Australian Gov't threatening U.S. Website owner

[Calculon]

Pertinent info here:
http://www.blog.encyclopediadramatica.com/?p=84

Basically, Encyclopedia Dramatica is a U.S. based website in the vein of Somethingawful.com etc... Posters post what they want, mainly with the intent of upsetting those that are most easily upset. The site definitely is not meant to be taken seriously. But the issue is serious....a website which breaks no U.S. laws is under legal attack from another country...and not a theocratic one.

For those unaware, Encyclopedia Dramatica has been in a lot of trouble in Australia lately. First ED was placed on the ACMA blacklist, a “secret” list of websites to be censored throughout Australia in their upcoming internet filter. After this list was leaked to the public, we all laughed about how we were put on a blacklist with “Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions, Christian sites, and even the websites of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist“. Meanwhile, Australia Communications Minister Stephen Conroy called for the arrests of Australians publishing the list.

Next the “Aboriginal” article was recently removed from Google Australia’s search engine results. This was right after Google had done a large amount of grandstanding about fighting Chinese censorship. Which proves they’re a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

 

[INRM]

This ACMA Blacklist is a serious problem: The majority of Australians do not want it (i.e. the government is operating *against* the will of the majority); the list is secret; the government is blocking legitimate sites, including sites that expose government misconduct, for no other reason than they simply don't want the public to see it!

They are even calling for the arrests of people who decided to expose this blatant attempt at government censorship for what it is.

Am I the only person that has a problem with all of this?


INRM

 

[ServiceSoon]

I'm interested to hear Art(something) & Lion King's opinion before passing judgment of my own.

 

[The Fool]

If anyone is interested in my opinion its that the whole world should tell the Australian government not to be so stupid. However, there are a large number of stupid people that will vote for them because of this stupid act...

 

[Travis]

Just publishing a list of what is censored is now criminal there?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This ACMA Blacklist is a serious problem: The majority of Australians do not want it (i.e. the government is operating *against* the will of the majority); the list is secret; the government is blocking legitimate sites, including sites that expose government misconduct, for no other reason than they simply don't want the public to see it!

They are even calling for the arrests of people who decided to expose this blatant attempt at government censorship for what it is.

Am I the only person that has a problem with all of this?

INRM

Nope. Most (well "most" I know) of us here do too.

I'm interested to hear Art(something) & Lion King's opinion before passing judgment of my own.

We have at the moment the most self centred, poll driven, deceitful government in (my) living memory. I am not a fan.
Without going into too many details there have been decisions made and information hidden from the opposition and public view.

Our PM is the driving force behind most of these 'Nanny state' decisions

If anyone is interested in my opinion its that the whole world should tell the Australian government not to be so stupid. However, there are a large number of stupid people that will vote for them because of this stupid act...

The filter was supposed to be to stop things like internet child pornography. The concern of many was that once the legislation was in place then government censorship could run things any way they liked.

I had not seen this report in the OP and am surprised I hadn't. Sadly it seems indicative of the concerns many of us had.

 

[Zep]

Let's not let hyperbole get in the way, shall we?

Regardless of the technicalities and political posturing (and my own views on the matter), this action by the ACMA - an AUSTRALIAN statutory authority - hardly "threatens US website". It merely wishes to block its provision to Australians. So you need to ask WHY it is a such a problem for a US company by being prevented imposing its will on a foreign (and friendly) government and people.

Think of it in reverse: Would US citizens be impressed by an Australian company trying to impose THEIR web content on them if they had chosen they did not want it? I suspect there would be a rather loud backlash, n'cest pas?

OK, so I suggest we try to keep some perspective on this discussion.

And yes, I think it's (1) unacceptable, (2) politically unwise, and (3) unenforceable.

 

[Loss Leader]

As I write this now, I am in Brisbane, Australia and I think the government's actions are prefectly fine. I am glad to have the ACMA protecting our children from dangerous content. Tjhe Prime Minister Rudd is a great patriot and of me.

 

[Calculon]

Let's not let hyperbole get in the way, shall we?

Regardless of the technicalities and political posturing (and my own views on the matter), this action by the ACMA - an AUSTRALIAN statutory authority - hardly "threatens US website". It merely wishes to block its provision to Australians. So you need to ask WHY it is a such a problem for a US company by being prevented imposing its will on a foreign (and friendly) government and people.

Think of it in reverse: Would US citizens be impressed by an Australian company trying to impose THEIR web content on them if they had chosen they did not want it? I suspect there would be a rather loud backlash, n'cest pas?

OK, so I suggest we try to keep some perspective on this discussion.

And yes, I think it's (1) unacceptable, (2) politically unwise, and (3) unenforceable.

Huh?
No one is forced to go to any website.
And you want a government to be able to select which ones you cannot see?

I am not understanding what you are getting at at all.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

As I write this now, I am in Brisbane, Australia and I think the government's actions are prefectly fine. I am glad to have the ACMA protecting our children from dangerous content. Tjhe Prime Minister Rudd is a great patriot and of me.

I agree too that our children need to be protected, and there should be laws for same.

But are you advoacting censorship for valid adult content too? That the government decide what I can and cannot choose to look at?

My sister lived in China for many years - most Chinese have no idea that Tiananmen Square ever took place. Why? Censorship by the government. Now I am not suggesting that our smartest-man-in-the-room Prime Minister is in that category (yet) but making publishing the list of banned sites illegal is certainly a step in that direction.

 

[WildCat]

Only content Walt Disney would approve of should be on the web. I shouldn't even be allowed to post this.

 

[Travis]

Only content Walt Disney would approve of should be on the web. I shouldn't even be allowed to post this.

Well, there goes anything that shows Jews in a positive light.

 

[Zep]

Huh?
No one is forced to go to any website.

Precisely. Ergo, this is not "threatening" to US websites. That is hyperbole.

NB. This does not mean I support the idea at all.

 

[stevea]

Hmmm- - the mind of the moralists at work. I'm surprised at how otherwise rational ppl condone involuntary censorship in the name of some other good.

There are plenty of good PC filters to keep children ignorant of reality, but censoring the internet for all is just an imposition of state power, ultimately to be used for political purpose as shown.

Perhaps the Aussies can import some of that fine Chinese censorship technology.

 

[lionking]

While I agree with Zep that there is no real threat here, the determination of the government in persuing this incredibly flawed policy is worrying. I can't see it being a vote winner - the oldies who agree with it probably won't change their votes, but the younger "aspirationals" surely will lash out at this nanny state move. Idiocy.

For the first time I think Rudd may be in trouble next election. Not because of this specifically, but because of what it symbolises.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For the first time I think Rudd may be in trouble next election. Not because of this specifically, but because of what it symbolises.

With Tony Abbott as the alternative, Rudd has reason to be optimistic. What a woeful choice of leaders.

 

[Ohforf]

The big Mistake here is the well known Fact that Forbidden Content gets much more interesting than it really is.
Sure, ED has many funny articles about Internet Culture and some Content that is meant to be as offensive as possible.
Blocking it on your Kid's PC might be OK, due to pornographic Content, but trying to filter it out for all of Australia is just plain stupid.

 

[ServiceSoon]

If anyone is interested in my opinion its that the whole world should tell the Australian government not to be so stupid. However, there are a large number of stupid people that will vote for them because of this stupid act...

I do. It's your country and you can run it how you want. Personally, I fall on the side of freedom & liberty.

Nope. Most (well "most" I know) of us here do too.

We have at the moment the most self centred, poll driven, deceitful government in (my) living memory. I am not a fan.
Without going into too many details there have been decisions made and information hidden from the opposition and public view.

Our PM is the driving force behind most of these 'Nanny state' decisions

The filter was supposed to be to stop things like internet child pornography. The concern of many was that once the legislation was in place then government censorship could run things any way they liked.

I had not seen this report in the OP and am surprised I hadn't. Sadly it seems indicative of the concerns many of us had.

I see this line of argument quite often. It's called slippery slope fallacy, but I think it is a valid concern and should be discussed.

As I write this now, I am in Brisbane, Australia and I think the government's actions are prefectly fine. I am glad to have the ACMA protecting our children from dangerous content. Tjhe Prime Minister Rudd is a great patriot and of me.

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.

 

[Calculon]

Precisely. Ergo, this is not "threatening" to US websites. That is hyperbole.

NB. This does not mean I support the idea at all.

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

Check out the court precedent they cite, Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick, where a United States paper had to pay 580k for publishing an article about a globalized company headquartered in Australia and its CEO whilst completely in compliance with United States civil precedence.

Sounds threatening to me.

 

[roger]

It merely wishes to block its provision to Australians. So you need to ask WHY it is a such a problem for a US company by being prevented imposing its will on a foreign (and friendly) government and people.

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.