🚀 go-pugleaf

I agree. The anti-censorship lobby went about attacking the bill the wrong 
way. No average Aussie is going to get passionate about defending the rights 
for pornographers etc from spreading their material over the Net where they 
fear their children will be exposed.

On the other hand, people do tend to get upset if something threatens to 
invade their privacy. Does anyone remember the Australia card debacle? In that 
instance, the urban mob was so incensed that the idea was soon scrapped. So 
politicians DO listen to the people, but only when it is opposed by an 
overwhelming majority of people.

A bill this powerful can only be stopped by pushing the right buttons in order 
to induce outrage in the ordinary citizen. Currently, we're not pushing the 
right buttons. The average person is driven by three basic things. Greed, 
money and sex. Appeal to those things and you've got the war half won.

In article <377EAD36.367BE809@brigadoon.apana.org.au>, Mark Little 
<mark@brigadoon.apana.org.au> wrote:
>There is only one practical way to get this bill overturned. That is by
> lobbying
>the political system. Given the paranoia level that often appears to surface in
>these NGs, it is unlikely that a civil, believable campaign will result. The
> EFA is
>probably the organisation that is best suited to put forward a coherent
> position,
>so supporting it is probably the most practical solution.
>
>It would be good if people could write to their politicians explaining why this
>bill is impractical and will cost jobs in the industry without having any
>significant impact on those aspects of the internet that concerns them. The
> first
>thing that must be realised is that simply ranting and raving will do more harm
>than good. Such letters won't even get to the politician, they'll end up in the
>secretary's round file. After all what would you do with an abusive letter?
>
>The second is that people must accept that many people believe censorship is
>acceptable, even if we believe it is a misguided view. After all, it is present
> in
>every other media without a public outcry. There is no point trying to convince
>them censorship is morally wrong, you will have lost before you start - that is
> a
>much bigger issue that won't be won in the near future.
>
>This is a dollar oriented government and basically only understands the
> concepts of
>financial impact. This is the avenue to attack the bill - the potential loss of
>business revenue and the taxation cost of having any sort of credible
> monitoring
>system in place. I don't believe any of the major political parties opposed the
>bill on the grounds that censorship is immoral, rather that the bill was
>impractical. I think this also speaks volumes on how this bill should be
> attacked
>to get a consensus view on removing it.