I've never thought of Australia as a particularly strait-laced place — rather the opposite, actually — so why have they elected a government that wants to do something as stupid as putting an internet filter in place for the whole nation? They claim that they're out to block child pornography, the usual entry-level excuse to impose censorship, but then they also announce that they will filter "other unwanted content", which means…what? Watch out, Australia, this is the first step towards allowing the government to control all of your information.
One opposition tactic that might work is to point out that there is one common piece of smut that ought to be filtered under these rules, but that many people consider virtuous: that work of unrepentant filth and violence, the bible.
The opposition is stirred, and rouses itself to action: a new party has emerged to fight the censorship, among other things. It's called the Australian Sex Party, which better fits my image of the land down under.
- Log in to post comments
I've heard about that. This is ridiculous. They always claim it's to protect the children/stop the predators, but they always end up doing something shady.
Fight the oppressors, aussies!
I've never thought of Australia as a particularly straight-laced place...
Sorry to be pedantic, but that's strait, as in tight.
To be fair, both of the major parties are keen to see this censorship.
Which is why I voted Greens.
They say Australia is focusing more on its commercial ties to Asia these days than its cultural ties to the West, so perhaps they want to adopt China's Internet policies in solidarity with their biggest trading partner.
And Tualha is correct about "straitlaced", which is misspelled about as frequently as "straitjacket". Of course, over here in California, the voters chose to put us in a "straightjacket". (I'd laugh, but it's not funny.)
Heh, I posted about this in a comment some weeks ago, hoping PZ would make a post about it to raise consciousness.
Hard to believe Australia is about to do this, China fine but Australia ?!? Unbelievable. If the public in Oz gets up to speed wouldn't this die ? Do they know ? (all rhetoric)
Creepy that it is even considered.
This is why I liked the Prohibition period in US history. It should serve as a permanent reminder that behavior can largely not be legislated. Porn has been illegal for centuries if not longer. Yet it still exists.
Like the fundamentalist preacher found dead in a rubber suit with a dildo up his ass, I think those who are trying to block such objectionable content are likely just trying to have the government help them avoid their own temptation.
As always, find out who decides and you'll know where the problem lies.
Yeah unfortunately it wasn't exactly a major plank of their election platform. So most people didn't think about it much when casting ballots.
Would you care to reveal what Dr. Wilkins gets up to in his spare time?
Come on. When you think of John Wilkins, isn't "hunk a' burnin' love" the first phrase that comes to your mind?
How do I join the Australian Sex Party? Wait, that didn't come out right...
they will filter "other unwanted content"
They'll be filtering unwanted content? That's all right, then. As long as they aren't filtering wanted content, people will be able to get all the pr0n they can download.
Tufts University School of Medicine, believe it or not, censors the Internet on its network. I'm only an adjunct, so I can't raise much hell, but when I'm there, it drives me nuts. CBS News and the Tom Tomorrow blog are both blocked, for example, because they are "entertainment sites." The TT blog is actually a public affairs site, of course -- they don't even have the cartoon there, which by the way you can access since Salon is not blocked.
There's an e-mail where you can complain, but they ignore it. It's insane. And infuriating.
What a lazy way to "protect the children."
Yeah, no one's very happy about this, aside from the political establishment and the wingnuts, of course.
The internet providers here are particularly unhappy. They're also saying it's going to be largely unenforceable, and that it'll slow our connection speeds down, which is a problem as they're already slower here than in much of the developed world.
This is such religious, puritanical, paternalistic bullshit.
I'm so glad I voted for the Greens. The Sex Party sounds interesting, too. We absolutely need groups with a focus on sexual and reproductive health, and on basic civil liberties.
Rudd's such a disappointment.
Many people tell me that burning is one thing that comes to their mind when they think of me, yes. It involves stakes and angry villagers, too.
I've been complaining about this for some time, Paul. Obviously you never read my blog...
It flies because anyone who objects is countered with 'won't you think of the children?' Hard for a politician there, especially in a close fought election. Easy for the Greens to oppose since they are not in contention as a government.
It is of course bad, but such emotive campaigning is hard to counter. Because you don't want to be against protecting the kiddies, do you? The fact that it will not protect them and will limit free speech of others does not get a look in.
The author of that "filter the Bible" piece should have known that the man through whose head Jael drove a tent peg was not her husband. Geez. It's like he didn't even read the Israel-vs-the-Philistines section of The Cartoon History of the Universe.
Fortunately, a few enterprising Aussies are taking pains to illustrate to their government that the filters are at once intrustive and ineffectual. The boss of a major ISP is going to trial the filter and openly publicise every failure, every time something inappropriate slips through, and every time something benign gets wrongly blocked. More power to you, sir!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/12/aussie_firewall_row/
exactly the kind of situation TOR solves most neatly. it's true that it slows down your browsing severely, but since you can turn it on and off on demand (even URL by URL, if you're computer-savvy enough with your browser proxy configuration) that only means the websites you couldn't otherwise get to will be slow.
PZ,
Among those in the know [thee and me], Australia is the home of the "wowser", a highly repressive social force. Although no organisation represents them, they are very representative of much of Oz' society.
The long, dreary span of the Howard years provided a comfortable nest for wowsers to proliferate.
The closest you have in North America are the "puritans" [not the religious sect].
stephen
If the scheme is enacted, Australians may well end up with 1998 internet speeds.
The last government enacted or tried to enact some pretty horrendous legislation because they were beholding to a prudish Tasmanian Senator by the name of Harradine. Now the new government is kowtowing to the Family First (doesn't that name raise a few alarm bells?) Senator by the name of Fielding. Senator Fielding wants to ban hardcore porn. When asked what hardcore porn was he replied, "Anything that gives me a woody". He didn't really but it is probably true.
... so why have they elected a government that wants to do something as stupid as putting an internet filter in place for the whole nation?
So what! Summer's just starting, in Oz.
Oh yeahhhh, maybe that's why they think they'll get away with it.
According to OnTheIssues.org, this is the same idea that McCain proposed and is one of the major reasons I didn't vote for him. (Another being that his "across the board spending freeze" would have forced me to drop out of college.)
I thought this summed it up nicely (from the link in #18):
"Look, you as a parent can dictate to your child that their feed will be filtered. They are children and you are an adult. For some reason the minister sees adults as children and will substitute his choices for theirs."
One problem is that even the best filters (the ones that reduce internet speed by 80%) aren't perfect. So what happens when your child is able to access hard-core porn despite the filter? As the government has taken on the responsibility to make the web safe for children, could a parent sue the government for failing to do so?
Will the government advise parents to use a filter on their own computer, and if they do, then what will be the point of filtering all net traffic?
I DID laugh, but you're right, it's not funny.
Wait hold on.
*Looks both ways*
*Typety typety*
*Click*
Wow, even my university library doesn't censor the internet. A whole country? That's supremely fucked up. What's with you guys? I mean sure, we invaded another country and destroyed its infrastructure, but damn.
Maybe we can lobby your government to block any websites that are anti-US. That would be the next step. That's what the Saudis do- censor anything that would offend their allies.
Question: If it happens to pass, is anyone going to bother with civil disobedience? Cause that sort of thing didn't really happen here with the USA PATRIOT Act.
Come on Aussies, be an example to us!
Screw the children. We've got too many of the little rats already.
Unfortunately, these are the good guys in power, the equivalent of the Democrats. Let's home they come to their senses.
The filter is a terrible idea. Our internet speeds are already slow, and this will make them even worse.
Despite experts' contempt for the idea, it has life because the politicians don't want to be seen as failing "the children". (Soon to be extended to online gamblers, fetishists, other political footballs chosen by a few senators with the balance of power.)
Kevin Rudd went to the election offering a filter. It was a minor point in a campaign waged on other issues. No mention that it would be mandatory.
They will run a trial on 10000 volunteers. I hope the trial fails spectacularly, thus giving pollies a credible escape: "It can't be done efficiently and/or effectively with today's technology."
It's a pity that they won't take the experts' advice in the first place. Am I idealistic (trial data results in appropriate decision) or cynical (trial data used to escape hole they've dug for themselves)?
Really, you didn't know they were prudes? Well any gamer who follows gaming news already knew that. The Aussie government is obsessed with censoring media that might harm... get ready for it... you know it's coming...
Anything that might harm... "THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!" (dun dun duuuuun!!!).
Lots of video games are banned in Australia. It's also fun watching the politicians debate about it, because it is pure nonsense. None of them have any idea what is in the games they're banning, they make all this stuff up on the spot: "this game gives you points for raping children!!!" Yeah right, whatever.
Well great. Now where am I going to move to when we all finally lose our minds in the UK and implement ID cards, those 'just in case' monitoring systems, and start giving people prizes for getting married? Then again, according to the news today we all think the kids in this country are 'animals' anyway so maybe we won't care enough to implement a countrywide ban on naughty pictures.
Wow, I never figured that the Aussies would go the way of the Chinese. This whole battle should be exciting to watch. We can only hope that Freedom will prevail.
Oh, and for the bad joke:
"The Aussie Sex Party? Now that sounds like some politics I can bet behind."
They're trialling this on volunteers? How was the call for volunteers worded? "Do you like looking at illegal material on the web? If so, please send your details to i-am-a-pervert@stasi.gov.au to take part in an exciting trial!"
The election in which Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister was mainly based around economic credentials and industrial relations. If this "filter" (is it really a filter if it blocks half the pipes and has holes the size of Queensland?) gets pushed through he probably won't get a second term.
But the way our governments works, politicians nearly always vote along party lines and it's a big event if someone goes against that. So with the government holding a majority only in the lower house, they have to negotiate with (ie, be held to ransom by) a couple of very minor-party individuals in the upper house to pass any legislation. Unfortunately, that often seems to mean keeping the Family First party happy. Oh for the days when we had the Democrats to "keep the bastards honest".
Try looking for the "New Naturalist" book number 62, and see how many prude-filters block it!
This has ben tried before, it caused a whole steelmaking town in Lincolnshire to vanish!
Answers, btw:
"British Tits"
and
Scunthorpe.
Oops.
There are few, if any, states that have the kinds of "speech" protections that the US has. People continue to run afoul of Canadian laws against "unaccepted speech," like attacking Islam (that some well-known cases were thrown out does not eliminate the suppression), and they're not an especially prudish state.
It's simply not as unacceptable to censor in many of the world's states than it is here. In a way, it's bizarre that our 1st Amendment gives Americans protections to a degree that other liberal democracies do not, and yet we have to invoke it again and again to keep people from censoring and/or imposing indoctrination. In another way, it probably makes sense, because in America the 1st Amendment has prevented people from feeling many of the problems caused by theocracy and censorship, and groups wanting to use gov't to push their viewpoints don't recognize how their meddling could cause problems for themselves.
What is ironic is that the internet, once touted as the enemy of all censorship, is increasingly used for just that purpose.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@ Moggie #33
The volunteers are ISPs being asked to trial the technology. One of the bigger ISPs has signed up to the trial just to show that it won't work, and to make sure they can't do the trial on a tin-pot ISP in a backwater where there' bugger all traffic to strain the resources, claim success, and impose it everywhere else.
Also, note that the underlying idea behind this filter is not to define a whitelist and a blacklist, but to dynamically filter every single image and peice of text on the fly. The rate of false positives will be astronomical, the rate of false negatives nearly as bad, and easily bypassed by anyone with a few minutes to spare.
So, apply the ban. Make it so painfully broken and unworkable that it doesn't last. Sue the people gunning for this for loss of business to make sure it doesn't get tried again.
It's annoying, but it's really the only thing that works against this level of stupidity. It also always leaves chaos in it's wake.
Not seeing how this will even work.
1. What about non internet child porn? Won't the fans just start trading or selling DVDs and CDs and mags and so on. Before the internet, there were and still are other means of mass communication.
2. How hard are those filters to get around anyway? With proxy servers and black nodes and so on, seems to me anyone who wants to could probably bypass the filters.
3. What if the child porn providers just encrypt their traffic and sell the keys to customers? What would the filters do the traffic it couldn't decipher?
I should imagine it'll be a topic for discussion on the Australian skeptic podcast, Skeptic Zone, which will be out this week. People can subscribe via iTunes.
Oh, we also have Dr Karl and some guy who hosts the SGU podcast... some science-blogger guy... Bruce? Mick? Steve? Something like that... ;)
Not to mention it'd be interesting to see them define what they actually consider "child pornography." Have the Aussies banned Stephen King's "It," for instance?
There are two more posts at www.getup.org.au/blogs/ but GetUp hasn't launched an official campaign yet, which is *very* disappointing. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia. Terrible!
Fellow Aussies, please request GetUp start a campaign against this censorship: www.getup.org.au/about/contact/
I'm not sure they could cope with the full Pharyngula horde.
GetUp is a progressive, internet-based lobby group. They sometimes get the nation talking, eg climate change ads parodying the previous Howard government's weak campaign. Hopefully they'll run with this.
I can just see how the debate goes down: Either you're for the filter, or you're for child pornography. You're against the perverts, or you're one of them.
That framing of the issue won't work with everyone, of course, but it will fly with a sizable number.
*sigh*
The trouble with defending freedom of speech is that you always end up defending a certain amount of rubbish (or at least appearing to). You'd think people would learn from history. Even if they could solve all the technical and practical issues prohibition just creates opportunities for scum-sucking profiteers.
Seriously though, people do realize that child porn existed before the internet. Right? I mean this is not going to stop children from being abused. I'm proud to say that right here in Atlanta we are the number one destination for child prostitution. That doesn't happen online.
Whoa! Sorry! My comment @ 45 should have read, "I'm NOT proud to say that right here in Atlanta we are the number one destination for child prostitution."
Emphasis on the "NOT". That was embarrassing.
I've heard "Oh, Australia is a MUCH more enlightened and progressive place than fat, Puritan America!" more than once. But now they're officially the fattest country on planet Earth, *and* they have insane politicians pushing nationwide censorship. Yeah, right.
It's OK chemist... When I read that I thought you were just being funny.
...But what about Thailand? I thought folks go there way more than in atlanta for their child sex fix.
...Man we should just.... just... I dunno, shove them in the grand canyon.
Pharyngula's largely US/Canadian audience may not know the political scene in Oz. Very brief summary below.
Government: Australian Labor Party = centre-left (~US Democratic Party).
Opposition: Liberal & National Coalition = centre-right. (~Conservative party, Republican Party, but with fewer xtian fundamentalists -- not difficult!) "Liberal" name for business practices, not about gays etc. Nationals are nominally for country towns & farmers, but really just do what the city Libs tell them.
Balance of power in upper house is usually held by minor parties & independants. Currently Family First (conservative xtians), previously Democrats (economically centrist, socially progressive, now extinct). Greens (left) gained most of the Democrats' seats.
Unlike UK & US systems, pollies in Oz vote quite strictly according to party lines, even when it's detrimental to their electorate (though many will try backroom machinations to prevent that if they can). Exceptions when the party leaderships allow "conscience votes". Why aren't all votes conscience votes? Tradition. (That part of our system is broken.)
The Bible =/= child pornography.
The bible = violent sex crazed cult fiction.
Bible=amoral sadomasochistic fiction describing a petty, arbitrary tyrant. Like many of his followers.
The bible = hey dudes, don't rape my angel guests. Please, rape my virgin daughters.
Happened already in Finland. The system is an epic fail. So far it's only about child pornography, but I'm waiting for it to be extended to other areas as well.
The bible = Hey guys, slaughter all the adults, and the boys, but keep the virgin girls for yourselves, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?
Sex Party!!
What time??
Shit, I have to work tonight.
Our PM Rudd certainly is a worry at times- for example his radio interview from a couple of months back, on why he believes in god:
""For me, it's ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation.
"You can't simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time.
"If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I've got to say it probably wouldn't have happened.
"So I think there is an intelligent mind at work."
http://news.smh.com.au/national/cosmos-order-proves-god-exists-rudd-200…
There are a few phrases in there I'm a bit concerned about- particularly with an upcoming national education review.
Before the election, the then-opposition was talking about an opt-out scheme, i.e., filter for all by default but you could ask to be removed from it. The other main party was probably thinking of the same thing, so it was not really an election issue.
Only recently has the minister (Conroy) revealed that it will be a two-part thing, one filter against "illegal" stuff (ill-defined as it is) from which no-one can opt out, and another layer for a "clean feed" (though they don't say/know what children age they will consider as threshold)...
And though a first test in August pretty much proved the futility and PITA of the whole filter thing, Conroy pushes on for a bigger test this december.
http://www.nocleanfeed.com/
The Australian Sex party even has a theme song all lined up: the Quireboys' "Sex Party". Great tune :)
This is the most frightening form of censorship imaginable in this day and age - and I am disgusted that it is being introduced by "the good guys".
Why couldn't we have followed china's lead on eradicating religion and dropped the censorship thing instead of the other way around? We have good people like Julia and Wayne, but Rudd has lost the plot in guiness record time. About 15 years ago our PM held the world record for sculling a yard glass, but Rudd thinks 2 drinks is binge drinking. The only reason he became electable was when it was revealed he was drunk at a New York strip club ONCE!!! The attempt at a smear instead boosted his ratings and made him acceptable to normal people, despite that claptrap he wrote about god and politics.
This recent stuff about creationism has confirmed him as too dangerous to lead, but *maybe* suitable for foreign affairs. Time for the orange roughie to step up to the plate. Julia - go gnaw kevin's leg off for us will ya?
Oh, and while you're at it, could you put an end to this "Devine Law" thing and have Miranda gazetted as a serial pest?
The Puddin' Thief:
Miranda Devine, you're not so sublime
You're a paid political mouthpiece,
Your science is flawed,
Your penmanship whored
credibility sitting on zero
The Radio National Australia Talks show this afternoon is going to be on this topic. They have 2-3 'experts' on to discuss issues and take lots of telephone calls from the public wanting to comment or ask questions. Should be interesting.
The problem is that the balance of power in the senate is held by a guy from the "Family First" party. So they cut the opt in feature to appease him.
This can be explained quite simply. In our senate there is a balance of power between the Greens, Family First and a guy who wants poker machines banned. So in order for the government to get anything passed, they have to pander to these people or the federal opposition. This is to get Stephen Fielding, the Family First member (evangelical Christian party which got elected with 2% of the vote in one state) onside in order to get other legislation passed.
The technology is flawed, it slows down the internet, and it filters legitimate content while letting illegal content through. The technology simply isn't there to be able to do this, yet the government lied to us and said that it would be optional during the election. Putting it on everybody is an act of pure bastardry!
There's growing resentment at the thought of having our already-slow-by-first-world-standards internet speeds compromised by the government in their attempt to suck up to one god-bothering loon whose vote they might need. I think they're going to find out the hard way just how little the public like this sort of thing.
There's a Facebook Group you can join if you're interested.
Serious mode on.
Neither of the two major parties actually cares either way about internet censorship. However, the ALP only has a majority in the House of Representatives. In order to pass legislation, particularly controversial legislation that the main opposition doesn't want to see passed (at least, not without them getting credit), the ALP has to court the handful of independent senators.
I'm not sure who has become the intellectual heir of Brian Harradine, but it's one of these independent senators who will be demanding net censorship in return for support.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Harradine)
Nick Xenophon or Stephen Fielding take that mantle. Though Nick Xenophon is a far more respectful character even if he does take his moral crusades too far.
I can't see the Greens passing this, but that means anyone in the opposition can support it and it'll pass. Give a few billion to regional Australia to upgrade speeds (so they can be shaped back down again) and the Nats would be on-board. All you have to do is wave the words "regional grant" to them and they are in.
"I've never thought of Australia as a particularly strait-laced place -- rather the opposite, actually -- so why have they elected a government that wants to do something as stupid as putting an internet filter in place for the whole nation?"
To answer your question, they lied to us. Told us it would be an opt-out system (which is bad enough). At no point during the election did they say it's mandatory.
Kel,
I think the key will be, as it often is, to point out to the Labor members in marginal seats that their asses might well be on the line if they support it. Sure, they belong to the party, but they've got to consider their own job security as well.
Still, let's just hope the trials show just how ineffective it is, and how much is slows things down - that way businesses who depend on the internet will unite with everyone else to kill it off.
Yeah, I should send some letters to my local member. Though I'm in Canberra which is a safe seat. Still can't hurt to try.
Wonder if they'll be filtering what leaves the country via teh intertoobz as well as what enters: Don't ask me how I know this, but some of the very coolest adult websites are based in Oz.
Stephen Fielding, the Family First guy, only got in through an awful preference deal with Labour, something I like to remind my atheist family-in-law who voted straight labour in the senate.
Should'a gone greens instead.
Jeremy- the answer, unfortunately, is to vote below the line in the senate. I already did, and the Family First result vindicated my decision. You can't trust any of the bastards on preference deals.
The problem I have with the greens is that are so conservative with a few too many bleeding hearts with impractical solutions. In many ways they are just closet Liberal voters but they draw voters from both sides of the camps.
I think voting below the line as suggested elsewhere is the only solution and make the candidates accountable to their electorate, not the party machine.
A party is needed that will field candidates that will just cancel out the minor party influence (and push a free thinking agenda with surplus senators)
I numbered all the damn boxes below the line 1 to 69 just to vote bloody 'Family First' into last position...
The shame of this is that my joy at kicking the previous government out is being muddied by this obvious pandering to the "Misogynistic Bastards Party"
Australian Sex Party? Looks like they might already be courting the Labour Party.
Unfortunately, there has been little mainstream media attention given to the issue of filtering outside of the IT community (and John Wilkins - cheers!) - most people I speak to don't even know about the proposed filter.
While I'm at it, I'll apologise to the rest of Australia for Michael Atkinson, who is intent on censoring video games in Australia. Another Labour polly with bizarrely conservative values.
Just happened to watch some of Good News Week (a media based comedy show here in Oz) last night and cracked up when Akmel Saleh (a comedian of middle east descent :-) ) said that he's happy for the porn filter as long as there is also a bullshit filter. The aforesaid BS filter would remove access to websites that talked about things such as god creating the world in 6 days, etc.
Then later on the host quite blatantly expressed his atheism and lambasted the religious nutjobs.
Oh, and an article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday reported that swimming costumes are getting scantier on Australian beaches (a la Brazil). So perhaps the government is really trying to get kids off their computers and outside?!
It's not all bad.
Crap. That should be Labor Party, not Labour Party.
I did the same in 2004, numbered all 78 boxes in the senate. Then in 2007 I moved to the ACT where there were only 16 on the ballot so I voted for Ivan Milat's sister last.
Why the hell would you just put a number above the line? It's anti-democratic.
and dont forget pandering to the exclusive bretheren and the hill$ong crazies.
i suspect Cardinal Pell has keys to the lodge by now, so he, Miranda and Kev can spend evenings chiselling penises off statues while they debate what is truly art. with $90m+ to mostly the hill$ong in Howard's last year and $120m+ for RatFinger's paedophile smorgasboard (World youth day) last year, it must be about time to throw $100m or more at some other group of religoholics. Maybe gravel to stone 13yr old rape victims over in Somalia? That's foreign aid that will keep the pious happy.
Australia already has one of the lowest average download speeds in the developed world. As a developer for a small Aussie company specialising in video content delivery I fear this legislation will cost me more than only being able to browse government-approved websites (especially worrying as has already been pointed out, the balance of power in Aus is currently held hostage by a couple of single-issue narrow-minded wowbaggers).
The kicker is that one of our best jobs to date was providing IPTV for the new government's 2020 summit earlier this year. Kev was very pleased to boast about the technical expertise of Australian industry then, now he wants to hamstring us
I guess it's time for us Aussies to start sending a barrage of emails to our local members in the hope that something will happen.
http://nocleanfeed.com/
justasitsounds wrote:
Narrow-minded wowbaggers? What? I really think you mean wowsers. I can honestly say that this Wowbagger is most certainly not narrow minded!
two rubber suits, actually.
Hey Lurka,
yeah, under the Howard Govt, GetUp was about as twitchy as a 1980's student union - a new petition every few days. Where are they now?
You must also remember that this is the nation in which you are severely discouraged (fined/arrested) from taking photographs of children (including you own) in public.
Everyone in the whole bloody country is being treated as potential pedophiles. It seems to be mass punishment for the deviancy of the few (I hope). It fact, Rudd being the good little Catholic boy should be apologising for supporting a pedophilic faith.
Argh, sorry wowbagger - I really did mean wowser.
You'd think they would want to keep the internet open for this reason. Keep it open, it's easier to track this kind of behaviour. Push it underground and all you are doing is ensuring that all transmission will be encrypted.
Honestly how many people "accidentally" come across child porn?
The only reason you'd think it was out of place for Australia is that you just don't know it very well. Understandable for a foreigner. The yob image is one held near and dear by only a few - and even then it's just a facade. Everyone here is obsessed with money these days.
Apart from the general wowser population and conservative social 'elite', there has been a rise in the power of the minority xtian right, just as in other western democracies. Any party that wants to win an election seem to have to sell their soul to these arseholes. And federal labor (just as state labor before it) seem to be willing to bend over as far as need be to keep them happy.
It is also aided in part by the balance of power in the senate being held by an Assemblies of God candidate, who they need to keep on side to get anything done anyway. The electorate isn't terribly informed here - and 'family first' weren't very up-front about saying what they really represent either, so they got votes from plenty who had no idea what they were voting for.
Fortunately they still need the Greens too, so there's some chance this whole idea will be as still-born as it should always have been.
Or they need the Libs or Nationals. Backflip Barnaby would support it if only you waved a big fat check for the bush in his face. The Greens could be neutralised by pandering to the right of the political spectrum.
As someone said on TV last night, Australia is a democracy - which is why someone who was elected by less than 2% of the votes in their state can decide what we all read.
We also have that one state attorney general who has complete control over what we watch. Can't change the OFLC laws without all attorneys' general on board. So we won't get that R rating for games until that bastard Michael Atkinson is displaced by the South Australian public.
Instead of joining the Sex Party, people should join the Secular Party (www.secular.org.au). We're not only opposed to this ridiculous filtering but we're also trying to make sure religion has no influence on politics.
The filtering policy really is ridiculous. It would be great if all Australians (and even people overseas) could write a letter to their local newspapers and pollies explaining that we'd prefer not to have a filter that will slow our internet down, make it cost more, and be easy to circumvent.
The Greens are the only party that has outright opposed this on its merits, but I should correct somebody earlier and say that the Coalition isn't supporting it either. I always preference Labor ahead of the Libs but at least the Liberal policy just cost tax payers a lot of money, while this policy will cost us more money and slow our internet down - both for the same actual impact of achieving nothing.
www.nocleanfeed.com has a lot more information.
Our Benevolent Leader, (now the official terminology to address Prime Minister Kevin Rudd)is well known for being fluent in Mandarin. It appears he know has aspirations to be one.
Its widely suspected that a micro control chip was implanted by the Chinese and that he spends so much time either in China or talking with members of the Chinese Politburo so that they can continually upgrade said microchip. Along with his Minister for "Catering to Minority Pressure Groups to Help us Stay in Government" Stephen Conroy they are desperate to institute this election promise. Forget the fact that this promise was only to attract the lunatic fringe and that things like the economy, health, education and defense should have priority this is what they are running with.
The Family First party, which is the major backer of the plan in the minority parties, is dominated by the likes of the Hillsong Church. For all non Aussies this mob is an Evangelical Pentacostal cashed up political pressure group, sorry church, similar to the nut jobs Sarah Palin likes to hang with.
As others have stated the best way to combat this is to sign the existing petitions and also snail mail both Senator Conroy and your local member. (Sorry that term still makes me chuckle as some of them truly are). Also write letters to newspapers to voice your disapproval and why.
Alternately you could just keep your mouth shut and enroll in a Mandarin language course to prepare for Chairman Rudds great leap forward in the next four year plan.
I work in a schools in NSW Australia , and yes were all sick to death of this "protecting the children" bullshit. its just vote winning pandering to the idiots out there. Here's a site that hates the filtering idea, http://whirlpool.net.au/ ISP's hate it, technical ppl hate it.
This isnt the first time some dumb arse politician tried it, howard attempted it with that idiot Senator Alston, the one that rekoned internet was used for gambling or porn.
A few ISP's are trialing it atm, hopefully it fails a miserable death.
Is there a list of which ones are doing so?
#95 Kel
Optus and iiNet have indicated their intention to participate in the trial, I don't know of others at this stage.
Following is part of a post from iiNet as to why they are going to participate:
=====
So why are we volunteering to take part?
1. The Minister is not listening to the industry, believing instead that politically, this is a good thing to do. Whether it works or not. We will participate in the trial so that we can make sure the public, the media and the political players in this country are well informed and realise that it is bad policy.
2. We will publish our results. We are a big ISP and we will have good statistics to prove this is an ill-advised path to pursue.
3. We will continue to promote parental guidance of children's access to the internet as the best, most effective way to protect children from 'unwanted material' which will be different from household to household. Governments should not take the role of parents.
4. We hope that the outcome of this trial will be the final nail in the coffin of this misguided approach, which seems to re-surface with every new minister.
5. We will continue to be a good corporate citizen, co-operating with law enforcement agencies, as required by law.
6. We encourage all Australian citizens to contact their local member of parliament to express their concerns. They may also wish to contact the Minister's office to ensure he is informed as to their point of view:
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Deputy Leader Of The Government In The Senate,
minister@dbcde.gov.au
Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251
I really hope that iiNet's approach works. I'm also glad that I'm with Internode.
"I've never thought of Australia as a particularly strait-laced place."
Being a Kiwi, I've tended to regard Australia as an extremely straight-laced, reactionary country ... at least in terms of governance. This is the land where a state premier, Maurice Iemma, wrote an article entitled 'How God Guides My Rule' in a newspaper and was not hounded out of office for it. I wonder where anyone could get the impression that Australia is anything except a straight-laced prude?
This is the land where a state premier, Maurice Iemma, wrote an article entitled 'How God Guides My Rule' in a newspaper and was not hounded out of office for it.
New South Wales = the new Queensland.
My current speed is 1.5 Mbit/s,which is what I had 10 years ago when I lived in Germany,so we already have 1998 Internet speeds,thats before you even start filtering !
I would agree with previous commenters that Australia is a surprisingly conservative/repressive society,and very superficial,its all beer and beach,hardly anyone cares about politics(or religion).The pedo anxiety is laughably pathological.
That's easy. It was them or the other mob.
A bit like you guys and the Dems.
PZ,
if you've ever spent more than 5 minutes in Australia and if you look anything less than pure Anglo-Saxon you'd know immediately what kind of racist red-necks they are.
ask any Australian who discovered the continent and they will cheerily pronounce James Cook as the one but alas they forget that the dutch were there over a century before.
and it doesnt end there of course... their ignorance, complacency, credulity and arrogance are equalled only by their hair-brained stupidity.
yes, i know generalisations are not always accurate but just spend some time down under and you'll see what i mean.
This is true, but I think it is only the case because the Coalition is the opposition. Howard already introduced internet filtering last year, which was only optional software called NetAlert. Had Howard won, I have no doubt we'd still be in this same situation.
hohoho: Us Aussies are racist because the Dutch discovered Australia before Cook and we "forget" that? What about the Aboriginal Australians who were already here thousands of years before the Dutch? I think they have a better claim.
As for our "ignorance, complacency, credulity and arrogance are equalled only by their hair-brained stupidity"... I am sorry, your post has highlighted yourself as all of those points quite well.
FFS - all the stupidity I have dealt with today and you still managed to win by a mile. And trust me, that is nothing to be proud of.
As for the ISP Filter - Well, there goes the last bit of fun we were allowed to have. The Government limits us in the drinks we can have (and the way we drink them), the computer games we can play, the movies we can see... *sigh* They are taking all the bloody fun away from us.
Time to do some reading and some letter writing...
hohoho, #102
All us white Australians are racist against non-Anglo-Saxons? Gee, my aboriginal brother-in-law and my Torres Strait Islander nephew-in-law will be very surprised to hear that; it's funny how it didn't come up with my Romanian friend and his Italian wife when I saw them the other night, or at the wedding of my Vietnamese friends last year, or with the Balinese guy I work with.
I'm going to object on behalf of myself, Kel, Bride of Shrek (one OM and several nominations between us) and any of the other Australians who post here regularly - not sure whether Clinteas considers himself Australian under these circumstances - since we, at least, are far from ignorant, complacent, credulous, hare(not hair)-brained and/or stupid.
Arrogant? It depends.
If PZ were to spend any time here I'm sure he'd find the same mix of people you'd find anywhere - mostly good with a sprinkling of bad.
Don't generalise. Simple as that.
Socially, Australia is a very racist country. Remember the Cronulla riots? We have a new wave of jingoism sweeping portions of the community, it's very xenophobic. We even had a mainstream politician use race to justify her position on RU486 "we are aborting ourselves out of existence". I'd love to think that Australia is an open and tolerant society, but really we're just a bunch of loud-mouthed wankers who openly exhibit our disdain for other cultures...
...of course that's not everyone and there are many who are tolerant and working towards a more multicultural secular society. But that intolerant xenophobic jingoism is certainly a prominent player in the socio-economic make-up of Australian society. It's sad, but it's not likely to change in the future. Remember the Tampa.
Kel,
I'm not denying that - hell, I'm originally from country Queensland, and you don't get much more xenophobic and rednecked than many of the people there - but to tar us all with the same brush, on a blog like this where the Australian 'regulars' contribute a lot to the discussions, is a little insulting.
Hmmm... After reading this article it looks like the chances this will go ahead are fairly slim. The Coalition Party are likely to oppose it and one of the Greens senators is pretty vocally against it.
*sigh* I have no idea what happened - the above post was fine when I previewed it.
The two items I was trying to link to are:
Article about the chances of it passing: http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/26/can-labor-implement-clean-feed-without…
Article about Greens Senator opposed to filtering: http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/greens-senator-quizzes-conroy…
I know many people may already have said this, but to make it clear, very few people support this proposal. I'm a 14 year old in Melbourne, and I generally support the Labor government(though mostly as 'the lesser of two evils'), and I don't know a single person who supports the proposal.
We're not a backwards, primitive nation with a totalitarian government. The current government is actually doing quite a good job on the whole.
Wowbagger,
whether you call me a "no true Australian" or not lol,I meant what I said.
Jeremy @ 110,
Not totalitarian,no,I just wish someone could explain to me why every communications minister in this country wants to censor the Internet for everyone,instead of leaving it to the individual to implement filtering software should he/she so wish.
This government is severely hampered however by the fact thats its legislative majority depends on a couple of independents,esp that fringe cultist from FF.
Clinteas,
What I wrote about you wasn't in reference to your earlier comment. I didn't want to speak for you or assume that on an issue like this you wanted to be identified as an Australian, since (IIRC) you were born elsewhere and have spent a fair bit of time living OS.
I agree with how you described Australia (surprisingly conservative); it was the notion that someone had come to this blog and hadn't (apparently) noticed the significant number of Oz-based posters amongst the pro-science (and pro most other sensible things as well) regulars before making slightly obnoxious generalisations.
That I live in a conservative society with a history of racism and other serious flaws is one thing; to write something like 'their ignorance, complacency, credulity and arrogance are equalled only by their hair-brained stupidity.' is another.
I must say that, as much as I despise pornography and those who deal in it, I don't support a national Internet filter. Individual freedom should not be sacrificed for efficiency or expediency; and the Internet, which enables people to share information for free, is a very effective means of enabling free speech and preventing government monopoly of information. So I think this is the wrong approach for Australia to be taking. (This may be, incidentally, the first and only time I have agreed with the Green Party on anything...) While I do support the right of governments to prohibit pornographic and obscene material - I don't see that as a free speech issue, since it doesn't affect one's right to express one's views - I am concerned that a government which effectively controlled the Internet would, inevitably, be tempted to encroach ever more on people's freedom of political and religious expression (doubtless initially under the pretence of preventing "incitement to terrorism").
But at the same time, there should be a crack-down on child porn, with mandatory prison sentences for those who view it. We can't prevent it from being disseminated online, but we can deter it with a zero-tolerance policy.
Yeah I agree that wasnt very sophisticated,it sounded like that person had an axe to grind....
HoHoHo: but alas they forget that the dutch were there over a century before.
Begin snark:
And yet we named a whole state after the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. Presumably to hide the Dutch origins of the name Van Diemen's Land. Oh wait ...
Australia was still called New Holland waaaaay after British settlement.
End snark.
Kel, you mentioned the Tampa crisis as an example of the xenophobia that affects Australia and suggested that it probably won't change soon.
I think we're more a tad more complicated. The whole Tampa situation was disgraceful but we've already moved from threatening to clap Arne Rinnen in irons (and possibly sending him to Van Diemen's Land) to giving him the keys to the city of Melbourme (IIRC). Didn't he get lauded when he went to Sydney?
It seems to me that there's a self-correcting mechanism at work somewhere.
Have there been 'race' riots anywhere else other than the Sydney area? I can't think of any. (But it's late and my mind isn't working very well.) If not, perhaps that's a local problem rather than a systemic one. I dunno. (Not that my ignorance has stopped me commenting.)
Anyway, it's a bit of a derail. To get back on topic, internet censorship is a ridiculous proposition but not at all surprising. Our pollies appear to spend altogether too much time thinking about child pornography.
And now I'm off before I start sounding like Walton.
Refreshing debut,Brachy,keep them coming ! And yes,you wouldnt want to sound like Walton.
Although,if even Walton can tell that a proposition is stupid,thats telling you something.
and it doesnt end there of course... their ignorance, complacency, credulity and arrogance are equalled only by their hair-brained stupidity.
yes, i know generalisations are not always accurate but just spend some time down under and you'll see what i mean.
I think you're confusing Australia with a Sarah Palin rally.
I just wish someone could explain to me why every communications minister in this country wants to censor the Internet for everyone,instead of leaving it to the individual to implement filtering software should he/she so wish.
I suspect it's because the communications ministers have had very little idea about the technology, don't have the balls to ask for funding for huge infrastructure upgrades, don't have much influence anyway since Telstra was privatised, but still want to appear to be doing something, so leap on the "anti-porn" bandwagon to try and attract the morality vote.
Walton (@113):
I don't intend to restart the thread we just had about sex, but I'm curious: Is it pornography you despise, or the sexual exploitation of women? If I could show you examples of the former that were demonstrably not examples of the latter, would you still despise them?
I ask because I'm aware of (again, don't ask me how I know this! [g]) several sex-positive, strongly pro-woman adult websites, all owned and/or operated by women (frequently with the same women running the business who appear before the cameras). Several of these are based in Australia, so they're relevant examples when discussing government censorship in Australia.
Really? So you see "free speech" as limited to the expression of "views"? By that do you mean only intellectual, as opposed to aesthetic or emotional, ideas? Or perhaps only political views, as opposed to cultural or lifestyle views (if that distinction makes any sense)? Wouldn't carving out that distinction leave all the arts — not just sexually explicit art — open to censorship? That is, if you limit free speech protections to expressions of "views," don't you risk being subjected to someone else's draconian ideas about what that term includes?
Not for nothin', BTW, but plenty of people consider sexually explicit material very political indeed. People whose own sexual preferences and lives are marginalized and persecuted by the larger society often consider publishing "their kind" of pornography a very strong (and very liberating) statement of their "views." Ironically, many explicit works that would be considered perverse by the mainstream culture could more easily be defended as political expressions than could "normal" sexually explicit material. The distinction you seem to be promoting between (protected) "views" and other (non-protected, according to you) kinds of expression might have some amusing unintended consequences if applied to sexual material.
Brachychiton (@116):
Yah, I wonder about this. Of course, even one instance of sexual exploitation of a child is reprehensible, and nothing I say should be construed as defending same in any sense... but from the POV of addressing large-scale social problems with public policy, is this really high on the list? How much child pornography is there, and where does it rank compared to other things (poverty, hunger, disease, war) that threaten the lives and wellbeing of children around the world? Even within the narrower category of sexual threats to children, is child pornography really a bigger concern than, for instance, child prostitution and sexual trafficking?
I fear this might be an issue, like that of "voter fraud" in the U.S., whose importance is vastly exaggerated because its emotional, fear-inspiring nature makes it an excellent lever to achieve other political ends. That is, in the same way that U.S. Republicans have used fear of voter fraud (incidence of which is absolutely negligible, according to all valid studies) to justify their programs of voter suppression under the guise of "protecting the vote," I fear some politicians may be exaggerating the incidence of child pornography in order to justify broader censorship and legal supression of sexuality under the guise of "protecting the children."
We absolutely must protect children; let's not cynically use children to support "protecting" adults from their own wants and desires.
@Bill Dauphin (#70)
I thought our adult industry was all but dead. Considering I can't actually legally R rated DVD's in my state.
Palm Island.
We will get better over time, but there are some real problems that need to be overcome. While I'm very shitted off at Rudd over this policy, and his faux-attempt at helping the environment, and many other things, I find his brand of politics a lot more accomodating and that should rub off in the community. Having the Libs in for the last decade was very venomous, it's great to get Howard out of the scene and relegate the likes of Abbott to irrelevance.
So yeah, back to the internet filter. Very pissed off with Labor about this, honestly thought they would do more to protect the civil liberties of the population. Just hoping that the opposition have the sense to block it and the greens not to sell out for the environments sake.
This is why I read Slashdot - they've been covering this for over a month.
I sincerely hope that the Democrats and the Secular Party do better in the next federal election, although I wouldn't want to bet the family jewels on it.
I voted for the Democrats, followed by the Secular Party in the last election, because I could foresee what would happen if the accursed 'Family First'(Fanatical Fucktard) Party gained a seat in the Senate. And lo and behold they are certainly playing true to form, just as I expected.
The Democrats need another leader like Don Chip.
He certainly wasn't afraid to speak his mind, vote his conscience, and "keep the bastards honest" in the Senate.
Alas, as another poster mentioned, they are almost dead in the water at the moment. As of 1 July 2008 the Democrats have no federal representation for the first time since their founding in 1977. Sad day for Australia.
Relax, PZ and everyone else, this will never get off the ground and everyone in IT business knows it. As for some of the statements here regarding how puritan/racist/homophobic Australians are, this is utter crap and you clearly don't know this country and its people well. We may have our wowsers and racists but they are a small minority and widely ignored. As far as freedoms being restricted, apart from the "freedom" to own firearms, i think we are one of the
free-est countries on earth - try even finding a cop in the northern territory.
Bill Dauphin: I ask because I'm aware of (again, don't ask me how I know this! [g]) several sex-positive, strongly pro-woman adult websites, all owned and/or operated by women (frequently with the same women running the business who appear before the cameras).
How can you tell? To the best of my (very limited) knowledge, many porn sites promote the illusion that the participants "enjoy" the activities in which they're engaging for the camera - but how can you really tell that this isn't all a pretence, with the participants, in reality, trapped into sex work due to drug addiction or lack of other opportunities? I don't doubt that there are some women who participate in the porn industry because they really want to - but one can't really determine this from the content of a website, and personally I find the whole internet porn industry ethically dubious, at best.
Not for nothin', BTW, but plenty of people consider sexually explicit material very political indeed. People whose own sexual preferences and lives are marginalized and persecuted by the larger society often consider publishing "their kind" of pornography a very strong (and very liberating) statement of their "views."
This seems to me just a rationalisation, attempting to assign some sort of noble purpose to what is, in reality, just sexual gratification.
If someone feels that their sexual preferences and lifestyle choices are being unfairly marginalised, then, in a free society, they have every right to argue this in rational debate, and to campaign for a change in the status quo. Pornography, in contrast, is not a legitimate means of expressing one's views.
Says who? Who gets to decide what's legitimate expression and what is not? You?
No, but it's an expression of a purely legal act. If what's happening in the pornography is permissible in peoples homes, why shouldn't it be permissible to view in peoples homes?
@ John Scanlon FCD #84
Yes, I agree GetUp has been slow to start a campaign. Perhaps they have fewer staff since the election is over. I got an email reply today saying they would be starting a campaign.
GetUp quote:
"The issue of internet censorship has been identified as one which there is no doubt that GetUp will act on, especially considering the nature of our work.
Please rest assured that our independence from any political party is at the core of our organisation's campaigns and we have been working behind the scenes to develop a campaign which we hope will be effective in avoiding the proposed system."
Well, I've blogged my two cents' worth, and done a fair job of it as well. (Breathes on nails and buffs them against chest.) If anyone still can't understand the idiocy of this policy when viewed as a road-user analogy, then I'll eat my shorts.
http://timlamb.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-internet-filter-is-bad-thing.ht…
Tess (@120):
Very curious: I've heard comments like yours before, yet, as I said, I know that there are a number of sex-positive, woman-friendly adult sites operated out of (and with content created in) Australia. As I gather is true for PZ, I'm somewhat confused by Oz, which seems very sexually liberated in some ways and very prudish in others. I only wish I had the time and resources to travel there and see for myself.
Walton (@125):
Didn't I say not to ask me? [g] But for the sake of your education...
Your knowledge is very limited concerning the sexual content currently available, or the conditions under which much of it is made. There may have been a time when "smut" consisted mostly of women who were only participating under some sort of compulsion — whether ordinary poverty or something even more sinister — but I doubt that's true these days, even in the commercial mainstream porn industry. It's certainly not generally true of the vast swath of alternative and user-generated adult content now available on teh intertoobz.
I'm unwilling to link to adult paysites in comments at someone else's blog, but here's [note: there's some nudity at this link, but no explicit sexual content, and no nudity on the front page] the parent company of a couple of the sites I had in mind. At this site you'll find a mission statement, as well as testimonials from "contributors" (their term-of-art for on-camera talent), many of whom are also involved in producing and editing content, or in the business aspects of the operation. Several of those contributors are people I've corresponded with, both on the forums at the sites they work for and at nonaffiliated sites (i.e., their own personal blogs or third-party forums not connected to their adult sites). All caution about identities on the net notwithstanding, I'm convinced that these are real people, and that their enthusiasm for their work &mash; dare I say their art — is genuine. One of them actually moved from California to Australia specifically to work with this company. Since you're a fan of markets, I'll put it in market terms: There's so much plain commercial porn out there, and so much demand for it without regard to how "real" it is, that the contortions required to successfully fake an alt.porn site would be unprofitable.
There's that limited knowledge again. While some porn — no doubt most mainstream commercial porn — has as its purpose "just" sexual gratification ("just" in quotes because reject the implication that sexual gratification is trivial... or, for that matter, ignoble), lots of sexually explicit material has quite clear political implications, and often very clear political intentions. Even when it's not overtly political, erotica often has aesthetic aspirations far beyond mere prurience. Roughly 50 years ago, Tom Lehrer (his generation's Roy Zimmerman [g]) sang...
As the judge remarked the day that he
Acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
-terly without redeeming social importance!"
...and on vanishingly few occasions has that been held to be the case (at least in the U.S.), despite no small interest in opposing porn.
As Emmet so elegantly put it, says who?
For many whose sexual preferences or lifestyles are outside the mainstream, and who have therefore suffered legal and cultural oppression, sex is politics! And for those folks, sexually explicit art has often served as very effective agitprop. This is the very core of free speech, IMHO, not some silly rationalization.
Remember that legal protections for free expression only mean anything if they protect extreme views and unpopular means of expressions; mainstream views and well-accepted expressions usually don't need the help.
BTW, if you still doubt that sexual material has sociopolitical value, or that sex work can be woman-friendly, I strongly suggest you check out Susie Bright [some nudity at that link, too, but IIRC PZ has linked to Susie in the past]. Her politics may make your head explode, but you won't doubt for a minute that she's political... nor will you imagine anyone has forced her into anything, nor that she would ever be an apologist for the exploitation of women.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"... and there's more to feminism than the late Andrea Dworkin.
Dang! Somehow I (you should pardon the expression) screwed up the first link in my previous comment (@130). Here 'tis:
http://www.feck.com.au/nakedambition/index.php
(Also hosed up an em-dash, but y'all can figure that one out.)
Further to Bill's references above, I offer an Australian site. [Wikipedia link - it's safe, Walton!]
Walton,
How eould you know ?
Do you know anything at all about this industry, or is it pure fantasy ?
John Morales:
That's actually one of the sites I had in mind (Abbywinters, I mean, not wikipedia!), though I like the Feck family of sites better. AW is, I think, woman-owned; the Feck sites are owned (not 100% sure that's the right way to put it) by a man, but AFAIK virtually all the staff are women (and many of them work on both sides of the camera).
Thanks, BTW, for not leaving me hanging as the only self-confessed consumer of adult entertainment! ;^)
I don't work for any Australian porn sites but I have friends who've contributed to them and I help moderate a forum I love for a Feck site, so I have a fairly broad experience of Australian porn sites which is in some places quite a bit more than an inch deep.
No organization is perfect, as I see it the problems are usually similar to the clashes of personalities and disagreements you'd find working for a music label or creative publisher. Most people I know who've worked for both AW and Feck have loved it, both the money and much of the attention they get from "fans" but feel a certain amount of social pressure to be ashamed when in fact female sexuality is beautiful, and I personally feel sexual images and the people in them should be respected with the same adult social acceptance level as any beauty contest, if not simply just for the people being brave and giving us pleasure.
The problem with porn is the attitude of many people who view it, and the misconception is that those people form the entire market. Thats not true, and the Australian sites mentioned have realized this and thats contributed quite a lot to their success . So this is what I see as the real problem with porn.
People have 2 minds, we have a conscious mind and a libido and the 2 can conflict.
Androsexuals both men and women appreciate the beauty of men and
Gynosexuals both men and women appreciate the beauty of women. Where the male libido celebrates it's dominance over women there is a problem tho. Where that dominance is contained between consenting adults within the "game" of sex it contributes to peoples enjoyment, but when it isn't contained and men seek to dominate women without their consent you have misogyny, wether it's forcing or pressuring them to be sexually available or telling women how "modest" or not they should be. Being in control of your libido is the side to being a gentleman thats definitely worth keeping and helps women empower themselves so their proud and comfortable as sexual beings.
Fucking with the sex industry seems like a foolish idea since they made fucking an industry. Not to mention their rather deep pockets, large consumer base, and huge media output.
GetUp has finally started a campaign. Aussies can sign the petition using a valid email address. Their target of 20,000 seems quite low. It's been less than one day since they emailed their membership & already >16,400 have signed.
www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442