Comments on: Web censorship vigilantes rule in the UK…and Australia

By: Bob Gosford

Bob Gosford — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:43:23 +0000

Just back from a trip to Melbourne and catching up on comments etc over the past few days.
I’m trying to chill out a little with the cricket, siestas etc but just want to say thanks to all of you, particularly Beevo, Venise and Jon, for all of your comments on this matter and other posts.
I look forward to having a lot more fun in the New Year and maintaining this most important engagement with you and others – keep your comments and thoughts coming.
Meanwhile, I don’t think that Australia is going to make any sort of progress against the South Africans today – I’m tipping a win to the yarpies – a few more hours will tell.
Best to you all and see you soon.
Bob

By: beevo

beevo — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:00:21 +0000

Venise, I hope you don’t think me fundamentalist OR catholic. I am going to have nightmares now. And I do apologise for getting you off-side. In case you missed it, I am so open minded that I just did a 180 in the length of a few comments! Beat that…
I am staunchly secularist, atheist and a long way along the opposite end of the scale from “prude”. I also agree that the great majority of lobbyists for restrictive legislation have a much bigger religious agenda. This is scary because it knows no bounds.
I agree with Andrew Bartlett where he believes in “freedom of (and from) religious beliefs”!
For the record, I don’t believe Noddy and Bigears were living in a gay relationship (am I in denial?) but if they were then they should have couples rights under the law and can get married if they wish. They can also post photos of themselves on the net if they wish provided there is some explicit content warning to prevent unintentional viewing.
I mistook Bob’s original argument as defending the particular content in question rather than the fact that it was available for viewing. My bad! Target anything criminal at the source I agree but we need to be able to see and judge for ourselves if we wish. That is freedom of thought.
Mass filtering is a joke but individual parental control is advisable… do you think? Moderated on a case by case site by site basis?
I do not believe in censorship but would like the media to be a little more considerate with it’s self-regulation and consideration of audience demographics. I cringe when the morning radio program starts chatting about erectile dysfunction while I am driving the kids to school. More so when my wife quickly reaches for the volume and turns the radio up louder! I now feel the best response is to just smile and change stations.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:14:06 +0000

Meaning at the blacklist they, whoever they are, seem to have reams of pages of the people who make and send the stuff. But can’t you see? This is the least of their worries. Please get it through your head. Protecting children is the least important item on their agenda. THEY WANT TO CENSOR THE WHOLE OF OZ. In any form of printed and visual media.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:11:16 +0000

Jon Hunt: You bas-ard, or did you set me up? Oh well, joke’s on me I suppose.
Of course everything would be OK if stopped at source.

Good night and good luck

I’m going to shoot myself

By: Jon Hunt

Jon Hunt — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:28:41 +0000

Err.. a bit of a late reply, but I said “unpolicable” (if that’s a word) I really meant efficient “policing” ie only blocking specific sites rather than every one from a particular domain.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:03:29 +0000

Hell, me again. I meant to wish you, your family and the lady huntsman/huntslady(?), the one who was in your jocks, assorted birds and animals, a very happy Christmas and a terrific new year.

Cheers

Venise

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:58:00 +0000

Me, on the defensive. I admit in this case I’m indulging in a conspiracy theory. However, I just don’t think with a cast like this, see above, there isn’t a thread or six linking each to the other.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:12:40 +0000

As this was written in white heat there are at least two mistakes. Para 1, line 3 should read $4.7 billion dollars.
The penultimate para line 7, should read ’since Bartholomew Augustine Michael (call me Bob) Santamaria (Labor, transferred to the infamous Democratic Labor Party, CATHOLIC, Jesuit trained dictator MP) Santamaria strode the political stage.’
It’s taken me forever to write all of this so there was bound to be a mistake, for which I duly apologize.

Cheers

Venise

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:49:22 +0000

Bob: I’m going to send you the comment I emailed Crikey this morning. Crikey, thus far, don’t appear to have printed it. (the wording is completely different) So it’s over to you.
The fact that Labor has denied Telstra the broad-band deal of $4.2 billion dollars, is a prime example of how our Catholic Taliban operate in order to meddle with our political process. A process which, by the way, is written into our Constitution, namely ‘WE ARE A SECULAR STATE’. And being a secular state the Christian Fundamentalists, especially the Catholics, have no right to presume unto themselves, they have a right to dictate to us.
Let us go back to the previous ,John Howard, government. John Howard was having trouble getting the original Telstra deal through parliament. In order to get his own way he approached Brian Harradine, (Independent, CATHOLIC-Jesuit, senator from Tasmania). Harradine said he would vote Howard’s way-at a price. The price was to have John Winston Howard move Tony Abbott (Liberal, CATHOLIC, Jesuit trained MP) to the Health portfolio. Once there Tony Abbott saw himself doing God’s work by blocking anything, euthanasia, birth control, etc, anything which interfered with God’s perception, via his self-ordained priests, of how the State should be run. And if Tony Abbott developed any scruples, Brian Harradine was quick to put the spurs in.

The most infamous case of Catholic intervention being to block the prescription drug RU486 from being on the Australian market. This was done on the basis it was an abortificant, which it wasn’t. Tony Abbott had Abbott promised he would retire if he lost the conscience vote on this issue. He did lose. But he didn’t retire. However he was allowed a different portfolio.
Now we have the inglorious spectacle of Senator Stephen Conroy (Labor, CATHOLIC, Jesuit trained MP) who is currently having a monumental sulk because some of the electorate saw through his and Rudd’s scheme to introduce censorship onto the Internet. Only to ‘protect the children!’ is the usual specious, religious, catch-cry, lie when they want to introduce censorship: It’s always on behalf of someone else. I hope someone else besides me has noticed this point.
Now this scenario has taken on an even worse dimension than has ever been known before. Because there is a doubt that they will get the censorship thing through, and because Telstra wouldn’t take part in some excuse for a test on our broad-band, concerning the censorship. What does Senator Stephen Conroy (Labor, CATHOLIC, Jesuit-trained MP) come up with?
He and Kevin Rudd(Labor Prime Minister, Religious Fundamentalist) have refused the Telstra bid for the broad-band deal @ $4.7 billion dollars and are giving it instead to an overseas company. If Kevin Rudd (Labor, Prime Minister, Fundamentalist Christian aka another God-botherer ) and Senator Stephen Conroy (Labor CATHOLIC fundamentalist) get away with this nasty bit of work. The Australian electorate-by not being quick enough to see through these machinations-will have allowed one of the worst pieces of grotésquerie to pass through parliament, sinc(DLP CATHOLIC, Jesuit-trained MP) strode the political stage.
It was a time when women still forfeited their lives by going into convents, a time when abortion meant having to go to back-yard butchers armed with rusty coat-hangers, and a time when people had to stop drinking as in the six o’clock swill. It was a time when all thought, art, books, Television, Movies, newspapers was censored. Artists had to show their work in private galleries. A time when Lady Chatterley’s Lover was prohibited reading. It was a time when the dead hand of censorship controlled Australian lives. By your inability to spot a monster lurking in the political landscape-I’m speaking to the

Finally and for the sake of the Rudd government, I do so hope none of the Labor constituents happen to have shares in Telstra. You do? Tough, you’ve just got an inkling into the mind-set of the Catholic Taliban.

Venise

Cheers

Venise

By: Bob Gosford

Bob Gosford — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:37:34 +0000

Thanks to Venise for reminding me of the past – I grew up in a New South Wales dominated by Bob Askin, a venal and corrupt Premier – and then I moved to Melbourne (where I am right now) for a few years just after (I think) the end of the Bolte years…and I remember a bit about Arthur Rylah…though I wish I didn’t.
The past is a funny place – somehow we get all misty-eyed and forget too much of what was really bad then – including how much we let our governments get away with. And the same applies to the present – while on the one hand we think that all the modern devices and systems we have ensure that governments are held accountable for their decisions and actions those same devices and systems ensure that (or allow) politicians to hide too much – that is, the laws and rules that governments put in place to ensure our freedoms also restrict those same freedoms.
Don’t know if I quite got that but…it is early and I have a long day ahead.
Cheers to both Beevo & Venise for the thoughtful discussions – keep it coming!