A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the legislation would not be introduced next month’s or the June sittings of parliament.
With parliament not sitting again until the last week of August, the laws are unlikely to be passed before the election.
Vote Green, Green, Green in the Senate, y’all. Then this ridiculous law won’t get passed after this next election either.
I might vote Green if they had sensible candidates like Clive Hamilton who are not consumed with ideological nonsense. Unfortunately most Greens seem to have been sucked in to supporting a “right to harcore and degrading porn” campaign. Sorry. While the Greens oppose blocking this evil stuff they will not get my vote.
There are more important things to campaign about than the “right to porn”.
Disingenuous misrepresentation, Spana, and you’ve been told it before. This is not about the right to porn, this is about not wasting public resources on a sense of false security.
For a government with such a dreadful, incompetent opposition, Rudd’s mob are certainly managing to look like a bunch of blundering buffoons very early in their time on the Treasury benches. State Labor governments usually take two or three terms to reach this level of cluelessness.
I wonder when I can expect the arrival of state of the art broadband, or are the fibre optic cables still inching their way across Tasmania? Conroy really is a joke.
Greens are not a serious option, but it’s good to see Conroy is finally doing what he is being paid to do.
I wonder if that’s code for “we’re dumping the net filter”.
“Child pornography is great” http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/
@Dave,
Why aren’t the Greens a serious option for your Senate vote? I doubt we’ll see the Greens win any HoR seats in this election, but there’s no reason we couldn’t get a few more Greens Senators.
Yes indeed tigtog … the major parties must be looking apprehensively at Great Britain. I mean if a pratt like Clegg can get his party into contention, what might the Greens do if they can find a more charismatic leader than the worthy but somewhat shopworn Bob?
Lately, the federal ALP have been clearing the decks of everything politically “complicated”. I’m pleasantly surprised that they’ve decided Internet censorship was unnecessary clutter as well. Rudd and Conroy probably started out thinking a free kick to the pervies was a vote winner. But it’s not as simple as that, is it? From LP (quoting the SMH):
One thing I really dislike about Conroy is that he’s willing to damn other people’s motivations at a drop of a hat. But it’s not so easy to paint your parents and grandparents as paedophiles just because they want to know how to die with dignity.
DaOoSG @9: “One thing I really dislike about Conroy is that he’s willing to damn other people’s motivations at a drop of a hat.”
Absolutely. I want him sacked for that alone, and won’t put the ALP any higher than just-above-Liberals until he’s out of the Cabinet.
They really are a having a spring clean.
The filter won’t be back.
Spana, did you really mean to write that Clive Hamilton is not an ideologue? The man writes books, lots of them, where he gives full vent to his ideology.
Now I really have heard it all.
CMMC’s link at #6 is worth a read too, where anti-piracy groups openly admit that they use child pornography (which is illegal, shut down and prosecuted everywhere it is discovered right now already) as a stalking horse for getting a filter in place so that they can push for its use to block file-sharing of copyrighted material, which is a civil rather than a criminal offence.
In my head, the Beastie Boys are firing up their 808 and rehashing Licence To Ill in response to this little cracker. “You gotta fight for your right to not have your mum throw out your best porno mag” is the title I’m thinking of.
Well yes I admit that was probably deserving of moderation. [ahem]
Sam @ 11 – I simply don’t trust that Labor will drop the filter after the election. They lied about this policy before the election saying it would be optional and then changed their mind and now claim that this what they meant all along and people were misinterpreting their policy statements.
And voting Green will not really help either. We already know that the Greens are opposed to the legislation and they have no power in the senate if the major parties support it. Its the liberals that need to be lobbied – they used to be opposed to the filter and could hopefully be convinced to oppose it again. On the Labor side its a matter of supporting politicians like Kate Lundy who are at least trying to get it to be an optional opt out filter.
This is a hot button issue for me.
I live in a marginal (Labor) electorate in the Reps and am going to vote Green with preferences on the toss of a coin.
Definitely Greens in the Senate.
Other parties against the filter worth voting for in the Senate, assuming they have candidates standing: Democrats, Sex, Pirate.
Hmm, sounds like a plan. I will vote green, I don’t really have a good place to put my very very soft right vote anyway.
Of course fat lot of good it will do in Lilley where the greens posted pretty close to their average PV, has recently lost areas that you would be more inclined to vote Green (Inner Northern Brisbane places), and is held by Labor by about 5.6% after redistribution. There you go democracy at work.
Oh, and it’s Swannie’s seat, cant forget good old Wayne.
The more people that say “I’m voting Green” because of this issue, the more the Coalition will pay attention. But to be honest, I’m surprised they shelved this one as well. It’s a big deal for us hear on the intertubes, but most people just don’t rate it as important.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the government are about to give the Coalition (and maybe The Greens as well) a great big wedgie?
Will get even more attention from the Coalition if people say they will vote Green but will preference the libs ahead of labor if they promise to oppose the scheme. Thats what I’ll be doing and I’m lucky enough now to live in a pretty marginal electorate.
My seat has .2% margin.
At least my local Rep will listen.
@PinkyOz,
I’d encourage everybody to vote strategically in the Lower House according to their electorate, and that’s not always going to be the Greens – perhaps a local independent might be the more appropriate choice.
But unless you’re a stuck-on South Australian Xenophon fan, take a good look at the Greens for your Senate vote.
[ObDisclaimer: I am not a member of any political party, at this point in time the Greens align closest with my general political goals]
I came onto this thread to post a comment about “here’s an issue that left and right can agree on”… only to find lots of neurally challenged statements about how great the Greens are.
*sigh*
I’ll have to wait for the next unifying issue, whatever that might be.
I’ll be voting Green next election, and I voted ALP the last one. 75% of the reason is this filter.
And I live in Lindsay Tanners seat.
@munroe,
Although I agree that in principle this is indeed an issue “that left and right can agree on” the pragmatic calculus for the next election might not necessarily follow that principle, at least for votes in the Upper House, which is all I’ve taken a stance on.
munroe, the Greens are the only party who definitely oppose the filter. The right and the not-quite-so-right (the ALP) both seem to agree that the filter’d be a damn fine thing, because it makes it easier to shut down dissent (and prevent your parents from dying with dignity).
Yeah, but I wasn’t talking about the political right, I was talking about, well I guess my own experience. I’m on the right and I thought the filter was a terrible idea; my right wing friends felt the same. My left wing friends and relatives either didn’t know about it, or didn’t see the problem with stopping perverts.
Okay, you got a point about the Greens being the only ones to oppose it, I suppose.
Don’t forget that luvverly lobbyist money from the DRM IP anti-piracy crew, DI (nr). While I am a fan of a reasonable copyright regime for the life of the creator, I don’t see the benefit in anything beyond life+18 years in order to provide for minor dependents. The current copyright regime is a travesty that strangles creativity.
Sounds like your left wing friends are just “lefter than you” friends munroe.
“Will get even more attention from the Coalition if people say they will vote Green but will preference the libs ahead of labor if they promise to oppose the scheme.”
Oh yeh man. And we are to be absolutely guaranteed that Tony would not come up with something even more draconian along with the rest of the pile of shit that is constantly rattling around in his brain.
Just admit you prefer the Abbott and the liberals , Chris, and be done with it.
tigtog @ 23 -
Thanks for the disclaimer.
Yeah, not a lot of independents will run here, It’s not like the PM’s seat which attracts all types of crazy.
The margin is probably a bit decptive, It’s staying Labor.
I guess it doesn’t stop myself from running an independent card, but that would be throwing good money after bad without a decent profile.
PinkyOz
No… pretty left actually. Mainstream left, I guess you could call them. Actually I think the problem is that the issue didn’t get a big run in the media, just online. Plus, Australians are pretty blase about freedom of speech, it seems to me.
Its possible, but Howard actually had a much more sensible policy – subsidise those who are concerned by paying for filtering software – a cheap just as effective method as a compulsory filter, but clearly opt-in and was sufficient enough to mollify the right-wing independents like Harradine at the time. Labor’s current policy is much much worse and coming from within the party not from outside pressure.
And besides voting for the libs (and I certainly don’t support Abbott) is not actually going to get them elected to government – given the polls there’s very little chance of that, but offering to do so may be enough leverage to get them to oppose the filter. Preferencing Labor will just give them the excuse that they have a mandate to introduce the filter. If I was in Canberra I would vote for Lundy though who is actually trying to change the policy.
@Chris,
I’m a big fan of the subsidised opt-in filters. I installed it years ago on our home network, and my elder didn’t crack it until Year 9 (the age at which he was socially confident enough to approach the existing hackfest group at his school to provide pointers to “useful” parts on the intarwebs).
By that age, one hopes that one’s other domestic social conditioning has taken hold, no? If not, why not? Plus, don’t you parents still control which stations get what privileges through the router?
BTW, for those still interested in how filters are used for political suppression, here’s a useful general information post on setting up mirror domains for sites which might possibly be censored in certain jurisdictions:
Guide: Mirroring a Censored WordPress Blog
I’m a libertarian and think that the Greens are a bunch of economic illiterates, but were I in Australia for the next election, I’d be voting Green in the Senate as well as voting below the line generally in the hope of getting an LDP person over the line.
This is not something we can afford to piss about with, seriously.
Yes, sorry Spana- absolutely no qualms about supporting Tig Tog’s position on this.
Nothing to do with the kind authorities getting at dirty pictures and everything about *pron* employed as stalking horse for political censorship.
The net flitering shoud be seen in the light of a suite of moves throughout the West over the last twenty years, to nibble way at civil liberties, privacy, law and justice also involving dumbed down flows of meaningful information to people who, in a civil society, require this to perform their citizenship, social, family and personal responsibilities.
I will vote Greens and direct my preferences to the Liberal Party like I did in the recent SA state election as I considered it beneath me to vote for/encourage my local member, the contemptuous Michael Atkinson. I will again vote Greens in the Senate. It’s not like Labor can be trusted.
This mandatory internet filter (as opposed to a voluntary opt in/out one) will be the main reason Rudd Labor won’t be getting my vote this time around combined with the nationwide welfare quarantining coming in for everyone on unemployment/single parenting benefits, the suspension of accepting boat people from Afghanistan & Sri Lanka and the shelving of the ETS.
As much as I love my internet free of imposed filters I would rather die than let Tony Abbott within a sniff of my preference vote.
And to suggest that he would somehow stick within the bounds of the Howard policy -that took years of humming and harring over, anyway- is madness and probably just closet liberal boosterism, anyway.
Given the massive shite,in so many areas,that would come down on this country if the loony tony was to take power it makes no sense whatsoever to even flirt with that mob for the sake of this issue.
The best thing to do is celebrate the pocketing of this silly idea into the ‘too hard basket’ and hope with a reasonable majority, and a new minister, labor will see it’s interest as less aligned with the nut job element.
And in fact, by making the matter a big deal at election time it is likely to be counter productive. Far better to let labor have room to quietly save face and not need to feel they have to commit to the stupid thing again, post election.
The filter will probably die off once the blood has seeped into some harmless part of Conroy’s anatomy. Opt in/out filtering is the only viable solution in the light of the potential for political censorship, conducted by unaccountable apparatchiks in back rooms, that Conroy’s proposal presents. The filter is not a deal breaker for a lower house ALP vote for me. The Liberals wanted me to go and die in Vietnam. Phuck them, they’ll never get my vote.
The government should have simply performed a public execution of this policy.
Said, very prominently,
“We have listened to community concerns, and in response to misgivings from a considerable proportion of the people, we have decided to not proceed with it.”
Instead, what they’ve done by putting it on the backburner is give the Opposition a stick to beat them over the head with: “A vote for Labor at this election is a vote for the internet filter in their next term in office.”
skepticlawyer: in general, I have some sympathy with the view that the Greens understanding of economics remains weak. But look at the climate policies of Labor, the Coalition, and the Greens. Whose policy is the most economically orthodox?
I am so disgusted with Labor, except for Lindsay Tanner, I will vote Green. I will not vote for card carrying Catholics like Abbott or Conroy. I do not look at pornography and I want to access illegal material like WikiLeaks and euthanasia and how to clean my teeth properly
Unfortunately theres bugger all chance of Conroy losing his seat at the next election. I dont think the filter is dead till hes out of office.
Howard did come up with the best ballance by dishing out the free filtering on request. But Id have a hard time trusting either of the big 2 parties to leave it alone.
As was mentioned above, dirty pictures be damned, this is about copyright and boosting music/movie industry returns.
From the same mob that accuses you of stealing movies every time you turn on a CD
hahaha.
I had the amusing experience two nights ago of chatting to a Japanese friend who has lived in China. She was talking about how hard life can be there, and mentioned how when she was there the government had filters on the internet… I had to pipe up and say “oh, Australia’s planning to do the same thing.” She was shocked, having assumed (as most people around the world do) that we’re all about human rights and free koalas for everyone.
It’s surely unAustralian to be at the point where you can’t complain about censorship in China?
Thats what many people did during the last election – and we were assured that it was at worst an optional opt-out filter. Not saying anything didn’t work and the policy got even worse.
tigtog @ 36 – I think there’s room for some transitional software tools for children – eg easily allow parents to log (with their child’s knowledge) rather than block sites that their children access. If the logging is done in the right place it can be much harder to defeat as you can’t really tell directly if you’re avoiding the logger. And one thing I’ve setup for my niece is her own email address but a copy of all email she receives is automatically sent to her parents as well – a transitional compromise between her having no email address (or having to share her parent’s one) and having her own completely independent one when she gets older.
Mole @ 45 – this sort of belongs in another thread, but if the senate voting forms did not allow parties to choose the candidate order like happens for the ACT elections (multiple forms are printed with different candidate orders and each voter gets a random one) then it would make it much easier for the public to vote out unpopular senators and as a bonus take some power away from the factions.
Spana mentioned Clive Hamilton but his position on the filter has shifted. Even he is concerned by the secretiveness around what will be filtered. Hopefully his fellow Greens and people like Michael Flood are discussing this with him because while I share many of his concerns, this is clearly not going to address them and the suppression of legitimate speech is just too great a cost to pay for an ineffective measure.
Chris
Pretty well whant me and mt other half do with our teenager. hes quite free to go where he wants, but he knows we can check if we wish to.
Given the enormous proliferation of webcams and chat sites, id be guessing theres more sus activity going on there than anywhere else.
See if this story (I dont know if its been posted here before) gives anyone else chills.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/
Apparently its also possible to use the built in speaker to “bug” a person as well. At my last franchise meeting one of our business owners was reprimanded for installing software on computors he sold which could be remotely shut down/act as a backdoor.
He hit 10 on my creepymeter when he mentioned that.
billie @ 44
I have always respected Tanner, but that respect has been eroded considerably by this opinion piece he published in the SMH last month:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-razors-edge/the-greens–ignore-at-ones-peril/20100324-qvsu.html
I get the feeling Tanner is just a tad nervous about holding his seat so principles be damned.