Australian Internet Filter Delayed

July 9, 2010 -

Australian Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy (pictured) has said that implementation of a mandatory Internet filter in the country will be delayed for about a year while the government examines exactly what constitutes content that is “refused classification.”

Conroy had intended to introduce official legislation on the matter in early 2010, but, according to ABC, will now delay it until later in the year, biding time as an independent review looks into what exactly should be banned by the filter. Who will be conducting the review is not known, or at least has not been revealed as of yet.

Conroy noted that depictions of child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocates a terrorist act are banned under the RC rating, adding, “…this material is not available in newsagencies; it is not on library shelves. You cannot watch it on a DVD or at the cinema and it is not shown on television.”

It was reported that, “in the meantime,” three Australian ISPs have agreed to block websites featuring child pornography.

Earlier this week, Australia’s new Prime Minister Julia Gillard endorsed plans for the filter.


Thanks Ryan!


Comments

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

First they need to figure out how they're actually going to implement this, and then they should figure out how to keep it running when angry and bored hackers decide to attack it. For some reason, I can just see a /b/ assault on this thing if Australia can ever work out the logistics and get the bill passed.

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

/b/'s too busy dying of cancer to attack anything.

  ▲
▲ ▲

http://www.randomosity.net/

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

The task is still impossible to complete no matter how hard they try. I said the same thing the last time I replied to this topic. All of Australias "old farts" plans here go out the window when one pimply teenager sets up a personal proxy with a friend in another country. They will all laugh and sip Boost and Amp drinks while high fiving themselves that they worked around this filter in less than 10 minutes. I mean seriously, this is exactly how the whole US works around the stupid sports blackout rules as well.

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

Very true.  But that little fact wont stop them from spending tons of taxpayer money on it.  And it will stop the casual user from getting that stuff.  Chances are though the people who are out looking for things like child porn are not what can be described as the "casual user".

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

Not to mention it'd only be a matter of time until a politician is caught looking at one of the sites they wanted banned.

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

I can see australians censoring stuff like that old Simpsons episode on Australia, instead of just child porn and bullshit.

Seroiusly, governments should be retiring their old members faster. They ruin everything with their ancient views.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

That would a function for the citizens to perform.  If people vote for them, they will stick around.

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

All the old farts need more time to figure out how to censor shit.

Austrailia has no right to call itself a "free" nation.

Re: Australian Internet Filter Delayed

No, they're just debating what to censor for everyone else and what sites they will add to their personal exceptions list.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenGoth - And the blame for that rests solely on the ding bats who grossly overreacted to a handful of opinion pieces.07/31/2015 - 3:11pm
Andrew EisenHere's a fun fact: Only two of the authors of the "Gamers Are Dead" articles (of which there are about 12) were on the Game Journo Pros list.07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Goth_SkunkNo! No! Of course not! Nothing wrong with that at all! Nevermind that those articles spawned a huge, almost year-long consumer revolt and culture war that no one in the industry can deny exists. :^)07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Andrew EisenThere's also nothing wrong with publishing an opinion you know is going to be unpopular with some. So long as it's genuine, anyway.07/31/2015 - 3:08pm
Andrew EisenEh, could be laziness, lack of imagination, bandwagon hopping or maybe Alexander's article inspired them to publish their own takes. Nothing wrong with that.07/31/2015 - 3:06pm
Goth_SkunkIf laziness was indeed the reason other sites produced articles of a similar vein, the laziness must reach levels that would make a cat blush. How lazy does one have to be unable to stop and think "maybe this isn't a good idea...'07/31/2015 - 3:04pm
Andrew EisenThe Mary Sue article title I'm a bit more comfortable being called clickbait as it's a deliberate misdirection but it's done for humor's sake so I personally give such things a pass.07/31/2015 - 3:01pm
Andrew EisenI count six similar titles and two of the authors aren't even journalists, let alone game journalists. It doesn't reek of collusion, it reeks of laziness, if anything. A few others saw Alexander's piece and wrote their own.07/31/2015 - 3:00pm
Goth_Skunkfeed. Additionally, I'm baffled by the irony of someone named 'Infophile' taking a Mary Sue article seriously. Ignoring that I won't give that site a second of my time, that article headline is blatant clickbait and should be ignored on principle.07/31/2015 - 2:58pm
Goth_SkunkI agree with Benohawk: The title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring. Alas, when 9 additional sites pop up with similarly titled articles of their own, it reeks of collusion and an attempt by the press at large to bite the hands that07/31/2015 - 2:56pm
Andrew EisenAh, okay.07/31/2015 - 2:46pm
benohawkI'm saying that the refrence in the article to the old title would need to be changed well the primary point of the article would be kept the same. Not something that should be an issue if the objective wasn't to be provocative.07/31/2015 - 2:41pm
Andrew EisenYou're saying the article should be altered to fit a different title. I want to know what title you find more appropriate for the copy as is.07/31/2015 - 2:34pm
benohawkIt would take a minor rewrite to the article, but I'd call it 'What is a Gamer' but go for the same point. you don't have to sell to jerks07/31/2015 - 2:33pm
Andrew EisenI still say "clickbait" is thrown around way too casually, to the point where it's completely meaningless. That aside, what alternate title would you suggest?07/31/2015 - 2:22pm
benohawkt was still delibrate clickait, something I would expect from a Gawker outlet, the article would of likely been much better recieved with a nicer title07/31/2015 - 2:18pm
Andrew EisenProvocative title to be sure but I didn't find it inaccurate or not reflective of its text.07/31/2015 - 2:12pm
benohawkGamasutra shouldn't of gotten clicks for the article until they had published under an accurate name instead of some pathetic clickbaiting07/31/2015 - 2:09pm
benohawkThe title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring, not launching a massive campaign to try and end the site it was on.07/31/2015 - 2:08pm
Andrew EisenI will Ouija him my unceasing indignation!07/31/2015 - 1:59pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician