<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 08/07/2010, at 12:41 PM, Pinkerton, Eric wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">The gov't has a simplistic view that it can just use
the model it applies to other mediums for the internet, ie film/books
etc etc - thus for these sort of hypothetical questions you should
use these mediums as analogous where law is
concerned.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And this is where, amongst other things, their argument breaks down:</div><div><br></div><div>It's iilegal to show a range of content in a public place (eg. movie cinema). But it is not illegal to own or view. </div><div>So they actually want to do MORE as far as censorship goes as they want to prevent you looking at it in your own home. As my previous message this is more than just pornography but content which is part of legitimate professional knowledge/research as well as politcal debate.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">If the gov't bans a film/book, and you go
overseas, buy it and bring it back hidden in your luggage - are you
therefore automatically free from prosecutuion because customs failed to find
it?</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>See above - if it's child porn, then you goto jail (as you should). However, owning RC material is NOT ILLEGAL. </div><div><br></div><div>MMC</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">Tell that to your cellmates in the excersise
yard...</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">PS </font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="086520203-08072010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">IANAL</font></span></div><br>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>
[mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew
Oskam<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 8 July 2010 1:01 PM<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] Australian Censorship
program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall<br></font><br></div>
<div></div><font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">I think I already know the answer
and the response that will be received..but I'll say it anyways.<br><br>Let's
say that I access a blacklisted website by bypassing the filter by whatever
means.<br><br>As the filter is supposed to be my safeguard against this content
- Does this mean that if the filter, in one way or another, is ineffective in
protecting me that I am not capable or being held criminally
accountable?<br><br>Further to this, If I choose to bypass the filter (which
Conroy has indicated will not be considered an illegal activity) am I still free
from being held criminally accountable?<br><br>I guess what I am trying to say
is, Who is meant to be held accountable for viewing such content? How is the
filter really meant to be considered a safeguard if they are not intending to
police the full extend of its effectiveness.<br><br>As a citizen, I would think
that if this holy grail of filters is meant to protect me - why is the
government not prohibiting me from bypassing it?<br><br>And if I am caught
viewing such content and pulled to the side my the AFP - Then I would say to
them that I assumed that I would be free to view the content because they did
not specifically say that I couldn't bypass the system.<br><br>To me (I'm going
to use an analogy here), It seems as though the government is
saying:<br><br>"Well good sir, I don't want you to eat this cookie - but if you
decide to ignore me and break the padlock I won't say anything :)"<br><br>Food
for thought?<br></font></font>
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="Section1"><br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="650" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><p class="MsoAutoSig"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">Andrew
Oskam<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoAutoSig"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">E <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:percy@th3interw3bs.net">percy@th3interw3bs.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><br><p class="MsoAutoSig"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">NOTICE:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoAutoSig"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">These comments are
my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or
opinions of my employer or their affiliates. All comments are based upon my
current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct
independent tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email
before basing any decisions upon those statements.
<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>