Aussie mandatory net filtering & sexual fetishes

[wintrmute]

Perhaps this will encourage some more of my flist to contact their local MPs..
You already know that the mandatory net filter is intended to block illegal/prohibited material.

But did you know that according to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, this includes content which describes drug use or sexual fetishesI know some of you are on Livejournal

Comments

[pond876]

Finally wrote to the Minister and my MP (well the MP for the electorate I'm registered in.. ). Thanks for your continued reminders, I'd been putting that off for some time.

In the process of writing said letter, I came across some fantastically flawed arguments for mandatory Internet filtering, from the Australian Family Association.

http://www.family.org.au/media/sexual_integrity.htm
http://family.org.au/Pornography/filtering.htm

I can't believe the amount of baseless statistics, blanket generalisations and anonymous quotes. [citation needed!]

[wintrmute]

Hang on a mo.. according to that first site, 100% of sex crimes were committed by people who had watched pornography at least once (and imply that the pornography CAUSED the violent sex crime); and it also claims that 84% of all men have seen some pornography once... Isn't that destroying their own argument?
WTF?!

AAARGH! They make no sense yet they are going to fuck up OUR lives. :(

[wintrmute]

Erm, I should clarify that it's not the filtering of pornography that I am concerned about. Rather, I am concerned that these mad people and their obsession with pretending stuff doesn't exist will cause the government to institute something far worse, and:
a) slow down the internet massively,
b) censor all sorts of stuff.

For instance, do you think you'll be able to view charity or news sites talking about child prostitution in asia? How about breast cancer support sites? Sexual health forums? Narcotics Anonymous?
Even photos of your relative's with their new-born naked babies wouldn't be liable for censorship.

And worst of all? We, as taxpayers, are currently FUNDING this!

ARGH!

[pond876]

You may remember that Google AdSense thinks I have a latex fetish (rumours of which are greatly exaggerated!), and posts text links to fetish websites on non-sex related websites.

This is bad enough now, since so many of the websites I view use AdSense -- but if this bill gets through and starts trying to block "fetish" content, I won't be able to view a damn thing online :\

[wintrmute]

Actually, I think you'll be OK.. The Google AdWords stuff is done via javascript, and loaded separately to the page itself; so you'd probably get the page OK and minus the adverts.. Who knew the govt would provide adblocking! :)

(well, OK, it depends how they implement it..)