Posted on 02/10/2010 5:21:27 AM PST by myknowledge
What in the article gave you that impression? Maybe you should post a quote?
Wasn’t the stated reason for the internet firewall child pornography? That’s the only reason it would make any sense whatsoever.
The filter is obstensibly intended to block sites that would be 'refused classification' under Australian law (that is would be above the standard permitted under Australia's X-rating). This certainly includes child pornography, but it also includes a wide range of other material - including, for example, any material advocating euthanasia. While I disagree, personally, with euthanasia, I regard it as a legitimate political debate - it is legal in some European nations, it was for a time in the recent past legal in the Northern Territory of Australia. There are also anti-abortion sites that could fall foul of RC classifications.
Even when it comes to child pornography, though, Austalia's existing laws on what is and isn't child pornography are very unclear. Under some interpretations (interpretations favoured by the current government) Walt Disney's 1960 film version of Pollyanna starring Hayley Mills could be considered child pornography.
The biggest problem though is that the 'black list' of sites blocked by the filter will be secret. Nobody will be allowed to know what sites are on it.
If the government decides, for example, that FreeRepublic is a 'race hate' site - and it could potentially make that determination based on a single poster here posting a racist comment - then FreeRepublic could be blocked to all internet users in Australia, without any requirement for the government to reveal it had done so.
This is not an attempt to block child pornography. It is an attempt by a socialist government to block the internet using child pornography as an excuse most people find hard to argue against.
It's unconstitutional, and the High Court of Australia would eventually rule it so, if a case reached it - but that will take, at the very least, months. And with limits on even mentioning what sites are on the blacklist (if FR was blocked, I'd be committing an offence to even say so - again, a law that is supposedly to prevent child pornography sites addresses being given out - blacklisted sites cannot be publicised), it could take even longer.
well child porn is about the only thing worth blocking, or rather trying to block.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.