🚀 go-pugleaf

Gibson H R <c9416574@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in
message news:7it6ob$hht$3@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> Rod Speed (rodspeed@ozemail.com.au) wrote:

>>>>>> Send an explicit email to a group of your mates about your
>>>>>> dirty weekend with your girlfriend.  The government computer
>>>>>> will see offensive words in your email sent to an email list, so
>>>>>> someone in Canberra will have to read your email to see if
>>>>>> it is offensive.  Do you want others reading your email?

>> That recently passed legislation doesnt provide for them to 'read
>> your email to see if its offensive'. The most it does in the email
>> situation is have some provision for ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS
>> to run snivelling to the ABA. A different matter entirely.

> The legislation does give the ABA to pwer to investigate
> things without a complaint, or at the direction of the minsiter.

Yes, but that does NOT apply to email. That provision
applys to publicly available stuff like web sites.

> Thus, they could go snooping if they wanted to.

Not on email they cant.

> But the problem with the people on mailing lists complaining
> could come about by wowsers and trouble makers signing up
> to lists they want taken out and forwarding on offensive material.

That wasnt what Dan was discussing that I commented on.

>> And clearly if none of your mates runs snivelling to the
>> ABA about whats in it, they wont even care at all.

> Ok - but what if I am on a mailing list that swaps erotic fiction?

You can actually make a case that that was illegal before
the most recent legislation in some circumstances.

> Is it really any of the governments business? Why
> shouldn't I be able to swap fiction with like minded persons?

You clearly cant if its child porn for example. Even if
you just swap stuff that you didnt produce yourself.

> Why should siome wowser be allowed to sign up
> to a list and lodge a complaint when they should
> have known perfectly well what the list was about?

Well, you aint actually established that the ABA wouldnt just
tell someone who did that to bugger off when they complained.

The film classification board basically just did that with the film Lolita,
even when some of the complainers were members of parliament.
Put up some show of reconsidering the classification and then told
them to bugger off in the best bureaucratic language of course.

Plenty of examples of that sort of thing when wowsers howl
about having heard a norty word on ABC TV or JJJ for example.

> I can see that this sort of vague legislation could
> in fact cause a lot more lists to become closed
> subscription rather than open subscription lists.

>> Just like the ABA basically told the mindless wowsers to drop dead on their
>> demands to have Lolita banned too, in the usual bureaucratic language of course.

> The ABA had nothing to do with Lolita.

Well, the bit of the govt classification system did. Thats what matters.

No point in going into hysterics about the ABA and the most recent classification
legislation any time soon. I bet it turns out to be nothing like as bad as the wilder
claims made at the time that classification of computer games was introduced.

Note that I am NOT saying I think that the legislation makes any sense
at all, I think its the usual completely futile silly stuff that stupid politicians
keep doing repeatedly. Another classic example is the law on soft drugs
like cannabis, completely pointless, stupid and futile, complete waste of time.