foolish enough to consider cosmetic dental treatment in Surfers Paradise, and to hunt around on the web for such services, should polish the Queen’s iron with their eyebrows… in perpi-effing-tuity!
But seriously, what exactly is a “school canteen consultant”, and why would they have ended up on Conroy’s blacklist?
OPT
Exactly. The argument about accidentally coming across bestiality etc is ridiculous.
What will happen if it passes is there will be a Sunday tabloid procession of stories, week after week after week, on how Conroy’s $X Million dollar policy was defeated by a 16 year old kid in 20 minutes, followed the next week by a 15 year old kid that did it in 10 minutes, a 7 year old that did it in 30 seconds etc etc until someone can find a fetus with a laptop.
This will inevitably be followed by headlines screaming “Is this Australia’s most incompetent Minister?”. After months/years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, the Daily Terrorgraph can reveal that the Rudd Government still cannot protect our kids against online predators!”
The Curious Snail will declare: “Filter Fail – We show how 60% of all children at (insert school) can bypass Conroys filter quicker than it takes you to read his list of excuses”
The Hun will ask “Are you smarter than a 5 year old Minister” – with the answer being a big fonted NO!
Then it will be linked into the NBN, with every government announcement of some city coming online being followed by the commentary going “However, while the NBN has brought higher speeds to most households, the governments internet filter fiasco now means that your children will be able to access movies about drug dealing necrophiliacs doing obscene things to dalmatians quicker than evah!”.
You get the drift.
Yep that Conroy and his net filter – one smart operator.
Fulvio and GB
I have become increasingly concerned that PB is becoming a site for propaganda rather than political discussion. Psephos confirmed that he uses PB as a way to send out Labor spin the other day, although he hardly needed to tell us that.
When smart people post disingenuous, poorly thought out arguments, I’m highly suspicious that they don’t actually believe them and that they are misusing the site for political purposes.
The first thing I would like to know is how much will this Conroy scheme costs?
The second thing is why should websites that are not illegal, be not viewable
Thirdly, the sick people who get enjoyment out od the illegal material, are there any research done on what they did prior to the internet, or what they might do in the future to get their “fix”
Forthly, what is there to stop a “Robert Magabe” type from sensoring the net to suit themselves
Fifthly, how does a dentist get on the list, and if it is so easy to ban website like it, what safeguard are there to protect these website programers
Sixly, what happens to ebay, if someone sells illegal material? Is the whole website blocked
I think it will be a very expensive equipment, forced on to all australian and IPLs, with lots of issues and will do little good
Now for something of which you should be afraid. We had to replace the camera to computer cable. The best buy came with a wee card reader that accepted the chip – a very cheap, dinky little device I can conceal in the palm of my hand.
The answer to the obvious question is You’re damned right it does!
[You get the drift.
Yep that Conroy and his net filter – one smart operator.]
If that happened Conroy would just tell the MSM to stfu.
I hope it will be much more successful than the last 2 federal government foray onto the internet….. the same group of people arguing for the Web censor were also arguing for the wildly successful
Fuel Watch and
Grocery Watch
Speaking of propaganda, here’s a little heads up for anyone considering attending the Young Liberals’ Federal Convention in Adelaide from Jan 29-31.
As the Young Liberals’ federal president, Rachel Fry, explains:
Our theme for this year’s convention is The Culture Wars & Political Correctness: How to win the hearts and minds of Australians, and, accordingly, I look forward to a weekend of vigorous debate, thought-provoking speeches and the celebration of freedom and individual enterprise over an alcopop/beer or two.
It’ll be 1996 all over again!
[I hope it will be much more successful than the last 2 federal government foray onto the internet….. the same group of people arguing for the Web censor were also arguing for the wildly successful
Fuel Watch and
Grocery Watch]
No Watch!
OPT@2021:
[The best buy came with a wee card reader that accepted the chip – a very cheap, dinky little device I can conceal in the palm of my hand.
The answer to the obvious question is You’re damned right it does!]
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You wanted a cable for your camera and got a chip reader instead.
I have a chip reader too, it is easier to use than the camera to computer connection.
Your point being?
Diogenes
[I have become increasingly concerned that PB is becoming a site for propaganda rather than political discussion.]
The reality of what you say hit me yesterday after a couple of weeks away – different topic; same slavering thoughtless levels of support for the party line as usual, regardless of objective merits of a policy. It’s time after time. At least with the net filters they have nowhere to hide 🙂
Such an example makes their common reason for being here very obvious.
The GetUP poll showed only 4% support the net filter concept, and yet here we have a contrarian little coterie of ALP spinner/weavers, who, while net savvy, are studiously ignoring what they know to be true. Ah, the joys of observing wilful ignorance in action.
But on the bright side, there seem to be a few more independent thinkers around PB than there were a couple of weeks ago.
I forgot to mention that, just prior to announcing that the theme of the Young Liberals’ federal convention next year will be the culture wars and political correctness, YL president Rachel Fry explained that “it is an exciting time to be a Young Liberal as we embark upon the necessary processes of renewal and change at this particular stage in the electoral cycle.”
Key word renewal.
(!)
Morgan poll FTF 59/41
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4452/
JV –
I think very few of us on the ALP side of the fence actually support the idea of mandatory filtering. Mostly it seems to be Frank and Dario shouting loudly to try to shut down dissenting opinion through stacked logical fallacies. They do themselves no credit.
Yes, the beige chino wearers on PB are as dogmatic as a golf referee. And alarmingly trigger happy when it comes to ad hominem.
ALP Primary vote up 2%.
Wonder where it came from?
Frank and Dario? YOU MEAN THE TWO CONTRIBUTORS WHO ENDLESSLY SCREAM AT YOU BY CAPITALISING THEIR TEXT?
By the way Frank and Dario, please include me in you stfu scripts. I’m tired of talking to you. LOL
(Sorry, that was a tad loud. I meant lol.)
[Morgan poll FTF 59/41]
So, nearly back to normal.
Would have loved to have a question on Abbott in that survey. What a teaser. Anyway on the 2pp figures alone Shana will be wondering where all that wonderful Abbott momentum that he was rattling on about went to.
StephenD
[I think very few of us on the ALP side of the fence actually support the idea of mandatory filtering.]
Yes, and I do not refer to the majority of party members who continue to revel in the joys of abstract thought 🙂
I only refer to the relentless hard-core, who never have an opinion at odds with party policy or action, and hack away at dissenting views, day in, day out.
what is a beige chino? a kind of coffee?
Blather,posture,pout and pissantry.
To the No filter brigade,you paint this utopian ideal of the internet and its sacrosanct nature,whilst hiding behind the other laws of the land
Why is that?
Your puerile and juvenille defence of your “toy” provides evidence aplenty of selfcentredness but an apparent disregard for the LAW
Why is that?
To the usual suspects the fact that you attack someones desire to enforce commonly held community standards, says volumes for your own.
Why is that?
Frank and Dario have their moments on this issue, but I think their passion is generally no more stridently expressed than the contra opinion, which I happen to hold.
I prefer to weigh up the merits of the arguments and make a judgment on those, rather than criticise the proponents.
jv
Lots of people here support a Party and will normally argue the case of their Party which is hardly surprising. That’s normal politics and you can discuss the merits of their case with them. That’s great and I have no problem with Frank, Dario etc doing that because I think they are honestly just saying their piece.
What I don’t like is people using PB as a platform for dispensing propaganda to benefit their Party, rather than to discuss politics.
Psephos, look down. Chances are there’s one on your lap!
Polls before and after Tony Abbott’s elevation.
Newspoll prior 57/43 post 56/44
Essential prior 58/42 post 58/42, 58/42
Morgan FTF prior 58.5/41.5 post 59/41
Wishing for an impact isn’t the same as achieving one.
Gusface, the no-filter brigade is mostly just explaining:
a) why it won’t work
b) that it might well have the opposite effect of that intended (nothing’s surer to attract an audience to something than to ban it)
c) that a lot of harmless stuff might get blocked as well
[what is a beige chino? a kind of coffee?]
I like that. I’m going to order one at the cafe in the morning and see what they give me. God I live dangerously … 🙂
Triton
thats no answer to 2038
*is none the wiser*
Ok Diog
I asked if you wanted any form of censorship of what is on the internet coming into Australia.
You did not answer this question and accused me of raising a straw man.
Possum also did not answer this question.
I don’t see why this is a straw man or an unfair question. I honestly do not know your answers.
And I feel that I have to restate my opposition to censorship of information such as euthanasia discussions, in case you want to accuse me of being a supporter of all aspects of this filter.
So what I can make out this FILTER policy is all about politics….namely an attempt to capture the god botherer vote. I wonder how many percentage points the god botherer vote represents. I can understand in the US the god botherer vote is considered ‘valuable’. However, that must be seen in the context of non-compulsory voting, where the effect of getting god botherers (who might not otherwise bother to vote) to vote for you, is magnified.
Personally I find any god botherer propaganda extremely offensive. However, I don’t advocate banning such material. I simply change channels if it is on TV, avoid places of worship and if I accidentally stumble upon it on the web, quickly close down my browser.
Gusface:
[thats no answer to 2038]
It is an answer. You’ve completely misrepresented what the no-filter brigade have been saying.