Wikileaks: Is the Internet Filter Australia's Berlin Wall

[SealLion]

This is an editorial written on the famous Wikileaks site. It's not a 'leak' per se, but is an interesting article that does demonstrate a number of things.

check it out:

The history of the last twenty years of the Twentieth Century were.... marked by a millennial fervor that swept through society like a great wave of hope. Watching the Berlin Wall topple, seeing the defiance of Tiananmen Square and even the spontaneous outpouring of goodwill that happened during the Sydney Olympics....

Yes.
That's quite true, I'd say.
But read on...

...Fundamental to this has been the freedom of political thought and expression..

that makes sense.

but....In Australia....

The internet filter proposed by Senator Stephen Conroy threatens all this (government initiatives by various elected parties in power at any time). Thus far, the government have focused their arguments around the highly emotive issue of child pornography. There is no question that access to this sort of material should be prohibited. ...

I can understand that. I don't think that anyone who's in his or her right mind would want to see kiddies abused and taken advantage of, yes?/

but wait...

...However, only 32% of the sites listed on the (Australia's blacklist) re related to child pornography. This means that a whopping 68% of sites on the list are there for other reasons

I wonder why.

Let's read on and find out eh, folks...??

...political, ideological, etc – and at the whim of the government in power at the time.

and at the whim of the government in power at the time.
That doesn't surprise me.
It happens all the time in every government in any country.


Supposedly, Wikileaks is listed there too. That doesn't surprise me either since Wikileaks isn't liked too much by a lot of governments ( and individuals and corporations too ) on which it spills the beans on.

Moreover, the blacklist is NOT available for public scrutiny or independent review

Of course not.
why would such a list be made available for public scutiny??

It's not the publics business is it??

even business such as this:

This includes information which, while sometimes mildly confrontational, has social and cultural value, including websites which provide:

* Harm minimisation information for recreational drug users
* Space for the discussion of gay and lesbian sexuality
* Analysis of the geopolitical causes of terrorism

I mean, is anyone really supposed to know let alone it be someone's business to know if their own website, such as a dentist's website ( yes, it's true..a dentit's website is listed there) is on the blacklist??

Naw...c'mon. It's not anyone's business.

I think that I made a couple of posts earlier in the News section about this same filtering activity in Australia.
It''s here somewhere, I am sure.

So if Australia and other parts of Europe can engage such filters...what about other parts of the world??

YOur ideas??

HEre's the link:

Is the Internet Filter Australia's Berlin Wall - Wikileaks

[slikrapid]

Watching the Berlin Wall topple, seeing the defiance of Tiananmen Square and even the spontaneous outpouring of goodwill that happened during the Sydney Olympics

the question is can these events be viewed as genuine at all (in a sense that they really represent that which they are publicly claimed to do), in light of known manipulations of events & public opinion, fi.:

November 9 is thus considered the date the Wall fell. coincidence?

Olympics having deep rooted ancient 'pagan' symbolism & deities worshiping origins, which have interestingly continued throughout the years with much similarity

Fundamental to this has been the freedom of political thought and expression

i wonder what those killed/tortured/imprisoned during the same era for expressing their political views would say - just an example how glorification of an era has limited basis in reality - the truth hurts as a wise saying confirms

I don't think that anyone who's in his or her right mind would want to see kiddies abused and taken advantage of, yes?

see, thats what they try to do - justify an action by inverting the theses (twisting the reasoning behind it):

censorship is justified by the need to protect the internet user from disturbing images, whereas it should be:
actions against the originators of abuse are justified by the need to prevent violation/exploitation of young human beings

is anyone really supposed to know let alone it be someone's business to know if their own website, such as a dentist's website ( yes, it's true..a dentit's website is listed there) is on the blacklist??

imo if a government is to act transparently (almost) all of its decisions & co. should be publicly accessible & debatable - if no one knew what sites are being censored, there is no way to determine what are the reasons behind the censorship or whether these can have some legal basis or are they supporting some hidden agenda - more transparency means less hidden acts/moves, at least for those that end up in a written manner or those that are to be used for legislative purposes

[SealLion]

November 9 is thus considered the date the Wall fell. coincidence?

How do you mean coincidence??
coincidence to what other event?

censorship is justified by the need to protect the internet user from disturbing images, whereas it should be:

if the internet user is 'adult' enough to recognize and differenciate moral dilemmas, then I can't see this as being a problem.

If the internet user is a younger user, then perhaps I could understand this.

I don't think taht I quite follow you. Your saying that the reasoning for not showing exploitative content on the internet is due to mechanisms that the internet nazis want others to follow, yes??

Ok,... but NOT having exploitative content on the internet is based part and parcel on social norms.
sOCIAl norms dictate how society is ruled both legally (morally based laws) and how one acts socially within the confines of one's society.

For example, social norms don't dictate that people go out and have sex with kiddies. Social norms dictate that young people aren't old enough to know what their doing ( to a point) and that they are like little innocent bunnies and so on...We can't hurt them ...you get the idea, I'm sure.

so the question is: How does one protect the young internet user from disturbing images???

censor the entire internet that includes an across-the-board censorship for all internet users since both old and young attend to internet accessibility??

[slikrapid]

How do you mean coincidence??

the 9/11 number gameplay - in europe 9-11 is 9th November

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/09/911-symbolism-in-hollywood.html

if the internet user is 'adult' enough to recognize and differenciate moral dilemmas, then I can't see this as being a problem.

if he is an adult there is no need (or justification thereof) for censorship

If the internet user is a younger user, then perhaps I could understand this.

in this case there is parental control

Your saying that the reasoning for not showing exploitative content on the internet is due to mechanisms that the internet nazis want others to follow, yes??

if one is an adult he has the freedom to choose whether he wants to watch or enjoy some sort of exploitative content (which is a broad term anyways) or not - no organization should have the prerogative authority (ie. censorship) over one's freedom of choice

as for the 'controllers' - they are just waiting for an opportunity to tighten their grip on one's freedom(s) and the best way to achieve this is to make one believe its in their own best interest to install such a control mechanism

Ok,... but NOT having exploitative content on the internet is based part and parcel on social norms.

lets put it this way: if the persons engaging in exploitative acts (both the exploiter & the exploited) are adults & aware of their actions (consenting) then i see no reason for anyone to oppose to it, provided that it doesn't hurt 3rd parties (hurt feelings of some viewer don't count as they are free to 'switch the channel' so to speak)

so the question is: How does one protect the young internet user from disturbing images???

simple parental/school control programs for such content with transparent policies on what content is filtered (in the case of schools) - the same can be applied to internet caffe's or minor's computers/laptops