Keith's Journal

Let me ask you: is censorship a good thing?

A lot of people may say "Yes" becasue they are thinking of things like child pornography. But what if the government is stopping you from seeing things that you think are OK, but the government doesn't want you to see? What if not only do they not tell you what it is you aren't allowed to look at, but they won't tell you where to go to find what they don't want you to see? What if they fine you for linking to a banned internet site, or to a site that lists the internet addresses of the things they don't want you to see?

What if one of those things the Government doesn't want to see is a pro-life, anti-abortion web-site?

Wouldn't happen here?

Read this:

Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day

Asher Moses
March 17, 2009 - 11:48AM

The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's list of banned websites.

The move by the Australian Communications and Media Authority comes after it threatened the host of online broadband discussion forum Whirlpool last week with a $11,000-a-day fine over a link published in its forum to another page blacklisted by ACMA - an anti-abortion website.

ACMA's blacklist does not have a significant impact on web browsing by Australians today but sites contained on it will be blocked for everyone if the Federal Government implements its mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme.

But even without the mandatory censorship scheme, as is evident in the Whirlpool case, ACMA can force sites hosted in Australia to remove "prohibited" pages and even links to prohibited pages.

Online civil liberties campaigners have seized on the move by ACMA as evidence of how casually the regulator adds to its list of blacklisted sites. It also confirmed fears that the scope of the Government's censorship plan could easily be expanded to encompass sites that are not illegal.

"The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship," Wikileaks said on its website in response to the ACMA ban.

The site has also published Thailand's internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

Already, a significant portion of the 1370-site Australian blacklist - 506 sites - would be classified R18+ and X18+, which are legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.

Electronic Frontiers Australia said the leak of the Danish blacklist and ACMA's subsequent attempts to block people from viewing it showed how easy it would be for ACMA's own blacklist - which is secret - to be leaked onto the web once it is handed to ISPs for filtering.

"We note that, not only do these incidents show that the ACMA censors are more than willing to interpret their broad guidelines to include a discussion forum and document repository, it is demonstrably inevitable that the Government's own list is bound to be exposed itself at some point in the future," EFA said.

"The Government would serve the country well by sparing themselves, and us, this embarrassment."

Last week, Reporters Without Borders, in its regular report on enemies of internet freedom, placed Australia on its "watch list" of countries imposing anti-democratic internet restrictions that could open the way for abuses of power and control of information.

The main issue raised was the Government's proposed internet censorship regime.

"This report demolished the Communications Minister's contention that Australia is just following other comparable democracies," Greens communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam said.

"We are not. The Government is embarking on a deeply unpopular and troubling experiment to fine-tune its ability to censor the internet.

"I agree with Reporters Without Borders. If you consider this kind of net censorship in the context of Australia's anti-terror laws, it paints a disturbing picture indeed."

EFA said the Government's "spin is starting to wear thin" and it could no longer be denied that the ACMA blacklist targets a huge range of material that is legal and even uncontroversial.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has repeatedly claimed his proposed mandatory filters would target only "illegal" content - predominantly child pornography.

"As time goes on, pressure will only mount on the Government to expand the list, while money and effort are poured into an enormous black box that will neither help kids nor stem the flow of illegal material," EFA said.

"If the minister truly believes that children are seeking out, or being bombarded with, child pornography, then there's a dearth of both common sense and proper research in the ministerial suites."

Already, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, has said he hopes the sex industry will go broke as a result of the censorship scheme.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon previous expressed his desire to have online gambling sites added to the blacklist but has since withdrawn his support for the scheme, saying it was dangerous and could be "counter-productive".

The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked.

The Opposition has obtained legal advice that "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required", but others have said it may be possible to implement the scheme without legislation.

Speaking at a telecommunications conference last week, Senator Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs to pass the right legislation.

Despite previously saying his scheme would be expanded to block "refused classification" content that includes sites depicting drug use, sex, crime, cruelty and violence, he said opponents of his plan were spreading "conspiracy theories".

The Government's internet censorship trials are due to begin shortly but critics have said they may not provide much useful data on the real-world implications because none of the major ISPs were chosen to take part.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html

The ABC has led a particulalry vitriolic campaign against the Catholic Church during the World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney, digging up old abuse cases in an attempt to vilify the Church.

Here is a commentary by Andrew Bolt which I tihnk is absolutely spot-on, particularly the last couple of paragraphs.

THE reporter on the ABC’s 7.30 Report sounded sad. The Catholic Church couldn’t find enough men keen to be priests, she sighed.

Gosh. Wondered why? Then check, say, the reports the ABC’s Lateline ran to welcome the Pope and thousand of Catholic pilgrims to Sydney.

“Exclusive documents reveal church ignored abuse allegations”, “New evidence in church abuse case”, “Broken Rites president joins Lateline”, “Demonstrators oppose Catholic Church policies”, “Father of assault victims to visit Pope”. And so on.

Hmm. Now why aren’t more Australians joining up to be vilified?

It hardly needs saying that I despise pedophiles and rapists. But even as a non-Christian, I smell bigotry.

In fact, it seems much of the Left-wing media has tried furiously to make sure when we think of Catholicism, in this week of celebration of the faith, that we think not Saviour but slime.

New laws against protesters that the church never asked for were portrayed as a symbol of church oppression. A newspaper ran a competition for the best anti-Catholic T-shirt. And an ABC host urged men to bait Catholics by going naked, but for a condom.

Meanwhile his colleagues looked for a story to hit the Catholics’ most senior figure here, Cardinal George Pell. And Lateline found it in a man who said he’d been sexually assaulted by a stereotypical dirty priest.

How hard was it trying to find a stick? This victim, Anthony Jones, was 29 when he went swimming at night with a priest, who fondled him. He swam off, aroused, but returned to the priest’s bedroom, dressed in a towel.

There a sexual encounter took place. In convicting the priest for a then-illegal act, a judge later found Jones could have left had he wanted.

And all this happened 26 long years ago. So why bring it up now? Because, Jones conceded, it might at this sensitive time make the church give him $3.5 million—or $100,000, final offer. Let’s not call this blackmail.

He deserved the door. He got instead the media limelight.

Another case long dealt with has also been revived, for much the same reason, by a media that tends to be hostile to any institution that acknowledges a higher authority than the musings of the journalistic pack.

I despise it all. Of the priests I’ve known, not one deserves this casual vilification as pedophiles, or their protectors. And when I check how their church touches even my life, I see one of its hospitals, in which my children were born. I see its churchmen tackling forces that rip up homes and make our streets unsafe. I see its intellectuals preaching values I recognise as essential for the defence of our weak. And I see a faith that exhorts its—yes, fallible—believers to goodness, integrity and public service.

Such a faith deserves respect. Instead, there’s that hooting mob, brandishing cobwebbed skeletons to smash one of the few institutions still trying to civilise the barbarians.

Full article and comments

From the ABC:

The creator of children's favourite Paddington Bear insists the furry creature has not gone off marmalade, despite a new ad campaign linking him to another sandwich filling.

Michael Bond wrote to The Times newspaper after the makers of yeast-based spread Marmite used Paddington in an advert for a new version of its product.

Specifically he poured cold water on rumours that he was paid for the advert, while his daughter - who runs Paddington and Co, making money out of the Bear from Peru - defended the decision to let him be used in the advert.

"I should be so lucky - particularly since I didn't write it. In fact, I have to report that although Paddington found the sandwiches interesting, bears are creatures of habit," Bond said in a letter.

"It would require a good deal more than the combined current withdrawals from Northern Rock to wean him off marmalade, if then," he added, referring to a recent crisis at the embattled British bank.

Bond wrote 11 books charting the adventures of Paddington between 1958 and 1979.

They have been translated into 30 languages and turned into a hugely popular BBC television series.

Paddington - a label around his neck stating "Please look after this bear, thank you" - arrives at Paddington station in London from Peru wearing a duffle coat, hat, Wellington boots and clutching a battered suitcase.

Inside is an almost empty jar of marmalade.

The Brown family take him in to their home at number 32 Windsor Gardens unaware of the chaos he will inflict on their lives.

Bond's daughter Karen Jankel has also defended the Marmite advertising tie-in with Anglo-Dutch giant Unilever, which has produced a more spreadable version of its viscous black product - called Squeezy Marmite and sold in a tube.

She stressed that Paddington only tries Marmite in the advert, and does not change over to it altogether.

"Unilever wanted to encourage people to try Marmite in their sandwiches, and they were looking for a character famous for eating sandwiches," she said.

"The point of the advert is that Paddington always has marmalade in his sandwiches. He simply tries Marmite."

- AFP

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/20/2038288.htm