Is it when communication and commerce inbound and outbound is and increasingly going to be restricted?
How do/did that get defined in practice what is “OK” ?
That issue is discussed in the link I provided above, from multiple points of view. I wonder if you could provide feedback on those pro and con positions?
Actually, you can, it is just that there might be consequences, right?
What constitutes “obscene”? Is all porn obscene? Is all that is obscene porn?
I said that actually.
If it seems to work so well, why do new means of censorship keep getting added and proposed?
How is “Freedom of expression is a core part of Australia” not Orwellian when there seems to be content regulation and categorization in virtually every medium?
And the way to do that is to squelch discussion?
Even if hate is your primary concern, the restrictions as I understand them are far far broader than that. Am I misunderstanding?
There seem to be a few fans of video games in Australia who aren’t pleased with government censorship that prevents them from having the same games Americans have. i.e. None of the content altered to appease the censors.
People are irritated by it, but thats all so far because its very few games so far that have been refused classification and the changes to make classification have generally been minor, eg changing the drug names in Fallout 3 to made up names rather than heroin or the like.
And of course any real fans can generally download them directly from overseas anyhow.
Censorship in Australia does have fairly broad support in my view. Whether thats good or bad will of course come down to ones political views on the issue.
Sorry mate, you are looking at Australia and our culture through American eyes. You don’t get it, we as a nation have decided that kiddy pron, beastiality etc are extreme and they should not be allowed to be shown in this country. We are pretty much in line with what you yanks would call obscene.
Pollitical discourse and argument is standard fare in Australia but hate mongering is not, this is what the majority of citizens feel. So i can say that I beleive that all X’s are lazy dole bludgers but I cannot say and would not say that all X’s should be taken anway and shot.
I will not be posting the answers to you “are these censored?” questions because A) No answer I give you will be acceptable, B) I feel the question is loaded and you’re going to jump out and say “AHA! GOTCHA!”, C) You don’t believe anything anyone here says without insane standards of proof and D) You are, I feel, being intentionally obtuse.
I mean, what the ever-loving fuck do you think “anything that might compromise National Security or an ongoing Anti-Terrorist operation” means? Really. Use some common sense. You don’t have to be Albert fucking Einstein to work out that publishing a news story to the effect that “The Australian Federal Police are only days away from arresting a group of conspirators based in the Sydney suburb of [Suburb], who are alleged to have [Things the group is alleged to have done] and are believed to be linked to [Extremist Organisation]” (for example) is going to get you in trouble with the Authorities, surely?
You’ve been told time and time and time again what the situation here is and all you keep saying is "But whyyyy?" or “Prove it!” whenever someone explains it to you. The answer to the former is “Because it just is and your average Australian doesn’t mind; that’s the sort of society we went. Moving on.” and the answer to the latter is “Demanding the residents of a particular country provide “proof” for their personal experiences of life in their country is akin to calling them a liar”.
I honestly, truly feel you just don’t get it- and more to the point, can’t get it. What answer are you looking for? “America is the best! You are inferior to us because our Freedom of Speech is better than yours!” Because I’m at a loss to understand why you keep changing the goalposts or dismissing our responses or coming up with ever more elaborate or unlikely scenarios which might be covered by Teh Censorshipz.
You spontaneously offered to clarify for me if I had specific examples and I took you up on it. I said a yes or no would suffice, in part because I doubt you are capable of anything more.
But apparently you would rather backtrack than answer 28 separate times (Or however many there are) that the answer is Yes, our government does regulate that category of content.
Let’s call a spade a spade. We all know what the answer is, it just hurts you to have to say it even though you offered to.
I dunno, I really don’t. There was a major security leak the other day involving Facebook and the ATT phone network in the US, hot on the heals of google’s accusations of hacking via China. I wrote (not here) some stuff that tied that together and gave some speculative reasons deep in the network for what happened and ATT and how it could have happened.
Does that fall under yoru category? It might very well. I dunno though. Things have been picked out and over for less than what I wrote, that’s for sure. And that is why I didn’t write everything I had to say either. Chilled.
The whole point of categories like that is that they DON’T have definitions, they are security theater meant to chill. Those most credulous are the most chilled.
Maybe in your country, that’s what I was asking about.
In our country, that is allowed. Plain and simple, any newspaper or blog can publish it, whether it is true or not.
Honest!
And since you have never answered, I won’t let my curiousity be assailed. We are here to fight ignorance, not to beat up people who ask questions. If you don’t want to answer, then stop posting things that ask for my feedback that you have no intention of giving.
I am sure SOMEONE in your country thinks about these things. If it is not you, fine. Let it go and maybe someone else will take a shot at it. Don’t get your ego so wrapped up in the fact that you can’t or won’t answer.
But you should at least try to comment on the link I provided, here it is again, which outlines the philosophical issues around free speech, and not coincidentally presents your country’s side of it too: Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Perhaps you can learn something by reading it, and perhaps we can all learn something by discussing it together.
The answer to the former is “Because it just is and your average Australian doesn’t mind; that’s the sort of society we went. Moving on.” and the answer to the latter is “Demanding the residents of a particular country provide “proof” for their personal experiences of life in their country is akin to calling them a liar”.
Well, if that is how you feel, then you are clearly not Albert fucking Einstein either.
I get it. I provided a link (twice now) that all but gives you the answer that you are trying to express in plain English and you won’t even look in your own frustration.
If you don’t want to, or can’t answer simple yes/no questions that YOU asked ME to ask YOU, then don’t worry, I am not taking anything you say seriously anyway.
Wow you are really clueless aren’t you?
This thread is entirely about Australian Free Speech. In it, I asked you if ~28 categories of content were subject to regulation or restraint in your country. Yes or no, that’s all.
I am not comparing the same list to us and keeping score, I am trying to learn about your country. Apparently all of you here are pretty credulous, and I am doubtful that that is representative, although it might be. Maybe you really do have a government based on the principle of “no one can really get too arsed about it”. I dunno. Maybe there really is no grand philosophical goals or purpose to your society.
I haven’t moved any goalposts. You asked me for a list, then promptly ignored it except to insult me for presenting it.
What about the list is unlikely? Personally, I think all of them are likely censored based on what I learned already.
Are you suggesting they are all unlikely, and that NONE of them are subject to regulation of content?
In case you lost the list, and your intial request of it, here it is again:
OK, here is list of 28 items off the top of my head to start.
Can you tell me if each is subject to either censorship prior to publication or post-publication by law. Not if it would be prohibited, few can predict that, but if it is subject to censorship.
Journalism of any type in any medium
Magazine Publishing.
Book Publishing.
Film Production and/or distribution and or exhibition.
Web site publishing.
Music publishing.
Performance of music.
Performance of theater arts.
Radio broadcasting.
TV Broadcasting.
Satellite TV and/or Radio.
Cable TV.
Video game creation, distribution, and sales.
Mobile phone content creation and distribution.
Political content regardless of media
Reviews of any prohibited material
Any publication or other adaptation of works by Marquis de Sade in any media
Publishing the list of prohibited web sites Princhester mentioned.
Instructions about how to avoid being subject to the internet firewall
Hacking instructions regarding any device at all
Security procedures of government and airlines in Australia
Images of Mohammed in any media
Blog publishing
p2p file sharing
encryption algorithms and software
flyers posted on campus by students
flyers posted on campus by non-students
hate speech in any medium
“OK fine, when will the Australian contingent be arriving?”
Its arrived. You’re not really asking us for what makes Australia different from the US or anything like that, you’re just telling it off for not having the same views as yours. Oddly enough, eye rolling is occurring as a result.
And now you seem to be asking us to do a complete replay of the basic divides over free speech vs censorship arguments. Cue more eye rolling.
I can only suggest google, there should be many standard references on the basic ideological divides involved.
Which points out that censorship for imported and local content differs. Imported and telecommunications is federally controlled, local is state based.
So there are some potential developments in this area, given the huge changes in how information is disseminated now, ie the internet which is of course ‘telecommunications’ rather than by local publishing.
As a result federal control has theoretically increased, as a result of technology more than by design.
The eye rolling is because of the abysmal awareness of the Australian contingent about the nature of their own rights, such as they are.
I am not telling it off, I am jsut trying to learn what you have to say.
Perhaps you are not aware that most of your contingent has been going on for 7 pages trying to explain why your drunk driving law fit under our rights regime dispute being told numerous times that the Supreme Court has already ruled it illegal.
But they keep trying, bless them all.
It was that thread that spawned this one.
If the folks here have participated and don’t have anything more to add, that is fine.
Replay? I missed the part in either thread where the philosophy underlying your system of government was addressed. If you link to it, I will be sure to re-read it.
But I don’t think it exists, hence my repeated request.
If you or others don’t know the answer, don’t yell at me for asking. Maybe they don’t teach it in school there like we do here. I dunno.
Just let it go if you don’t know or can’t add anything further and I will take my chances on something else coming along.
And hey, I did google it, I posted a few things and asked for feedback, and all I got was stonewalling…
If you are aware of a “standard reference” on the basis of Australian government, or its relationship to censorship, by all means please share the name or author. I assure you that such works are not “standard reference” here, even if they are there.
So it is an easy test to see if you are really interested in participating, or if you have mistaken this for the Pit.
So only 3 of 28 are explicitly “No” in your opinion.
Nice!
C’est la vie. You brought it on yourself, and your reading comprehension has clearly failed you several times. So your claim is weakened when it relies solely on your reading comprehension.
This is Great Debates, not the Mickey Mouse Fun Hour. Did you see me complaining when you did the same in the other thread, telling us over and over how RBT is preferable despite being told repeatedly it is explicitly verboten here by law?
I didn’t see you explaining why “Random” couldn’t just be substituted for “Every Nth” as required by local laws, either. Two people (IIRC) asked you to explain that one and I don’t recall seeing an answer.
That looks like the best link out of both threads form your side of the pond. Thank you! It doesn’t cover all the issues, but I like the flavor. Keep 'em coming!
Which part of the Supreme Court guidelines that describe what a checkpoint must do to meet muster did you not get?
1 - Noticing in media
2 - visible checkpoint from afar
3 - opportunity to turn around and avoid the checkpoint before entering without penalty
4 - minimal intrusion, i.e. no automatic breath tests
5 - for the sole purpose of DUI Prevention
All that (and probably more) aside from the non-random requirement.
