No opt-out web filtering

[Garbage]

Will they be censoring Hollywood and dometic war porn?

[Torsten]

At this point I figure they probably have the intention of allowing X18+ rated porn

What is your source for this? The ACMA website clearly states that ANY X18+ content is prohibited online [link provided in an earlier post].

Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the following categories of online content are prohibited:

* Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board

wait a minute, I found the original legislation. Interestingly a single line has been omitted from your quote which clarifies the whole issue. It also indicates you arer wrong in your assumption that X18+ content will be allowed online.

X18+ - RESTRICTED

Contains Consensual Sexually Explicit Activity

(Restricted to adults 18 years and over*)

*Available only for sale or hire in the ACT and Northern Territory.

Note: This classification category applies only to films. This classification is a special and legally restricted category which contains only sexually explicit material. That is material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults.

No depiction of violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence or coercion is allowed in the category. It does not allow sexually assaultive language. Nor does it allow consensual depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers.

Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ˜golden showers", bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted.

As the category is restricted to activity between consenting adults, it does not permit any depictions of non-adult persons, including those aged 16 or 17, nor of adult persons who look like they are under 18 years. Nor does it permit persons 18 years of age or over to be portrayed as minors.

So yeah, X18+ films are only permited in the ACT and NT. The national classification system does not allow X18+.

http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/legislatio...A2574120004F72A

[blog]

The telecommunications act regulates Australian servers & services. Doesn't work with overseas servers outside of Australia's jurisdiction. If you did apply the act then even once you opt out of the netfilter The web will still be censored at MA15+, with every other site black listed. It's not like international servers would head the demands of the OFLC,Doesn't make sense. The importance of X18+ is to determine what is unlawful when viewed in Australia. if porn doesn't fall within X18+, then it's RC, which can lead to prosecution if you were to possess the image or video, but more importantly under my 'opt out filter' simulation the Classification determines weather a website will be blocked. X18+ plays an important part in criminal law, not just for what's permitable in the territories.

The end result will still be mass censorship even under my scheme for reasons I've made previously and is out of touch with real 'standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults'.

I don't think the facts on how the 'opt out' filter system will function are known publicly yet.

Edited November 4, 2008 by blog

[Torsten]

The telecommunications act regulates Australian servers & services. Doesn't work with overseas servers outside of Australia's jurisdiction.

Wrong. The act does not just regulate content providers, but also service providers [including the delivery of overseas content].

From the acma website:

What is prohibited content?

Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the following categories of online content are prohibited:

* Any online content that is classified RC* or X 18+* by the Classification Board

etc

What are ISPs required to do about prohibited content?

ISPs have a responsibility to follow the procedures set out in an industry code of practice (or in the absence of a code, an industry standard) for dealing with overseas-hosted content that would be prohibited if it was classified in Australia.

If you did apply the act then even once you opt out of the netfilter The web will still be censored at MA15+, with every other site black listed. It's not like international servers would head the demands of the OFLC,Doesn't make sense.

Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that is exactly what I feel they are intending to do. But regardless, even if they allow X18, that still cuts out a huge amount of porn, including all fetish stuff. Given that just about every site has water sports, fisting or bondage on it there are not a lot of sites that would get through RC.

[Stonehenge]

If they say it's to protect the children, then what is the controversy? The authorities don't lie do they? Of course they do say it's for the children quite often or some other good sounding reason. But why would anyone doubt them? It must be true so be glad they let you see anything at all... or do anything at all, or keep any money at all.

Just be glad of that and do as you are told. The people on high tell us that is the secret to getting along.

[Auxin]

What kind of fanatical bastard would try to ban pee sex and bondage? I can understand why some people wouldnt want to watch a leather clad woman tie up a man and pee on him, some of my friends are such people, but to ban it? Fuck sake.

You guys seriously need to start voting better people into your government.

[ballzac]

What kind of fanatical bastard would try to ban pee sex and bondage?

Don't forget midget fisting.

I agree. I guess it's a religious kind of thing. I can't see any other reason why watersports, fisting, bondage etc. could be considered any less ethical than other types of porn.

[Auxin]

Well to be fair its not just the religious extremist nutters... some people think that in bondage only women get tied up and spanked, in pee sex only women get peed on, and in fisting only women get fisted and they figure that denigrates women somehow... so you can add woefully ignorant and sheltered extremist feminists to the list.

[Yawning Man]

Good on me for giving the link to mind ey.

Only reason i care about this is because of the restrictions on important/life saving info on certain substances and the effects of the online ethno community and so on.

cheers

[woof woof woof]

this is all baloney! ...... i think people will become creative again and find ways around the restrictions. digitally encryped material would be a logical step around restrictions...... btw.... if things move underground it would be more exciting anyway!

[grantoss]

this is all baloney! ...... i think people will become creative again and find ways around the restrictions. digitally encryped material would be a logical step around restrictions...... btw.... if things move underground it would be more exciting anyway!

I think that one of the main reasons for this censorship crap is because of this massive 911 truth movement. People are starting to realize that anything that was once easy to keep covered up is now alot harder and widespread thanks to the net. They've already been blocking alot of the alternate news sites in the UK like prisonplanet.com and infowars.com. It's terrible and the fact that people allover have started talking about the UN and Codex Alimentarius upsets the Men of Greed a fair bit I'd say. So if it has to go underground then bring it on lol. But we can't let this happen... We can't stand for this!!! It's because of new songs and info like this that we're getting censored haha (check it out hip hop fans!!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0

Peace y'all

[MindExpansion]

My problem with this has nothing to do with the fact that the info won't still be available, because it will (just with a bit more knowledge and effort) but like I said before, the issue is that this sort of censorship is plain wrong. Freedom of speech and information are supposedly key parts of a 'free' country, and the gov will be removing a large chunk of that when they censor the web. Censorship itself is simply inherently wrong, it should be up to ME to decide what I want to view/read/access info on etc, not ANYONE (including the government) else. Just like it should be up to ME to choose what I want to do with my body/life etc. These individual freedoms have been infringed upon since the dawn of organised society, but for the gov's of some of the free world to be infringing on them further and further is total bullshit. We give them money to look after our society yes, but not to make my decisions for me, when they only effect me.

Peace

[Garbage]

Who knew Australia was such a hotbed of authoritarian paedophilia?

[blog]

this is all baloney! ...... i think people will become creative again and find ways around the restrictions. digitally encryped material would be a logical step around restrictions...... btw.... if things move underground it would be more exciting anyway!

It's even possible that this website could be banned (technically). I could see that it might fall foul of the publications act, certainly websites like Erowid would.

Publications will be classified ‘RC’ : (if they contain)

© detailed instruction in:

(i) matters of crime or violence,

(ii) the use of proscribed drugs;

&

Drug Use: Descriptions and depictions of drug use may be permitted.

Detailed instruction in drug use is not permitted.

Drug use should not be promoted or encouraged.

*note A classification of RC = banned.

Edited November 9, 2008 by blog

[Garbage]

Why not assassinate the drug kingpins,no use berrating society for your own inadequate response to external threats.

Mr Rudd is it?

[grantoss]

My problem with this has nothing to do with the fact that the info won't still be available, because it will (just with a bit more knowledge and effort) but like I said before, the issue is that this sort of censorship is plain wrong. Freedom of speech and information are supposedly key parts of a 'free' country, and the gov will be removing a large chunk of that when they censor the web. Censorship itself is simply inherently wrong, it should be up to ME to decide what I want to view/read/access info on etc, not ANYONE (including the government) else. Just like it should be up to ME to choose what I want to do with my body/life etc. These individual freedoms have been infringed upon since the dawn of organised society, but for the gov's of some of the free world to be infringing on them further and further is total bullshit. We give them money to look after our society yes, but not to make my decisions for me, when they only effect me.

Peace

I totally agree with u ME but if people don't wake up to reality really soon then there will be no such thing as a free world. I have been studying Naturopathy via correspondence as holism and natural health are of my biggest interests. I have recently come across something that will be imposed at the end of this year by the UN (if people do not wake up and oppose it) called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for Food Rules). When Codex is implemented people will no longer have the choice of natural health and nutrition as medicines. It has been violently opposed in America and Europe but is still creeping in at an alarming rate (it's already in use in Norway). However the massive protests on this topic are never making it to the mainstream media, in numerous states across the US people were rallying but thinking that they were the only ones that knew about it because it just won't get any of the spotlight. With the use of the internet people at an alarming rate to the UN and so on are being educated on these matters that have been sneaking in under our noses!!! So in agreence to what you have stated I think that the internet must be protected just as the rest of our personal freedoms must be protected as they are being taken away at an alarming rate now. Conveniently for the federal governments... among the sites that end up being censored by accident in the countries that already have mandatory net censorship are the sites with info on these topics that we are not supposed to know about. We need to take back some of the power and fredoms that the majority of people so readily hand over to these crooks in the government.

Some of these topics can get me quite worked up so sorry lol.

Peace everyone!!!

[Garbage]

You mean corrupt and foreign fuzzy wuzzies who speak no English conspire to dictate to all people in the world?

Say it aint so!

[Yawning Man]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40261545086

A group for people against the mandatory filtering.

cheers

[yzwizard]

PeacefulSon sent me this link and I thought I should post it up:

Bullshit

I can't believe this shit. They're right too, what's illegal, good bye erowid? Good bye pillreports?

I think its time we burned down the parliament, and start fresh! Either that or we need to move elsewhere.

Free country my ass, we're ever increasingly living in a prison system ("They're tryin to build a prison, thery're tryin to build a prison they're tryin to build a prison, for you and me to live in, another prison system another prison system, another prison system, for you and me.")

Its like bit by bit they pick away our freedoms, and then make up excuses for why that is in fact for our benefit, that way people who cant think for themselves sit back and just take it.

Peace

You only have freedom when you think for yourself. We do not live in a democracy but a corporate dictatorship.

The rules of a few to control the wills of many.

I think it was Bob Dilan who said "from the day I was born I was TOLD what to think"

Our so called civilization is nothing more than mass brain washing.

Had an original thought lately?????

[Garbage]

If i had i wouldn't share it.

[Vertmorpheus]

"Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ˜golden showers", bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted."

Unless you're a senator at one of Melbourne's more select addresses, then you can lap it up with side servings of electroshock and rectal flushing.

What a crock. I'm (for around this place hey) Mr. Fuckin Family First...and that's bullshit. where do ppl think kids come from? an accidental penetration during Bible Study? What's next, just pass an Act saying that it's missionary only, not on sundays, nighttime only, lights off... we just got rid of St. Joh but his legacy lives on. Interesting really, given out this way we come into contact with many of his "favoured ppl" and direct relatives for that matter... most look like they'd be up for a bitta Spartan action any day when they're all tired out from running their crack labs and drug farms that is.

I can see em having laws relating to underage ppl... ie, bit of a no no to use underdeveloped 20 year olds to look like 15 yos... but even then, consenting is consenting and its ludicrous to say you can do something , but not FILM it, and if you do film it, you can't share it.

What about home produced material? Would watching a dvd of yourself and your significant other in private be entirely different to just... doing it anyway? what if youre into letting friends watch, for free? can they police that? total crock.

Also interesting to see how they'll banning "drug information" or "information relating to criminal activities" since that surely covers half the books in most school libararies, the news, any one of a number of pointless "drugs - the facts" pamphlets (surely saying hash is made from the flowering tops of ganj plants is just a direction for making it, hey? if we wanna get stupid that is). Does it mean that my owners manual for my car is illegal, as it DOES mention a few ways ppl steal cars and how to prevent em? Or is that the backdoor... can we write what we like provided its in the negative "101 ways to NOT end up growing any ganja at all" or "the big book of why you shouldnt eat weird plants".

Nonsense. It'd be laughable if it wasn't real.

If htey keep this up, ppl will have to start trading smut and illegal info via underground newspapers, analogue recording media, unlisted BBS's... oh, hang on, we did all that already.... bet you wish you hadda hung onto that VCR and manual crank printer now hey

A mate suggested image splicing... ie... chop your smut into a hundred bands and then embed each one into a different image so that no one image is in itself pornographic... seems like a long way to the shops just to pull your sausage roll, but yeah if an unemployed locksmith can come up with that, imagine what true geeks are devising as we type...

And how does this relate to TV? Just that in the last few weeks I've seen break n enters, murders, abductions, dope growing, drug running, gun trading, extortion all on prime time TV... they gunna knock that on the head? what will channel 9 do if it cant show endless (and completely faecal) tryhard aussie crime shows? abc without the Bill? Can Chris Masters still make doccos? Or do they just mean we cant see crimes that travel UPWARDS... so BnE is out, but tax evasion is in... how do papers report on crimes without providing SOME measure of information as to how one might commit one?

If I had the dosh, I'd move to Antartica and build a fuckin space station... though mr branson has been quiet of late, methinkks he's had the same idea re the moon somehow ;)

And what about inadvertent material... what if you can hear the ppl next door peein on each other? isn't the presence of the word "fisting" kinda illustrative in itself?

This is as crooked as the old porn n prawn nights at parliament house.... I just hope that censors will be taken out the back n shot once a week to ensure all that nasty, objectionably material isn't making them into Bad People...yknow, like ppl that have consentual if creative sex with ppl they are on good terms with...diabolical stuff.

If only we could make BULLSHIT illegal.

VM

"You guys seriously need to start voting better people into your government. " Auxin.... being the sad ppl we are, we can only vote for those that run, and noone sensible would want to run so we stuck choosing between John "Just Plain Evil" Howard and Kevin "token gesture but no followup" Rudd. Oh, you can vote for say sam watson n his socialist alliance if u want, but they wont win, so there's lil point. Most "nice" ppl here vote somewhere between labour and the greens, course green here just means "pays 20 cents more on their power bills" so its kinda pointless

Edited November 14, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[blog]

I can see em having laws relating to underage ppl... ie, bit of a no no to use underdeveloped 20 year olds to look like 15 yos... but even then, consenting is consenting and its ludicrous to say you can do something , but not FILM it, and if you do film it, you can't share it.

What about home produced material? Would watching a dvd of yourself and your significant other in private be entirely different to just... doing it anyway? what if youre into letting friends watch, for free? can they police that? total crock.

It's an interesting clause that one.

As the category is restricted to activity between consenting adults, it does not permit any

depictions of non-adult persons, including those aged 16 or 17, nor of adult persons who look

like they are under 18 years.

I thought it just sounded a little strange. Why state 'including those aged 16 or 17' when those ages are obviously under 18. And I also thought it strange that a person can 'appear 17' , which apparently is different to appearing 18. So I had a look at older legislation and before September 2000, the laws were different. Material was refused classification (and illegal ) if: (material)

( depicts or describes, in a way that is likely to cause offence

to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or looks like, a child

under 16 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or

not); or

So it seems the porn laws from 1983-2000 were aligned with age of sexual consent laws. You didn't' have the situation of being able to legally have sexual relations with your 16yo partner, but not legally record a video of the event. They've basically changed the age from 16 to 18 for porn but not the wording in relation to the age which is why it doesn't make much sense. I think it's very reasonable to have a law stating that if a person looks under 16, even if they're older, then it should be considered kiddie porn. When you're talking 14 or 15yo's (or those that appear to be of that age) in porn movies, well that's more than a little creepy, and I don't' think any reasonable person would disagree. There could be many a 16yos that looks younger due to delays in puberty. But saying you can differentiate between a 17yo and a 18yo is almost like saying it's possible to differentiate between a 20yo and a 21yo. It becomes nonsensical.

I was interested in seeing a porno that had been banned here and yet so mainstream it was unlikely to have been banned due to fetishes or violence. I found a `Girls gone Wild` movie on a streaming website, that was refused classification last year. It's very tame, basically 'crazy wild american spring break girls` masturbating. So I watched all 55 annoying minutes of that crap without fastforwarding, and had no idea why it was banned, except that the OFLC must have decided one or more of the girls looked like they were under 18, even though the credits stated otehrwise:

"All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual portrayal of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appearing on, or otherwise contained in, this video were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the visual image was produced. Records required by Title 18 U.S.C. §2257 are on file with the Records Custodian listed below."

Also found it interesting that a porno produced by Hustler Magazine (USA) was forwarded to the OFLC by the Ballarat Victorian Police earlier this year and classified RC , thus presumably resulting in some sort of kiddie porn charge.

My basic point is that applying this 'appears to look under 18' clause would probably ban every porn site on the internet under the best case 'opt out of filter' situation of allowing legal porn as under Australian law these sites would all contain illegal content. And I think this is a good situation, as everyone likes porn, and if even the most mainstream of sites are banned the more the backlash will be, which could save sites like this & Erowid by preventing any filtering at all.

Edited November 15, 2008 by blog

[MindExpansion]

So I watched all 55 annoying minutes of that crap without fastforwarding

All in the name or research

I think they'll be tougher on drugs and weapons info than they will on porno, cause every minister in government has no doubt gotten off to some shady porno site.

Peace

[Garbage]

You could use a few more black fella's in Government.

[Stonehenge]

You could use a few more black fella's in Government.

Yes, that will solve the problem right away. We all know blacks are much more qualified to do any given job than a white or other race. Oooops, I'm being racist, so sorry. But that is the line that is put on us every day and that seems to be the message.

How can "looking" like you are under 18 be a crime? That is a total crock!