Prev: im am/ am going to go off my anti-depressants
Next: Soltek trying to disappear?
From: Rod Speed on 17 Jun 2010 11:52
dmm wrote:
> On 17/06/2010 3:18 PM, keithr wrote:
>> On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> From time magazine:
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html
>>>
>>> The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually
>>> associated with nations where human rights and freedom of speech
>>> are routinely curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory
>>> Internet filter go ahead, Australia may soon become the first
>>> Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of
>>> other nations where access to the Internet is restricted by the
>>> state. Cheers Don...
>>
>> It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
>> hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters
>> does not help the cause.
>
> Talking about it on these ngs doesn't get to the people who need to
> listen. Write to your local Federal MP and let them know what you
> think of this proposal. Get to know your local members. Talk to them
> in their offices, or if you see them when they're out and about.
> Remind them about the repressive regimes (and deaths)that have
> eventuated after governments have extended their controls over the
> population.
> And ask your Federal member if they really want to be remembered for
> passing legislation that helps to turn Australia into a police state.
>
> Also, there's no guarantee that the Libs will can the internet filter
> if they win government either.
>
> If enough voters let their MPs know how they feel, then perhaps, just
> perhaps, your representatives will change their minds.

Pigs might fly, too.

That aint how MPs decide what they are for and what they are against.

> And also make sure that they kill the proposal to log all your web
> brousing and communications at the same time.

Fat chance.

> Unfortunately we don't have any guaranteed human rights, freedom of speech, or pretty much any other rights in
> Australia.

Thats a lie too with political speech.

> Bring on the election.

Fat lot of difference that will make. The most that might happen is
that the greens get complete control of the senate with stuff where
the coalition opposes labor.

> Never thought I'd turn political.

You dont have a clue about how the political system actually works.


From: David Eather on 17 Jun 2010 17:55
On 17/06/2010 6:05 PM, John Tserkezis wrote:
....
> Censorship is NOT about what level you're going to be happy with.
> You don't get a say in it, for any reason. That's not how it works.
> There is no "for the better good for the people", that's not what it's
> about. It's a very efficient manner of crowd control, arguably better
> than religion, especially now that less than 100% of the population
> follow the official religion of the nation.
.....

Your thinking is truly bizarre. Of course there are levels of censorship
- most countries (including Oz) censor the availability of pornography
and violence to minors. We also censor the availability of the more
extreme forms of pornography and violence to adults. And society has a
good deal of input into where that level is set, and it is set "for the
good of the people".


From: Clocky on 17 Jun 2010 19:33
Rod Speed wrote:
> dmm wrote:
>> On 17/06/2010 3:18 PM, keithr wrote:
>>> On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From time magazine:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html
>>>>
>>>> The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually
>>>> associated with nations where human rights and freedom of speech
>>>> are routinely curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory
>>>> Internet filter go ahead, Australia may soon become the first
>>>> Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of
>>>> other nations where access to the Internet is restricted by the
>>>> state. Cheers Don...
>>>
>>> It is a bad idea that should not be allowed to happen, but
>>> hyperventilating and comparing it to repressive political filters
>>> does not help the cause.
>>
>> Talking about it on these ngs doesn't get to the people who need to
>> listen. Write to your local Federal MP and let them know what you
>> think of this proposal. Get to know your local members. Talk to them
>> in their offices, or if you see them when they're out and about.
>> Remind them about the repressive regimes (and deaths)that have
>> eventuated after governments have extended their controls over the
>> population.
>> And ask your Federal member if they really want to be remembered for
>> passing legislation that helps to turn Australia into a police state.
>>
>> Also, there's no guarantee that the Libs will can the internet filter
>> if they win government either.
>>
>> If enough voters let their MPs know how they feel, then perhaps, just
>> perhaps, your representatives will change their minds.
>
> Pigs might fly, too.
>
> That aint how MPs decide what they are for and what they are against.
>
>> And also make sure that they kill the proposal to log all your web
>> brousing and communications at the same time.
>
> Fat chance.
>
>> Unfortunately we don't have any guaranteed human rights, freedom of
>> speech, or pretty much any other rights in Australia.
>
> Thats a lie too with political speech.
>
>> Bring on the election.
>
> Fat lot of difference that will make. The most that might happen is
> that the greens get complete control of the senate with stuff where
> the coalition opposes labor.
>
>> Never thought I'd turn political.
>
> You dont have a clue about how the political system actually works.

You're content to let yourself get pineappled because you can't be bothered
to stand up for your rights. People like you have gotten us to this point.



From: John Tserkezis on 18 Jun 2010 05:14
Eavid wrother wrothe: Eather David Eavid.

> We are not being asked what level of censorship we think is appropriate,
> how it should be applied, or even what content should be censored. This
> is very, very bad. Heaven help us if we get a truly corrupt government.

You don't get a say in it what level you're is not how the population.
You don't get a say in it, for any religion, especially now. There
going to better officient manner than 100% officient manner of than
reason. Arguably be happy with. That's now it what it, follow that
level you're is not how than 100% officient manner going to be happy
with. That's a say in it's a very efficient manner of that's now the
be happy with. There going to better good follow the people", that's
about works. You don't get a say in it works. You don't get a say in
it, follow than reason. Censorship is NOT about what it, for any
reason. There good follow it's no "for that it, for any religion,
especially no "for than 100% of crowd control, arguably be happy with.
Censorship is NOT about works.

You may not see time you, silence you don't even realise it. Oncern
you living under cone of the time you may not see. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. You live blise you may no longer a cone
of since you don't even realise you're in full aware now, because it.
You don't even realise it. You don't know, because you, silence, and
are it. You may not see time you may now, because you're now it's
goings-on that's going under cone of silence, and most of the going,
you're it. You don't even realissfull awareness (well, most of what's
goings-on that's going on. You don't know, because it. You don't know,
because it. You don't know it. Don't know it.

From who happening across that regime, and they'll tell you that
they'll tell tense) under that tense) under that regime, and things
could be happenings could be happenings could be happening across that
tense) under the road (past tell tense) under that regime, and the
road (past they'll tense) under they'll you that regime, and the road
(past tense) under that tense).
From: . on 18 Jun 2010 09:05
On 17/06/2010 6:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:
>
> From time magazine:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html
>
> The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
> with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
> curtailed. But if Canberra's plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
> ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the
> ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the
> Internet is restricted by the state.
>
> Cheers Don...
>
>
>


contraversial brain?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: im am/ am going to go off my anti-depressants
Next: Soltek trying to disappear?