John Howard to Clean Up The Internet
September 5th 2007 07:39
I don't have a problem with laws being passed to make it a hate crime to deny the holocaust or to go around the place naked. There are, of course, fundamental laws of human decency that all humans should agree to. Unfortunately, every so often someone shows up who decides he or she knows better than everyone else, worse yet said someone is in a position of power.
Mr. Howard has decided he will provide free filters to all Australian families (provided through ISPs) to protect them from the horrors of the internet, naturally Kevin Rudd has jumped on the bandwagon, no doubt to appeal to the Christian voters. If they're going to be giving such tools to families shouldn't they, by the same line of logic provide free diapers, books, computers, clothing and whatever else it takes to raise a child?
I wouldn' tpersonally mind it so much, protecting kids from pornography and sex predators amongst other things. But, as always, theres going to be a clause in the deal, in this case 'terror sites'. What the hell is a 'terror site'? Oh let me guess, one of those sites that turns eight year olds into suicide bombers.
Obviously this can, and will, be taken to another level, 'terror sites', will start off no doubt with neo-nazi communities, and other shady communities. Then why won't it move up? Start banning off far left wing websites, ones advocating the legalization of Mairjuanna for instance. Take it further, it'll swing back, because we have Wikipedia, that gets blocked, then what? Once you block wikipedia, you can block the internet off.
source
Mr. Howard has decided he will provide free filters to all Australian families (provided through ISPs) to protect them from the horrors of the internet, naturally Kevin Rudd has jumped on the bandwagon, no doubt to appeal to the Christian voters. If they're going to be giving such tools to families shouldn't they, by the same line of logic provide free diapers, books, computers, clothing and whatever else it takes to raise a child?
I wouldn' tpersonally mind it so much, protecting kids from pornography and sex predators amongst other things. But, as always, theres going to be a clause in the deal, in this case 'terror sites'. What the hell is a 'terror site'? Oh let me guess, one of those sites that turns eight year olds into suicide bombers.
Obviously this can, and will, be taken to another level, 'terror sites', will start off no doubt with neo-nazi communities, and other shady communities. Then why won't it move up? Start banning off far left wing websites, ones advocating the legalization of Mairjuanna for instance. Take it further, it'll swing back, because we have Wikipedia, that gets blocked, then what? Once you block wikipedia, you can block the internet off.
source
| 61 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Anonymous
Putting the blinders on and trying to hide from "bad stuff" benefits only those who would pursue it. And the scope creep which could ensue might have a unforeseen impact individual liberties. I can tell you it may be annoying when you use a web filtering tool which blocks a legitimate site you visit. Now imagine a clunky bewildering entity such as the national government cherry picking the internet for you with your taxpayer money. This will be a compulsory service on your dollar, whether you need or not.