the Magicball Network Forums

the Magicball Network Forums (https://forum.magicball.net/index.php)
-   Off topic (https://forum.magicball.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Australians: time to panic (https://forum.magicball.net/showthread.php?t=14161)

ChaosFish 2008-11-01 00:27

Australians: time to panic
 
Quote:

Countrywide inet filters launched in Australia
WEB users have slammed a Federal government plan to filter Net content, with a couriermail.com.au poll showing major opposition to the soon-to-be-trialled proposal. Internet service providers will test a blacklist of about 1000 illegal websites for the Rudd Government’s bid to protect Australians from viewing obscene material. Within days, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy will ask internet service providers such as BigPond and iiNet to participate in a live pilot trial to test internet filters.

The blacklists would probably apply to “real depictions of actual sexual activity:, child pornography, bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material which advocated the commission of a terrorist act. But the filtering plan has infuriated net users, because it could slow internet speeds by 30 per cent even though it will do little to block illegal content. That’s the warning from technical experts, who also say the plan could expose users’ financial details during online banking sessions and see popular websites including Facebook and YouTube banned.

Source: News.com.au
Who's from Australia over here? I'd worry if I was you. Looks like Australia is on its way to becoming a dictatorship. Not that I have much information about what's going on in there, but I also know that Fallout 3 was censored because Australia threatened to ban it. What's going on in there?

RGaspar 2008-11-01 00:31

This is bad. If a country like Australia approves something like this, other countries will follow.

Attacking private information and web traffic just to prevent a little bit of pr0n, that's lame.

ChaosFish 2008-11-01 00:35

More info: http://nocleanfeed.com/

Kobold 2008-11-01 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 365356)
but I also know that Fallout 3 was censored because Australia threatened to ban it. What's going on in there?

That's just the regular thing. Manhunt was banned in Germany. Most violent video games either get rated 18, not rated at all and instead indexed, or banned completely. Many companies censor out things such as removing the entire blood or recoloring it. Games like Gears of War don't get released after they were denied a rating by the USK (which is the first step to get a game banned or indexed).

When you think of it, America does exactly the same thing, just with pornographic content instead of violence.

ChaosFish 2008-11-01 00:42

But about that Australia thing, it's really scary:
"Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country. The clean feed will censor material that is "harmful and inappropriate" for children. ..." (from here)

Kobold 2008-11-01 00:42

Content harmful and inappropriate for children? Like if the net wasn't for adults as well?

RGaspar 2008-11-01 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 365364)
But about that Australia thing, it's really scary:
"Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country. The clean feed will censor material that is "harmful and inappropriate" for children. ..." (from here)

That's pretty vague and a way to invade privacy.

:hmpf:

Kobold 2008-11-01 00:46

Okay, I read on and it said this:
Quote:

The clean-feed for children will be opt-out, but a second filter will be mandatory for all Internet users

Zerath^ 2008-11-01 03:34

Welcome to the Team guys :) .

Darkflame 2008-11-01 03:51

Write to your MP's, this sort of idiotic scheme only gets passed as long as people dont know about it.

Zerath^ 2008-11-01 03:57

That was the exact problem in Sweden, they thought that ppl wouldn't care if they did it in complete silence (almost).

Lightwing 2008-11-01 07:56

Write to your representative/politician. Get everyone you know to do the same thing.

This won't stop child pornography, it'll simply restrict freedom.

LBAWinOwns 2008-11-01 11:56

Who cares anyway?

Dino-Fly 2008-11-01 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns (Post 365394)
Who cares anyway?

People who enjoy looking at naked children.

Double-J 2008-11-01 22:22

Somehow I was expecting this thread to include rampaging kangaroos or an aborigine revolt.

ChaosFish 2008-11-02 01:34

You're going to love my post Double-J.
--

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dino-Fly (Post 365431)
Quote:

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns (Post 365394)
Who cares anyway?

People who enjoy looking at naked children.

Actually, I care too.

Of course it starts with child porn. But where does it end? Censoring one thing legitimates censoring other things.

Don't believe me? Then you already missed something. Because they're also censoring bestiality. Yes, it's disgusting. But can you compare it to child abuse? Looking at it from a rational point of view, animal fucking doesn't necessarily hurt or traumatize anyone (human or otherwise...). Because most animals' psychology are different than human's.

So why censor it? Because it feels wrong? Because it disgusts us, makes us shiver? That is the root of religion. And it's evil.

So no, don't censor anything, not even child porn. Instead, bust the asses of the criminals and throw them in prison.

"But censoring could help." - Maybe it could. But it's never the answer. Some lines should just never be crossed, and censoring is one of them. It's immoral, and it's dangerous, and it's a threat billions of people, and especially children - who are the next generation and will be here after we've left.

Double-J 2008-11-02 18:04

Wait, so bestiality isn't animal abuse?

Just checking. My logic meter was kind of dipping there, for a second I was concerned that we had an aberration but it appears there may be some true retardation present.

ChaosFish 2008-11-02 18:10

Right, I'm a retard, and this is coming from Double "Teh Cock" J.

Bestiality is disgusting... but from animals' point of view, is it worse from using them in the circus for example? (and I'm not even talking about legal hunting)

But I bet circus animal abuse isn't censored in Australia, which proves that it's only censored because it's disgusting, and from here it's a short road to hell.

You know what, if anyone decides to misinterpret my posts I really don't give a damn about what they think. I'm not afraid to speak out my mind, as taboo-ish as it might be.

Jasiek 2008-11-02 18:39

Well speaking from that point of view, people eating animals slaughtered in horrible conditions are the ones to say when moralizing about someone humping a sheep...

"Bestiality" and child porn are already against the law... by an arbitrary form of censorship, the lawmaker implies that all the users of the internet are child molesters; innocent until proven guilty anyone?

One might argue though that trying to filter out these sites or whatever they are, might protect the victims' identity.

I'm against it though, any form of censorship opens a door to future breaches of freedom of speech and expression. And it will start with acts that are clearly unlawful, and will end with just the stuff that grosses out some conservative perverts who can't stop from trying to get into other peoples beds.

Three cheers for porn.

ChaosFish 2008-11-02 18:47

Exactly, thank you.

Double-J 2008-11-02 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 365508)
Well speaking from that point of view, people eating animals slaughtered in horrible conditions are the ones to say when moralizing about someone humping a sheep...

Speaking from common sense and logic, killing an animal (ideally in as humane a way as possible) and using it for food is not the same as abusing it (likely habitually) for deviant sexual purposes.

Unless, of course, eating those tasty, tasty cows is abuse. Go ahead, fuck the shit out of that llama, it probably enjoys it!

Never mind the fact that your own species won't have anything to do with you...

Jasiek 2008-11-02 19:12

Killing an animal in any way is hardly not abuse...

And that's the case here isn't it? Although it is wrong to abuse an animal the reasons this censorship would be instated are all wrong. It's not about the abuse of the animal, it's not even about the animal (if they really care, they should stop touching meat). It's about someone's inner feelings towards someone else's sexual conduct, not the welfare of the animal. And of course censorship will start on common ground, but a foot will be wedged in the door for future forms of arbitrary censorship on other practices that are harmless, just becouse they grose someone out. And there's a short road from censoring what people do, to what they think and say.

No to all forms of censorship, there is the police and courts to handle illegal stuff like that.

Darkflame 2008-11-02 19:26

Personaly, Id rather be raped then killed, but thats just me.

The morality of what you do to animals purely depends on how sentient you believe animals are...if they are just lumps of meat, or if they are self-aware on some level.
As theres no way of knowing for sure, people have different beliefs and thus treat animals in different ways.

No one has the right to say absolutely what is wrong or right on this level, there simple is no benchmark, only different views based on different beliefs.


For instance, it might well be the belief of those who do engage in bestality that they are looking after said animal and are in a "relationship" with the animal. They might see the idea of killing the animal as disgusting and a-moral.
As twisted as we see that view, its quite hard to say thats absolutely wrong unless we had some way to ask the animal.
(and, if we did have a way to ask the animal, it would pretty much rule out eating meat as being correct).

Most people can agree on the idle that we shouldnt harm eachother...that we shouldnt harm sentient creatures.
But we all have different ideas of what is "harm" and what is a senitent creature.

This is, of course, a reather offtopic discusion to the thread, but it does show that people can have vastely different viewpoints on morality and thus that censorship shouldnt happen because you would be raising one view as being correct.

And theres a lot more danger in premoting one view as universaly correct then there is of letting a few dodgy views be seen by all.

ChaosFish 2008-11-02 19:36

I've read an excellent article on the subject (the current subject, not the Australia subject) by Adam Cadre (I'm a huge fan of his work, especially Photopia), and I'd like to recommend you all to read it: *click*

Darkflame 2008-11-02 20:49

hmz..
Quote:

And they didn't touch each other at all. They were very, very careful about not touching each other. It was like there was an invisible chaperone with a tape measure making sure that they maintained eighteen inches of separation at all times.
As a pushing diasies fan, I must say I view that scene slightly differently :p


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:15.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, the Magicball Network