Internet Censorship in Australia

Welcome to the internet. Home of the free. Land of the brave. Um, I can't use that. Allow me to start afresh. Here resides all & any information that may be desired. Right at your fingertips. Ahem, most information. Come surf the rich ocean waves of the world wide web. Well, paddle between the flags. Let us not quabble over semantics. All this & more ....

A salesman would get nowhere with this pitch. Hamburgers with no meat. Doors would slam endlessly in his face. Something else is missing. A bit of magic & exuberance. To fill the empty bun in one hit.

Enter - the touchstone of anal politics - Family Values. Ah, things have become a whole lot easier now. Family values can mean pretty much anything the speaker wishes. The tone of voice. A pump of the fist. So many possible interpretations. Family values covers all bases. Most importantly, home base. No need to push any further for ideas.

What is scary? This is actually how simple the debate has occurred. It is over and has been won. 1995 saw the introduction of garbage laws to this end. Australians far and wide have a vested interest in over-turning this hideous refereeing decision.

Protecting children and families is a vital matter for coalition senators, and it is also something that Senator Fielding, the Leader of Family First, has raised with me on a number of occasions. The government has a three-pronged approach: we legislate, we regulate and we educate to protect all Australians, and particularly young Australians, from inadvertent dangers of the internet.
Senator Helen Coonan 2005

It is quite reasonable that the vast majority have not noticed the effect of censorship. It covers 'Australian-hosted sites' only. Overseas websites are not legislated against, yet. Thus, it is typical for Australian content to be posted on overseas sites. The whole situation is very Monty Python. As well as being a total joke, it is deadly serious. And economic stupidity.

Under the WA Act, police do not even need a warrant to search the premises of Internet Service Providers, which obviously includes all records, logs, private E-mail messages and other data contained on the provider's system.

The opposite of family values? Freedom of expression comes close. It is a workable answer. Merely that. Freedom of expression needs a juice-up too. A trick of words will not suffice.

Freedom of expression is vague. Everything is covered, like with family values. All the negatives are included, also - the freedom to be offensive, explicit or shocking. FV conveniently ignores the same pitfall, it is more personal.

Offensive, explicit & shocking are not entirely negative. There is one clear upside to being so. Money or fame. Yep, it is okay to be any of these as long as you are not a useless nobody (by public estimation). Radio DJs, singers & artists are easy examples. The family crowd will sneer viciously at the individual. Equally, be in awe of the cash potential that dwarfs their own. The sneer will match the envy.

Freedom of expression now has a very rigid definition. A real oxymoron. The only acceptable reason to pursue freedom is to make money/fame/both. Failure to correctly walk the tightrope will result in expulsion. Chalked up as a win for the clattering imbeciles. This cannibalistic act will not be registered as such.


Money, in particular, matches family values pound for pound (pardon the pun). For the most part, they share the same dressing room. FV is nothing without the influence to spread it. Also, new toys/technology for the kids etc only heightens the risk of new content that may violate FV holy law.

From a completely circular argument, the counterpoint to family values is defined.



Get on the phones, the match to family values has been found.



From the figures in China, most internet users do not actively try to get around their country's well known policies. I read it as 'could not be bothered'. This is not a criticism of Chinese internet users. The point is that legislation/dictatorship of this kind, allowed sufficient time, will fester. It will drastically reduce the citizen's interest in a free internet - even if it could be switched on overnight. This is far more horrible than the censorship itself.



Publication or transmission of objectionable material

    (1)     A person must not use an on-line information service to publish or transmit, or make available for transmission, objectionable material.

Penalty:     240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

Right now, spin doctors and their ilk are getting big dollars. Of taxpayer's money. The advertising is coming. The early talk campaign has been waged.


Ah, no delete that comment. I never said it



Internet censorship is well and truly on the cards. 



Internet censorship is a ghastly apparition.

Going Public Ahead of Time - Monahan & Bingle

A former TV star, Sarah Monahan, has come out claiming improprieties. The stories have been doing the rounds on current affairs programs. Monahan was a regular face on the below-par (though it ran for at least 7 years, in primetime!) TV show, Hey Dad. Robert Hughes played her father. Cast members have backed up the story, also in the press.

Therein lies the problem. The police have reported they are yet to receive a formal complaint. Despite my personal beliefs, which say Hughes is as gulity as sin, the legalities of the matter have been ignored. If everyone, or a great majority have the same inclination, a fair trial cannot be undertaken. The making public of claims has destroyed the possibility. The judiciary would be biased from the beginning and unable to make impartial decisions.

The claims of other Hey Dad actors seem to clearly back up Monahan's story. Another of Monahan's claims is that she wanted other victims to gain the confidence to come forward. This appears to have happened. A string of other claimants have jumped up. Whether formal complaints had been made previously is unknown to me.

Alas, another problem has come about from this. Newspapers etc have been rushing to interview the other claimants. This could damage their individual cases. The same pattern could be repeated.

As a tactical move, it is possible Monahan was advised she would have little chance of a conviction - pursuing the matter directly. In taking the action she did, the hope may have been to gather a phalanx of accusers, making life impossible for Hughes. That is all well and good if they too did not put themselves up for media interviews. It seems most have, including their names in press reports.

I can't see any possible legal ramifications for Robert Hughes. I believe he will get off scot free in this instance. The damage done will be purely to his reputation. I am unaware of any acting work that he has done recently. He also resides in Singapore. From his point of view, as long as he does not come back to Australia, the damage is limited.

This allows a flimsy segue into the Lara Bingle imbroglio. Bingle was photographed in the shower, nude, by her former shag, Brendan Fevola. This appears without doubt. The photo was subsequently distributed far and wide. Fevola claims he lost his (camera) phone.

The problem with the Bingle/Fevola affair is precisely the same as with the Hey Dad pitfall. Bingle gave an interview to a 'leading' women's magazine, Woman's Day. For a reported $200k! She lost most or all credibility immediately. The same magazine had published the photo, publicly, for the first time but a week before. Her agent, Max Markson, pumped out some pre-rehearsed lines, which went down like a lead float. The police were also sidestepped - a huge motivation appears to be sheer profiteering by Bingle & Markson.

Sarah Monahan has been receiving a large amount of hate mail, in the same vain as Lara Bingle. The method of public dissemination needs to be seriously questioned. As a tactic for direct action, it is one of the poorest moves available. This is entirely seperate from the actual facts.

------------------

Have thought a bit more on the issue. My only conclusion is that in both cases, it was decided the legal avenue was a dead-end. The tactic decided on was public shame & humiliation in place of legal recourse. It severely undermines the message. It makes it too hard to really care about from a distance, as harsh as that may sound.

Copenhagen. A Failure?

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen appears to have been a failure in the eyes of many. Indeed it was, with this important disclaimer. For those who expected too much; or for those who willed it to fail: Copenhagen was a failure.

Firstly, to those who willed Copenhagen to fail. Any & all possible outcomes would have been picked over and degraded by this mob. That is a given. Dialogue/debate is next to worthless in this arena. Logic barely exists. An emotional outlook has been fabricated and rigidly adhered to. Oh, of course there is back-pocket logic. The only reason we have to care about these fools is due to their stultifying influence. For activists, the path is clear. Conversation with this mob is a waste of time. It can be crudely boiled down to a generational divide. Activists must simply wait until a large quantity of objectors curl up & die. Other paths could well be futile. I am reminded of the republican debate in Australia. Trench politics. The absolute opposite to the ideal of democratic practice (also one of it's major constants).

To those who expected too much. Diplomacy is a slow, pondering beast. Try getting 190 people in a room for a discussion on the same topic. Within, numerous environmental bigots will do their utomost to keep proceedings at a stillpoint. International diplomacy is no better. The minimal (and yes, non-binding) agreements set are all that could possibly be expected. Posturing and influence are far greater components than the actual content of speech. Politics is human. Again, another point that logic is secondary.

The greatest question to be asked (and answered) at any meeting of this kind is : 'What's in it for me?' A clear and obvious demonstration of the negative effects of climate change is sorely needed. In a nutshell, this impetus does not presently exist. International leaders, mindful of their own constituency, have little choice but to push the 'What's in it for me?' line to it's extreme. At the present stage of scientific uptake (minimal), it would be naive to expect anything better. It is a low-grade game of Simon Says. For one to act without the appearance of similar action by others is largely fruitless. I do not agree with this one bit from a personal level. However, at a different level it is a no-brainer.

Which brings me to the major point. Climate change action is the responsibility of the individual. To expect government (elected democratically, for this example's sake) to take collective action is a misnomer. The 'debate' in the US & Australia is truly woeful. A bunch of organisations with vested interests have a massive influence. Governments may try to make the right noisess. It barely matters in the crunch. Every single scheme I have seen proffered in the political environment is terrible. Permits to allow the large polluters to continue polluting etc. So flawed that I didn't care whether they were voted in or not.

There is a tougher part for people who have decided on individual action. How does one communicate one's deeds? This is crucial. A middle line must be taken. One must be wary of 'preaching'. This will quickly go nowhere. The movement needs to be led by action, not rhetoric. Rhetoric must play it's part. It has to be a substantially smaller part than many would like. Lead by action. Talk is cheap. Deniers are scum who cannot be converted by talk. They require a parental approach, without the requisite finger-wagging. An almost impossible line to take, I agree. I lose my patience very quickly on these matters. A religious figure, of sorts, is needed. Hey, I'm unaware of a religious figure who didn't continually shoot his mouth off. So, I am calling for a non-human to lead a very human problem. It could be safe to say that will never happen. All we can control is the individual level.

Self interest clearly trumps all other interests. Following this, I expect no meaningful action from government (en masse) until the situation is dire & obvious. Until that point, individual action is the key. The best hope I can offer is that a new stream of politicians may emerge from this movement. It will be at a very late stage in the 'debate'.

Ah, Piffle. I give up. Copenhagen was a failure.

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate