Posts by Emma Hart
-
I was just curious why you'd argue against blocking objectionable material on the internet. Is that an argument you'd use for all media?
Kyle, I've listed my actual problems with this scheme in the article. None of them is 'because it's blocking child pornography'. Regardless of media, 'objectionable' is a subjective term, and I sometimes have problems with the way it's been applied.
If you do want to read what I think should be done with the net, it's here. It evolves through the comments on that thread. My main focus in re child pornography is on co-operation between different jurisdictions to catch the people making the stuff.
All you know is that the link doesn't seem to work.
That's what happens in Britain. Here in NZ you'll get one of these. Our system will at least be honest.
Is there an arrangement anywhere that works?
My research over the last couple of years into filtering methods being used in other countries is the reason I'm opposed to ISP-level filtering. This scheme that's being brought in here is the best I've seen, except for the way it's been implemented. I'd still like to know why a list that covers a small fraction of the categories the ACMA list does is seven times as long.
-
Or perhaps sent to Christchurch / run over by a book racers car and then crushed along with the car.
"My A la Recherche du Temps Perdu can totally kick your Barchester Chronicles's arse!"
Now, that I'd stand on the side of the road to watch.
-
Kyle, that was in response to Tess's initial comment:
Would it matter if they blocked all the objectionable material that they could? I'm not really seeing a downside here.
A position Tess herself has backed away from. However, when you say:
the same standards that the censors use in relation to books, magazines, dvds, computer games etc
actually, there are already different rules for, say, books and dvds, which is why you'll never see a book with an M15+ sticker on it. So having different ways of applying standards to different media already happens.
And as I've noted, decisions censors make about non-internet media are made public. Decisions made about internet sites are not.
-
It appears that in practice some matters are considered automatically bad, but this would not be one as far as I can see
Well, yeah, the 'degree' clauses should mean that, say, a serious film that involved a couple of BDSM scenes for obvious SLAPS value wouldn't get banned. But if you haved two porn films of the same degree of explicitness, and one's vanilla porn and the other's BDSM porn? One gets restricted and the other gets banned?
I haz seen teh prony pottery too. UC Classics Dept keeps it locked away, or at least did back in my day. My goodness, what you got for a couple of chickens back in those days...
-
I refer you to section 132A.
I stand corrected, which I pretty much expect as a matter of course from Graeme. I'd looked here, on the Internal Affairs website - and other pages on that site where they talk about what their job is.
-
Having been shown people having their throat slashed by an inconsiderate flatmate, and hearing the gargled last gasps for breath, I'd have to disagree with you there Emma.
Mark, I don't mean in watching, I mean in dialogue. Hence the phrase 'somebody think of the children'. The Blackout copyright campaign wasn't accused of supporting snuff, they were accused of supporting paedophilia.
-
strange precedent to set or message to send -child pornography above all else in the danger stakes.
If I were an Evil Genius, and I wanted to institute extremely invasive censorship without stirring a freedom of speech kerfuffle, this is exactly what I'd do. Start off by ONLY blocking child pornography. Nothing else has the same STFU emotional effect. In Australia, every time someone objects to the filter, Conroy accuses them of being in favour of child pornography. They're protecting children - how could you possibly object?
Then once you've got it up and running on that basis, you just start quietly slipping in other stuff.
-
I/S: I think the decision to withhold the blacklist has a credible foundation (basically, that releasing the information would enable criminal activity), but it is worth a shot. And yes, the response then was timely, thorough and generally excellent. It's the request to the Ombudsman, and the response from the DIA to the Ombudsman, that seems to be taking time, but who knows where the delay is.
The reason the British scheme doesn't tell you that the site you're trying to access is blocked is (I assume) to prevent people from reverse-engineering the list. The NZ list is technically reverse-engineerable, and while it would be a vast amount of work it has been done in other countries.
I've also got concerns about the workload here. Three people to reach a decision on each site. Every single one of 7000 urls reviewed monthly. No budget funds specifically set aside for staffing, only for software and hardware.
-
Would it matter if they blocked all the objectionable material that they could? I'm not really seeing a downside here.
And I understand that a lot of people won't. But 'objectionable' is a subjective term. As Craig suggests, what about 'objectionable' material that's used for academic or theraputic purposes? And look at that list:
physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain
That's all BDSM material. All of it. BDSM practice is LEGAL.
promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism
No problem with any interpretation of that?
A friend of mine raised an interesting thought exercise last night, entirely hypothetical. Imagine United Future or a similar party as a minor but significant coalition partner some time in the future, and instead of the Families Commission, they ask for the Censor's Office.
-
So no other objectionable material is being blocked?
From Thomas:
The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.
Emphasis mine.