🚀 go-pugleaf

This message is posted on behalf of Brenda Aynsley <bpa@iss.net.au> who is
having trouble with news access. Original Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:27:10 +0930
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:14:25 +1100, Richard Ling <richard@research.canon.com.au>
wrote:
SOME OF MY THOUGHTS FWIW BRENDA
<APOLOGIES FOR THE UPPER CASE, JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FIND MY COMMENTS>
>>
>>                   Internet Answers
>>                   ----------------
>>
>>Isn't the internet full of pornography?
>>
>>No.  Only a tiny percentage of the material could be rated
>>higher than a G by the government.  The amount of valuable,
>>educational information on the internet greatly outweighs
>>any risks to our children or society.
>>
POOR SENTENCE THE LAST ONE.  MAYBE SHOULD SAY "THE VAST AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION DEEMED VALUABLE FOR ITS EDUCATIONAL USE FAR OUTNUMBERS THAT OF
THE SMALL AMOUNT OF DUBIOUS MATERIAL."

>>Aren't internet users constantly at risk of being exposed to
>>pornography?
>>
>>No.  The NSW Office of Film and Literature Classification
>>found in 1995 that "restricted and refused classification
>>material was difficult to find" (SMH, April 4, 1996).  The
>>truth is that such material must be deliberately sought.
>>
>>  [This is not a reference to the original paper, which is
>>  probably bad.  If anyone has the original text, we can
>>  substitute the original reference.]
>>
>>Isn't it a far more serious threat to our children than
>>other media?
>>
>>No.  It is harder for interested youngsters to track down
>>sexual material on the internet than it is for them to find
>>it on television, or in women's magazines at the supermarket.
>>
"IN MAGAZINES SOLD AT THE SUPERMARKET CHECKOUT" PERHAPS?
>>  [Because (1) more complex knowledge is required; (2) parent
>>  can disable or password-protect the system; (3) more likely
>>  to have private access to TV/magazines than own computer with
>>  modem and phone line]
>>
>>It's also easier for parents to block access to unsuitable
>>material on the internet than it is to block unsuitable books
>>or television programs.
>>
>>  [Programs like Net Nanny/Surfwatch. - no such equivalent
>>  for books/TV (free-to-air TV) that I know of.]
>>
>>This material must be stopped by the government!
>>
"UNACCEPTABLE MATERIAL" NOT "THIS"
>>Computer experts agree that the internet is uncensorable.
"WOULD BE UNWORKABLE WITH ANY SERIOUS ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP"

>>The only person who can control what arrives at your computer
>>is you.  Besides, what is unacceptable to you may be quite
>>acceptable to others.  Selecting material should be done by
>>the user or parent, not by broad government legislation.
>>
>>  [Self-explanatory I hope]
>>
>>But won't the laws only affect pedophiles and other criminals?
>>
>>No.  The government's proposed law is so broad that it will
>>affect many information resources on the internet, such as
>>
>>  I only use "affect" here, not "ban" - I don't know for
>>  sure that MA-15+ will be outright banned.  If you know
>>  otherwise, please let me know and I'll change this!]
>>
>>great works of art or literature, health and medical information,
>>
>>  [Includes nudity, discussions of sexuality, sexual health,
>>  STD's, images... all MA-15+]
>>
>>support groups for rape or drug abuse victims, and even
>>
>>  [May include graphic depictions/descriptions of non-consensual
>>  sex = refused classification; drug references may include
>>  descriptions of illegal activity = refused classification]
>>
>>discussion of films, television programs or song lyrics.
>>
>>  [Anything over MA-15+ or with explicit lyrics]
>>
>>Will these laws limit our freedom of speech?
>>
WE DONT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DO WE?
PERHAPS, "WILL THESE LAWS LIMIT THE WAY WE ARE USED TO TALKING ON THE INTERNET"

>>Yes.  It may become illegal for adults to talk on the internet
>>about topics which are perfectly legal in books or on television.
>>
>>  ["Affected" material is legal on TV in certain timeslots]
>>
>>People using coarse language in private, or discussing certain
>>topics such as sex or drugs, could be fined heavily and/or jailed.
>>
>>  [language/sex over MA-15+, and private e-mail is covered;
>>  drugs could be considered as inciting criminal activity =
>>  refused classification]
>>
>>What other effects will the laws have?
>>
>>They will make users vulnerable to extortion, force companies out
>>of business, cost jobs, and waste taxpayers' dollars.  And the
>>
>>  [Extortion - police send someone obscene e-mail and then bust
>>  them.  Companies out of business - service providers can't
>>  be sure they're not transmitting encrypted restricted material,
>>  so they will be forced to close either voluntarily or through
>>  repeated fines.  Jobs lost - result of service providers closing
>>  down.  Taxpayer dollars - think of the cost of policing the net]
>>
>>internet, a resource which shows so much promise, will be put out
>>of reach of the public.  All to make Bob Carr look like a tough
>>
>>  [No service providers, or lack of competition causing high prices -
>>  may only be Telstra/OnAustralia since it could be indemnified.
>>  People will have to go to overseas or interstate services to get
>>  net access - ie. expensive long distance calls.]
>>
>>guy on pornography. The Carr government has shown a severe lack
>>
>>  ["tough guy" line stolen from Peter Merel - hope you don't
>>  object Pete ;-)]
>>
>>of understanding of the technology it is trying to control.
>>
>>  [For a start the govt thinks censorship is feasible.  It
>>  thinks it can catch people sending encrypted material.  It
>>  wants to make service providers responsible for their users.
>>  It doesn't foresee the above effects.]
>>
>>These laws will punish the general public, not criminals.
>>
>>  [Hopefully self-explanatory - the criminals will just use
>>  the right tools, and Joe Public will get caught out for
>>  saying "fuck" in a newsgroup.]
>>
>>It's just not worth it.
>>
>>
AN ADDITIONAL POINT THAT KIM MAKES OFTEN.  

"WHY DO WE NEED SUCH A LAW?'

THE ANSWER IS WE DONT, WE HAVE CENSORSHIP LAWS TO DO WITH PRINTED MATERIAL,
WITH BROADCAST AND OTHER PUBLISHING MEDIUMS.  THESE LAWS ARE THOSE WHICH
SHOULD CHANGE TO DEAL WITH ANY UNDESIRABLE ATTRIBUTES OF THE INTERNET, NOT
THE INTERNET ITSELF.
>>PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH -
>>OPPOSE INTERNET CENSORSHIP
>>Electronic Frontiers Australia - http://www.efa.org.au/
>>
>>  [See note about the EFA at the top.]
>>
>>  [Picture of "Free speech online blue ribbon campaign" in
>>  bottom right corner.  Its use is not covered by any
>>  restrictions.]
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>- richard
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>Standard disclaimers
>
>