[AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

On 08/07/2010, at 12:41 PM, Pinkerton, Eric wrote:

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.

And this is where, amongst other things, their argument breaks down:

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.
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.



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?

See above - if it's child porn, then you goto jail (as you should).   However, owning RC material is NOT ILLEGAL.

MMC


Tell that to your cellmates in the excersise yard...

PS

IANAL

________________________________
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Oskam
Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 1:01 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Australian Censorship program to go ahead - Gillard supports a the great firewall

I think I already know the answer and the response that will be received..but I'll say it anyways.

Let's say that I access a blacklisted website by bypassing the filter by whatever means.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

To me (I'm going to use an analogy here), It seems as though the government is saying:

"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 :)"

Food for thought?


Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net<mailto:percy at th3interw3bs.net>



NOTICE:

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100708/401a0e35/attachment.html>