Hard News: Standing with the Poo
69 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
We seem to be developing a culture of saying "First!" here as if we're the denizens of comment threads at Ain't It Cool News.
Anyway...
After your last show with Jon, Mr. Litterick and I were walking home and bumped into some fellow from the Listener who was very disparaging of Mr. Stephenson. It seems that getting out of your armchair to do research isn't responsible journalism...
-
Also, I like how the button for the first post is "Start Discussion."
-
Hmm, third post already? Anyway, I'm not sure the Grand Wizard is in anyway innocent of Science; he does seem to quite actively protest against any science which has the temerity to be political (such as this blasted socialist weather system which is trying to persuade us that the climate is changing).
-
Victoria University has a filter that will block out sites with extreme political views. I have seen this in action. And yes, it's a university, not an airport. Also, as you'd expect, these sites aren't censored by humans, they let a very hit-and-miss algorithm do their bidding.
-
*sigh* Don't you just hate it when a belief in free speech requires you to stand up for people who make you want to run out for a wire brush and industrial detergent.
I don't care. I am disturbed at how easily a just-think-of-the-children policy on the part of the Australian government can be turned to silence this sort of rhetorical circle-jerk.
Indeed -- and as other infinitely more web-savvy folks have pointed out, the Australian Government is far from open about who decides what constitutes "extremist" speech or "pornography" or how they do it. (And anyone who persists in asking uppity questions better get used to having their character and motives assassinated by the usual suspects in the media-political complex.)
Which strikes this wet liberal pussy as a pretty toxic form of extremism in itself...
-
I'm sure a patient search would turn up many more examples of weird, unpleasant speech
I have no desire to trawl Perigo's site, but I recall a post from Mr Perigo a few months ago that suggested Barack Obama ought to be assassinated if he refused to listen to the voices of those who voted for "change" in the Massachusetts Senate race.
I wondered at the time whether that post would interest the US authorities. They take a dim view of threats to their Presidents. It might explain the airport's actions.
-
Yes - that was going to be my next question. Do we know it's the Aussie national censoring filter and not the airport's?
-
I have no desire to trawl Perigo's site, but I recall a post from Mr Perigo a few months ago that suggested Barack Obama ought to be assassinated if he refused to listen to the voices of those who voted for "change" in the Massachusetts Senate race.
I'm sure he did. I seem to recall he also called for armed insurrection in New Zealand on a couple of occasions.
What a numpty.
-
Yes - that was going to be my next question. Do we know it's the Aussie national censoring filter and not the airport's?
Good point. Although my guess would be that the airports would use the official government filter rather than build their own.
-
Yes - that was going to be my next question. Do we know it's the Aussie national censoring filter and not the airport's?
That's a fair question, but in my (admittedly limited) experience airports filter so you're not accessing porn or flashing banner ads full of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular in semi-public spaces. Hell, who would be crazy enough to log on to deathtotheinfidelgreatsatanamerikkka,com in an airport net kiosk anyway?
-
Lots of issues around this. Supposedly we can vote governments in and out but I suspect internet censorship is one tail wagging dog area minority parties will love.
Equally worrying is corporate censorship of the internet. Especially when those coporates have a monopoly over your computing devices (i.e. the things you use to connect to the internet).
Building Censorship Walls - A Question For Journalists.
I would love to hear some journalists here comment on that article.
-
Not to reopen old wounds, but, yes, Perigo did call for armed insurrection and didn't seem to be questioned about it, which I took to be rather odd at the time and still find odd today. I mean, yes, he and his cronies are Objectivists and could never properly conspire to do such a thing because they would immediately fall out with one another on matters of deeply held principle, but still, armed insurrection? Others who have been accused of promoting such an act have had the might of the State come down upon them...
-
And here is another way the internet is being censored:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/08/159217
Racketeering.
-
Others who have been accused of promoting such an act have had the might of the State come down upon them...
Have they? Or was it because they were found in possession of, you know, weapons?
-
Some have been alleged to be in association with a very small cache of weapons, yes, but that's the subject of the current charge, not the subject of the original investigation.
-
Have people been charged for armed insurrection whilst not in the possession of weapons? That's my point. I'd much rather the state prosecuted idiots with weapons than idiots with opinions myself.
-
Anyway, let's not reopen the wounds of that particular discussion. Instead, let us poke fun at Objectivists and, at the same time, bemoan the fact they are being censored.
-
When Emma revealed the Aussie filtering system, I contacted TelstraClear to see if they had implemented it here as well. They said:
Well we have been using mandatory filtering system to filter out child porn, but this should not affect your speed.
They were right (on the speed, I haven't ever searched for child sexual abuse imagery), I have nice fast broadband.
When I get home I'll see if I can reach SOLO Passion. If not, then I'll be demanding that they unrestrict it.
-
I'm with Telstra and I can confirm that I can. Now, to clear my cache!
-
Good point. Although my guess would be that the airports would use the official government filter rather than build their own.
I think they're privately operated kiosks and subscribe to private filter lists. As I recall (and this was quite a few years ago), I couldn't get on the Onion, because that was porn.
Not to be all ironic or anything, but I believe that private internet kiosk operators should be able to cripple their own connection any way that they like, and charge whatever extortionary prices they like - though not telling people that the connection is crippled before they fork out $3/min for it is not okay.
-
Also, it would make sense for them to be on private Netnanny-style filters - the Govt ones wouldn't stop normal porn.
-
Well, they don't seems to be on the Aussie blacklist...
-
Others who have been accused of promoting such an act have had the might of the State come down upon them...
Yet David Farrar and Lynn Prentice aren't troll farming out of the same remand cell... Which isn't a bad thing, BTW.
-
I'm with Telstra and I can confirm that I can.
Yeah, the DIA list is checked by human beings, who are able to tell that SOLO isn't porn. "Objectionable content", perhaps, but not porn.
And yes. I'd like to see private companies annually publish all the (non child pornography) sites they block, and the reason.
-
We don't currently have the government's proposed internet filter in place yet (they are still trialling it) and there's nothing in place at this time stopping me visiting any site of my choice from my home in Sydney, so the filter thing is a bit strange unless perhaps there is a trial at airports or the airport has its own filter running.
Senator Conroy's internet filter is unpopular over here so the government may yet drop it seeing as how they can't really afford to make any further unpopular moves - given how much their support has plummetted in the last few months.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.