Australian Gov't threatening U.S. Website owner

[INRM]

Travis,

Serious problem don't you think?


A.A. Alfie,

You guys need to engage in (non-violent) protest down under! I know a lot of you don't care about politics much, but as you said, your country could start heading down the road to China if you don't do something about it.


INRM

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'm sorry but your paragraph sounds like you've been brain washed. In my best cult voice, "The gov is good, never does wrong and does what’s best for all. All hail Prime Minister Rudd!"

Where I come from, and I believe where you come from, our computers have filters that can be setup by parents, whose responsibility it is ultimately.

I believe that Loss Leader was making a joke, that, since he's an American currently in Australia, he has to tread lightly in what he says on internet.

 

[Loss Leader]

I believe that Loss Leader was making a joke, that, since he's an American currently in Australia, he has to tread lightly in what he says on internet.

Thanks Zircon. I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess I was wrong, seeing as my post generated two outraged responses and one PM asking me where in Australia I was. Next time, I'll be sure to make my satire more satiric.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Thanks Zircon. I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess I was wrong, seeing as my post generated two outraged responses and one PM asking me where in Australia I was. Next time, I'll be sure to make my satire more satiric.

Maybe a special "satire" font, or something?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Maybe a special "satire" font, or something?

While I realised (suspected) the joke, it is also a sad indictment that there are many that see the politics as either black or white: Labour good, Liberal bad. Or Vica versa. Rudd good, Abbot Bad. etc. Given same, I can easily understand how some could have missed the gag.

 

[Stankeye]

Thanks Zircon. I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess I was wrong, seeing as my post generated two outraged responses and one PM asking me where in Australia I was. Next time, I'll be sure to make my satire more satiric.

My wife is getting an expat job in Brisbane, and we'll be over soon. When does the brainwashing begin?

Do they have a pamphlet I can start reading now?

 

[Zep]

Here is a copy of the letter received by ED which was included in my link:
http://www.blog.encyclopediadramatica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/au-human-rights-comm-pg1.jpg

Sounds threatening to me.

Turn it around and see what you think. How about I put something on my website here in Australia that thoroughly breaks US racial discrimination laws, and someone in the USA sees it and takes note that it contravenes US law (local, state or federal). How soon before you think someone will protest? Start waving placards? Phone their congressman? (Or whatever the hell else you do in such situations.) And when do you think we will get to the "Croc Dundee was a <insert-nasty-slur>" stage?

No, the PDF that they sent ED specifically stated that they are looking into prosecuting ED for violating the Australian RDA, and cites case law where another American company was successfully sued in a similar situation.

It's a threat to sue and jail, not merely a threat to censor.

Under international law (which I guess the USA ignores whenever it feels like ), the Gutnick case was precedent to show that "publication on the Internet that is visible in Australia" is equivalent to "publishing in Australia". Ergo it is subject to Australian law the same as any local publisher.

Of course, if the Commission was serious in following through, it would have to raise a case in the USA by proxy, and it would necessarily involve complex questions of international law. In the Gutnick case, I understand they did. In any case, it's money for jam for all the legal eagles involved, no doubt.

Look....It's a form letter. They are just ticking boxes mindlessly. Jeeeeeez.

 

[Zep]

My wife is getting an expat job in Brisbane, and we'll be over soon. When does the brainwashing begin?

Do they have a pamphlet I can start reading now?

Bewdy, mate!

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/test_resource_book/









Oh.

You weren't serious, were you...

GOOD ONE, MATE!

 

[rjh01]

Bewdy, mate!

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/test_resource_book/









Oh.

You weren't serious, were you...

GOOD ONE, MATE!

I never will become an Australian. I got 20 questions right. I needed 15 right in the practice test.

 

[lionking]

I never will become an Australian. I got 20 questions right. I needed 15 right in the practice test.

You are clearly over-qualified. I'll get on to the Immigration Department to have you deported forthwith.

 

[Calculon]

Turn it around and see what you think. How about I put something on my website here in Australia that thoroughly breaks US racial discrimination laws, and someone in the USA sees it and takes note that it contravenes US law (local, state or federal). How soon before you think someone will protest? Start waving placards? Phone their congressman? (Or whatever the hell else you do in such situations.) And when do you think we will get to the "Croc Dundee was a <insert-nasty-slur>" stage?

Can you give an example of anything that would fit in the "thoroughly breaks US racial discrimination laws" area? I can't picture this. There are a ton of white supremacy sites in the US. I am not sure if an Australian site could do worse.

I cannot really think of a website that hurts people's feelings as worthy of being blocked by a government agency. The world is a big place. Some people are offending by the sound of women singing or showing their faces. And I choose to say "tough *luck*" to them. Go to another website...the net is full of them.
No one is prevented from complaining.

 

[Zep]

You are clearly over-qualified. I'll get on to the Immigration Department to have you deported forthwith.

Yeah! Send him back to Queensland!

 

[Zep]

Can you give an example of anything that would fit in the "thoroughly breaks US racial discrimination laws" area? I can't picture this. There are a ton of white supremacy sites in the US. I am not sure if an Australian site could do worse.

I cannot really think of a website that hurts people's feelings as worthy of being blocked by a government agency. The world is a big place. Some people are offending by the sound of women singing or showing their faces. And I choose to say "tough *luck*" to them. Go to another website...the net is full of them.
No one is prevented from complaining.

How would I know what laws there of that type are that I could break! I don't live in the USA! Why not ask your question of the NAACP or someone like that. Maybe I could "incite treason" or "threaten the president" or something like that.

The point being that there's bound to be someone somewhere in the USA that I could legally offend from Australia. And they could be upset enough to think a legal complaint was necessary. And so it is for us.

 

[Calculon]

How would I know what laws there of that type are that I could break! I don't live in the USA! Why not ask your question of the NAACP or someone like that. Maybe I could "incite treason" or "threaten the president" or something like that.

The point being that there's bound to be someone somewhere in the USA that I could legally offend from Australia. And they could be upset enough to think a legal complaint was necessary. And so it is for us.

This is more than a complaint. The site is scheduled to be blocked (although I have heard it unlikely to be soon...there has been blow back to the scheme) by the gov't of Australia, preventing anyone form seeing it should they choose to do so. (although people will find a way around that).

I just think the people of Australia should be able to make their own decisions on which sites they visit...not some politicians.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How would I know what laws there of that type are that I could break! I don't live in the USA! Why not ask your question of the NAACP or someone like that. Maybe I could "incite treason" or "threaten the president" or something like that.

The point being that there's bound to be someone somewhere in the USA that I could legally offend from Australia. And they could be upset enough to think a legal complaint was necessary. And so it is for us.

Personally I think that this move my the Australian government is a step in a very idiotic direction. I don't think any nation should budge an inch from the position that the only laws a web site should be answerable to are the laws of the nation where the hosting computer physically sits, and the only laws posters should be answerable to are the laws where they physically sit.

For example it's illegal in Thailand to say "King Bhumibol Adulyadej has a great big stupid head and he smells like bum". If the Thais want to arrest people on Thai soil, or seize computers on Thai soil, well, I don't respect it but I don't think it's worth the effort to try to stop them. I don't think we should be handing over any Australian citizens to Thailand's justice system for saying such things in Australia though, even if some Thai busybody can read it from where they are.

Otherwise everyone has the legal obligation to run absolutely everything they think of putting on the 'net past the legal rules of every single nation on the planet, lest they be breaking the law in Bhutan or Syria or North Korea or wherever else, which is an unworkable consequence.

 

[Zep]

This is more than a complaint. The site is scheduled to be blocked (although I have heard it unlikely to be soon...there has been blow back to the scheme) by the gov't of Australia, preventing anyone form seeing it should they choose to do so. (although people will find a way around that).

I just think the people of Australia should be able to make their own decisions on which sites they visit...not some politicians.

It's not scheduled to be blocked at all. Again, that is pure hyperbole - very "slippery slope". Some internet content has simply been "officially reported" as potentially violating an Australian law.

Should it continue to be visible on the Internet in Australia and should the original complainants wish to pursue the matter, legal action may ensue. As with Gutnick, it will require them to launch a case in the hosting country (i.e. USA) in which they will need to prove that (1) Australian law has been violated, and (2) that law is subject to international reciprocal jurisdiction with the USA.

Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping the USA hosting that website, and nothing stopping Australians viewing the content.

Personally I think that this move my the Australian government is a step in a very idiotic direction. I don't think any nation should budge an inch from the position that the only laws a web site should be answerable to are the laws of the nation where the hosting computer physically sits, and the only laws posters should be answerable to are the laws where they physically sit.

For example it's illegal in Thailand to say "King Bhumibol Adulyadej has a great big stupid head and he smells like bum". If the Thais want to arrest people on Thai soil, or seize computers on Thai soil, well, I don't respect it but I don't think it's worth the effort to try to stop them. I don't think we should be handing over any Australian citizens to Thailand's justice system for saying such things in Australia though, even if some Thai busybody can read it from where they are.

Otherwise everyone has the legal obligation to run absolutely everything they think of putting on the 'net past the legal rules of every single nation on the planet, lest they be breaking the law in Bhutan or Syria or North Korea or wherever else, which is an unworkable consequence.

Jeepers - hyperbole or what!

No-one is going to be handed over to anyone in these situations. The US website hosts will not be required to appear in an Australian court. Actually the opposite would be required, if anything - the complainants would probably be required to appear in a US court, to explain why the "offense" is subject to international reciprocal jurisdiction and why the US hosting site might be subject to Australian legal response. I suspect if it ever got that far, the arguments would be VERY dull and dry, and over rather quickly.

Incidentally, if it was ever decided they WERE subject to Australian jurisdiction, the worst that would happen is that page or two would get banned, not the site. How that might be done is unknown, and frankly I think it would be ludicrous and infeasible in law and in practice. Which is why it will never get that far, and why the US hosting site owners can probably sleep quite easy at night. Which means I agree with your sentiment - this is a totally pointless waste of time except for the lawyers, and just a very poorly thought-out vote-grabber ahead of an election.

 

[Calculon]

It's not scheduled to be blocked at all. Again, that is pure hyperbole - very "slippery slope". Some internet content has simply been "officially reported" as potentially violating an Australian law.

Should it continue to be visible on the Internet in Australia and should the original complainants wish to pursue the matter, legal action may ensue. As with Gutnick, it will require them to launch a case in the hosting country (i.e. USA) in which they will need to prove that (1) Australian law has been violated, and (2) that law is subject to international reciprocal jurisdiction with the USA.

Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping the USA hosting that website, and nothing stopping Australians viewing the content.

Jeepers - hyperbole or what!

No-one is going to be handed over to anyone in these situations. The US website hosts will not be required to appear in an Australian court. Actually the opposite would be required, if anything - the complainants would probably be required to appear in a US court, to explain why the "offense" is subject to international reciprocal jurisdiction and why the US hosting site might be subject to Australian legal response. I suspect if it ever got that far, the arguments would be VERY dull and dry, and over rather quickly.

Incidentally, if it was ever decided they WERE subject to Australian jurisdiction, the worst that would happen is that page or two would get banned, not the site. How that might be done is unknown, and frankly I think it would be ludicrous and infeasible in law and in practice. Which is why it will never get that far, and why the US hosting site owners can probably sleep quite easy at night. Which means I agree with your sentiment - this is a totally pointless waste of time except for the lawyers, and just a very poorly thought-out vote-grabber ahead of an election.

Hyperbole is a word that is being overused.


According to Encyclopedia Dramatica, they have been placed on the planned ACMA blacklist of websites. If you are aware that they are NOT on the list, please state that. This list was supposed to be a filter that parents could place on their own PCs, but the Australian Gov't would like to (if able) block these sites for ALL Australians.

The main issue here is governments deciding that sites will not be visible, some for very arbitrary reasons. This should be fought at all opportunities.

 

[gumboot]

How exactly does blocking child pornography sites protect children? Does the Australian Government think if they block such sites the actual pornography will magically cease to exist? Wouldn't that produce some sort of existence paradox?

 

[Zep]

One would hope you read your own source?

We will keep publishing this content and our Australian users will be able to view it up until the point that your God-forsaken government blocks it with their soon-to-be-implemented secret list of banned material.

Even ED admit that nothing has actually happened yet with that list. And I'm sure there's plenty of lists being made by wannabe tyrants with headings like "First Reporters Up Against The Wall Come My Revolution".

But then here's the basic argument from ED:

This isn’t a far-fetched legal theory, they have used it before. Welcome to the one world government, folks. Is this what you wanted? Is this what you had in mind? Cause this is what you’re gettin’.

Cross-eyed silly CT, anyone? I rather suspect they are not actually on the list at all, and they haven't even seen it. Just that they are happily accepting what "someone else" said about that, plus over-conflating a harmless letter from some weary ombudsman half way round the globe away.

So I do think "hyperbole" is a very apt description. That and "thin-skinned loud-mouthed conspiracy-promoting publicity whores".

 

[Calculon]

One would hope you read your own source?Even ED admit that nothing has actually happened yet with that list. And I'm sure there's plenty of lists being made by wannabe tyrants with headings like "First Reporters Up Against The Wall Come My Revolution".

But then here's the basic argument from ED:Cross-eyed silly CT, anyone? I rather suspect they are not actually on the list at all, and they haven't even seen it. Just that they are happily accepting what "someone else" said about that, plus over-conflating a harmless letter from some weary ombudsman half way round the globe away.

So I do think "hyperbole" is a very apt description. That and "thin-skinned loud-mouthed conspiracy-promoting publicity whores".

Whatever. If you take the writing style of anyone on ED without a grain of salt, you are missing a lot of humor. Be that as it may, I am looking at a list of excluded sites, and ED is on it from Aug 2008. But as the ACMA won't release the official list, I cannot confirm if the list I am looking at is real. But I do not find it it difficult to believe. This is just one website...one that has been contacted directly by the Australian Government. But the overall issue is governments blocking websites, and keeping the lists of sites blocked secret. That should be a concern to anyone.
You do agree that there is a ACMA, correct? Or is that make believe as well?