Our Aussies Will Love This - NOT!

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-28 04:45am

So, the US does not have a monopoly on treetrunk-up-the-ass constipated social conservatives who think any deviation from their puritanical values means the downfall of society. I don't think the latest proposal by these idiots will find much support among our Aussies...

The Register wrote:Oz conservatives demand porn-busting net levy
By Lester Haines
Published Monday 27th September 2004 16:50 GMT

A conservative Australian party is demanding a levy on all internet users to fund a AU$45m blockade on smut and general web nastiness at server level, news.com.au reports.

Family First - which holds seats in South Australia - has close ties to the Pentecostal Assemblies of God and reckons that: "As a society, we have acknowledged the need to regulate other media and prevent porn peddlers from accessing children and adolescents." The ban would hit "disturbed, aggressive or sexualised behaviour" and would see users stump up AU$7 to AU$10 per year.

Family First acknowledges that their plan "may have the result of putting cost pressures on some of the smaller ISPs" but claims that most of them are dispensible anyway. Indeed, the party says that "adequate competition could be maintained with 30 ISPs rather than the hundreds in existence now". The net tax is essential, it insists, and the destruction of most of Oz's service providers "is a small price to pay to protect children".

Interestingly, Family First's proposal cites a recent study by the Australia Institute which "found many teenagers had been exposed to internet pornography, and questioned the effectiveness of the existing system of internet regulation". We suspect that this is none other then the eye-opening probe into Aussie smut which actually concluded that net porn is good for you. This particular study caused an almighty punch-up fuelled by moral indignation and fury, and it appears that Family First has now quite startlingly co-opted the findings for its own porn-busting crusade. ®

Source

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-28 05:21am

Glack! It spreads like a damn virus. Where's damage control?

What's this about wiping out smaller ISP's? Are they anti small business now?

Well I wouldn't vote to increase my taxes just to block web sites that parents can take care of with Net Nanny or some other program. Why not just let each household take care of it on their own using the provided parental locks many ISP offer or ones you get off the shelf at any decent computer store. Oh Yeah...

The Collective wrote:We are the right. Your moral distinctiness is at an end. You will be assimated. Your morality will be made to corform. No distinctiness will be allowed from our estblished Norm, you will be assimated.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 05:30am

What can I say? That's South Australia for you.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-28 05:37am

South... Why is it always South?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 05:45am

frigidmagi wrote:South... Why is it always South?

Careful now, Melbourne and Tasmania are south (well... south-east), and we rock.

Seriously though I have to wonder how the hell anyone can take this party seriously. They're essentially proposing regulations on something which is hideously difficult to regulate, all for the purposes of pushing forth a 'moral' agenda that suits only itself. I'm genuinely interested (and concerned) about how this party will deal with the upcoming election.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-28 05:49am

I meant international. American South and Australian South. I've never heard of a nation's northren region being fundalmentalist. Makes me wonder if the there's just better PR or what?

Now I gotta wonder about the Europeans, what regions are most "fundie"
in their various nations? Of course their fundies are most likey far left over in the US but still...

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 06:25am

I think you're hastily generalising there Frigidmagi. Fundies are found north, south, east and west. Concentrations differ, for example in America's south fundies swarm like locusts. (:lol:) In Europe, well, what is 'south' Europe? Does that mean ALL of the north is progressive? (it isn't - at least not completely, which is my point) And besides, SA isn't fundamentalist, I was only poking fun at them. In reality, Family First was only formed in SA, but it is aiming for representation in every state IIRC. Concurrent to this development, the One Nation party - which is as right-wing as you can get - was formed in Queensland, which is Australia's northern state.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-28 06:45am

I don't think many people take Family First seriously. At least not enough to make this worth worrying about.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2004-09-28 06:47am

As if the Australian censors weren't bad enough already. Maybe somebody needs to throw those "Church vs Porn Industry" statistics concerning members who end up being convicted child sex crimes at the faces of these holier-than-thou morons... Wrapped around bricks for good measures.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-28 06:50am

Lord of the Farce wrote:As if the Australian censors weren't bad enough already.

Good point, anyone remember the furore over the lesbians on Play School?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 06:54am

Gandalf wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:As if the Australian censors weren't bad enough already.
Good point, anyone remember the furore over the lesbians on Play School?

Yes. The ABC was accused of being 'politically correct' for what they did, and AFAIK they (the ABC) didn't apologise for it. Which is as it should be.

Has anyone chuck a stink over Neighbours' portrayal of a lesbian chick? I haven't recalled any, but given that the ABC is government funded some criticism is to be expected (if not condoned), while being a commercial channel might give 10 an advantage in the media's eye.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-28 06:56am

Stofsk wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:As if the Australian censors weren't bad enough already.
Good point, anyone remember the furore over the lesbians on Play School?
Yes. The ABC was accused of being 'politically correct' for what they did, and AFAIK they (the ABC) didn't apologise for it. Which is as it should be.

Another reason to support the ABC.

Has anyone chuck a stink over Neighbours' portrayal of a lesbian chick? I haven't recalled any, but given that the ABC is government funded some criticism is to be expected (if not condoned), while being a commercial channel might give 10 an advantage in the media's eye.

The only fuss I've heard is that they're not portraying her well, or some such.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 07:04am

Gandalf wrote:Another reason to support the ABC.

Support for the ABC should be automatic and default, and not require them to make stunts like the playschool incident (blown hideously out of proportion by the government, but I doubt the people who authorised it couldn't have predicted the hoohah that came of it). When you have bullshit like Eddie MacGuire's Gameshow (oops, I mean "Who wants to be a millionaire"?) or Big Brother on commerical channels, it's nice to turn to the ABC and get 4 Corners, Kerry O'Brien, Peter Berner, Media Watch, Andrew Denton, and programs like "Spooks", "Doctor Who", and "Wildside."

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-28 07:09am

Stofsk wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Another reason to support the ABC.
Support for the ABC should be automatic and default, and not require them to make stunts like the playschool incident (blown hideously out of proportion by the government, but I doubt the people who authorised it couldn't have predicted the hoohah that came of it). When you have bullshit like Eddie MacGuire's Gameshow (oops, I mean "Who wants to be a millionaire"?) or Big Brother on commerical channels, it's nice to turn to the ABC and get 4 Corners, Kerry O'Brien, Peter Berner, Media Watch, Andrew Denton, and programs like "Spooks", "Doctor Who", and "Wildside."

Of course support should be default, but I meant this as like a notch in their belt that they didn't give in and apologise. My personal favourite ABC show is "The Glass House."

Is SBS government owned like the ABC? Because they do some damn fine programming too.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-28 07:35am

Gandalf wrote:Is SBS government owned like the ABC? Because they do some damn fine programming too.

Yes they are. The Board of Directors is appointed by the government, and the Special Broadcasting Service was formed by the government. However when it was formed it was given editorial autonomy.

You're right about the damn fine programming. I will not watch any other news service other than SBS World News. ABC is the only alternative, but SBS dedicates the half hour to full news coverage, while the ABC divides it with sports as well. (SBS has a dedicated sports news program the proceeds directly after the regular one, for those who don't know - and like the regular program, it's still world-centric)

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-28 09:15am

frigidmagi wrote:I meant international. American South and Australian South. I've never heard of a nation's northren region being fundalmentalist. Makes me wonder if the there's just better PR or what?

Apparently, it's that way in Germany as well: the farther south you go, the more conservative it gets...

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-28 09:29am

Well, here in Finland the further noth you go, the more conservative things become. Then again, nearly all of our bigger cities are in the southern part of the country, so there's just the rural areas in the north.

Edi

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-28 11:06am

frigidmagi wrote:South... Why is it always South?

Northern Nigeria is where all the Islamic fundies who impose Sharia law are. Of course, the entire country is pretty bad, but the north is the worst there.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-09-28 02:12pm

They want to force Australians to pay money for their internet connections to be censored. Think about that. It's like making people pay for their phones to be wiretapped. Why is it that leaving other people alone is never good enough for porn-banning assholes?

And I can't help wondering if these "smut blockaders" are being assisted by some of the larger ISPs. I work for a small ISP, and since there's another ISP in the area you could call us "dispensible". But we're the only way to get broadband in these counties. We probably couldn't afford this. If lots of small ISPs are driven out of business by oppressive government overregulation, people will be harmed, despite the bullshit about "adequate competiton". Do these assholes care? Hell no! They just want to ensure that their neighbors' children can't look at the Devil's smut.

Is there a natural impulse among people to ban what isn't compulsory?