Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Labor Party Seeks Extreme Internet Censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australian Labor Party Seeks Extreme Internet Censorship

    The Australian Labor Party has not taken long at all to start acting as the social oppressors they are. It is illegal in Australia to spread the word about how bad multiculturalism is for Australia, about how the white Australian is losing all their rights so that immigrants holding an allegiance to foreign powers such as China, are allowed to do as they please.

    Go out on the street and shout about how bad multiculturalism is, you are on the road for criminal conviction. What the ALP are upset about is their lack of power in punishing those who express their views on the internet so to fill this major hole in legislation, they are discussing new laws that will see any political website which they regard as hate, blocked by the Internet Service Providers(ISP's).

    Taking the opportunity to hide under the discussion of Federal Labor's first budget, the Attorney-General's from the Labor governed state and territories, they are working under the cover of darkness to introduce laws that will repeal any remnants of freedoms of speech, of thought, of action, of anything they deem unsuitable for you.

    Their first attacks will be on www.stormfront.org and, http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/ which is nothing but the first steps to becoming a 'Police State'. 'Australia First Party' is a political party. How long until any political party opposing the government becomes illegal? How long until we become a one party nation. As Australia becomes closer to China, so does out loss of rights that were fought for by the spilling of Australian blood on foreign shores. What a waste of spilt blood. Why won't Australians get off their fat lazy arses and fight? When did Australians become nothing but wimps, too scared of their own shadows?

    Read this article from Australia's national newspaper, 'The Australian'...


    "RACE-HATE websites could be banned under an internet censorship proposal being considered by state and federal attorneys-general.

    "The plan, which is in its early stages, has aroused concern among civil libertarians who fear it could be used to stifle political debate.

    "The attorneys-general, meeting in Adelaide last week, commissioned a report on the viability of authorising the Australian Communications and Media Authority to combat race-hate sites by ordering internet service providers to take them down.

    "At present, ACMA polices websites that breach copyright, promote terrorism or publish extreme pornography.

    "There are racial vilification laws, but the problem with the internet is you can't trace down the people," NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday.

    "Any material that incites vilification and hatred is of concern. Material on the internet is a particular concern because it provides a cheap and easy means of dissemination to a very wide audience."

    "The proposal, which would be open for public consultation before any decision was made, followed a referral to the attorneys by state and federal police ministers, Mr Hatzistergos said. Concerns had also been expressed by non-English-speaking groups about comments on white-supremacist websites.

    "For the ACMA to be able to take down sites, it would require a new definition of the "refused classification" category used by the federal Government's Classification Board to deal with violent pornography and similar material. The proposed system could affect websites such as the one operated by the Australia First party, which was involved in the civil unrest at Cronulla in December 2005.

    "An article on the group's website, signed by "Joni", compares Muslims to mould. "You have the innocent, healthy, cheese block sitting in your fridge minding its own business til one day you peel back the wrapper to see a tiny section of mould on the surface," she writes.

    "Just when you think it's safe to appreciate your cheese in your own environment again you see it's back. Now darker, deeper, growing, invading, insidious."

    "But Dale Clapperton, from the online civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said a problem with banning such sites was that "it inevitably turns them into martyrs and gives more attention to the type of material you are trying to suppress".

    "The best cure for 'bad' speech is more speech," Mr Clapperton said."

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-26077,00.html
    28
    Yes
    3.57%
    1
    No
    85.71%
    24
    Undecided
    10.71%
    3

  • #2
    I don't believe you are being intellectually honest here. I believe that to be perfectly honest your poll would read:

    "Do you support prejudice, hate, xenophobia and the right to spread these harmful cancers."

    It's unlikely you will find support for hate, prejudice, and xenophobia here.

    Comment


    • #3
      So you support government telling us what to think?

      This is why I can never support leftardness.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SpiderThug View Post
        So you support government telling us what to think?

        This is why I can never support leftardness.
        Well considering that its the right wing in the US trying to limit everything here, your comment is odd.

        Qikdraw

        Comment


        • #5
          Qikdraw, I actually oppose most censorship. My belief is that people must be able to believe what they want to believe and say it if they so wish too. If they wish to lick telegraph poles and call them, 'Nancy' if they so wish.

          I strongly disagree with the thought crime laws held by Germany and Austria where a person can't express an opinion that upsets a Jewish person. For instance, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Jewish Holacaust' as the genocide was not aimed purely are Jews but Masons, Jehova Witnesses, Homosexuals, Gypsies, the Disabled, and so on and so on and so on... their banning of ancient religious symbols solely because one government abused them is amoral. How dare they stop Buddhists, Native Americans(etc) from having spiritual symbols such as the earth and sun sanskrit known as the Swastika, or Thor's lightning bolts known as the symbol of the SS, etc.

          Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

          The Australian Labor Party is left and right winged. Their economic policy is economic rationalist - nobody in Australia has privatised more than the Labor Party. Socially, they are very leftwing with their need to control what everyone thinks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thug, I voted undecided, partly because I don't know enough about your Aussie doings and this particular issue down there, and, because I have seen some of your views expressed here that raise some flags in my mind. I don't entirely trust your purpose with this post.

            I do not favor censorship and would rather have extremist groups right out there in the open rather than hidden away acting in total, cloaked secrecy. As offensive as their views might be, they have the right to air them up to the point of inciting, or calling for, violent acts. Even that can sometimes be a matter of opinion.

            That would mean that some innocent people would be subjected to hearing or reading some very harsh, ugly and hurtful things. Things which might be lies, fabrications or half-truths. Truth is not a test for free-speech, nor are the feelings of others.

            I do know from reading about it and hearing some of your countrymen complain about it that your government has taken some very restrictive measures against net content in the past.

            So, I lean toward finding this issue really very troubling. Just a tad leery of the messenger and the messenger's intent is all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by usmc1 View Post
              Thug, I voted undecided, partly because I don't know enough about your Aussie doings and this particular issue down there, and, because I have seen some of your views expressed here that raise some flags in my mind. I don't entirely trust your purpose with this post...
              Which are the exact reasons I posted what I posted and refrained from voting.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm against censorship in general, which is one of the many reasons I could never vote Republican. Any party that wants to ignore the First Amendment of the US Constitution (which guarantees freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, petition and religion) will never get my support. Trust me here: the Republicans censor or make illegal pretty much everything they disagree with, including the practice of naturism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NakedTao View Post
                  I'm against censorship in general, which is one of the many reasons I could never vote Republican. Any party that wants to ignore the First Amendment of the US Constitution (which guarantees freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, petition and religion) will never get my support. Trust me here: the Republicans censor or make illegal pretty much everything they disagree with, including the practice of naturism.
                  That is an interesting comment since it seems to me to that "hate speach" and "hate crime" legislation seems to be well supported by the Left and resisted by the Right.

                  Am I missing something here? Is anyone here in favor of banning Rev. Wright? Not me. I think the poll wording is perfect. Either you believe in censorship or you don't. If you do then someone has to be the censor. I prefer no censor and will take my chances with any damage done from "hate speach". Whatever that damage is, it is less damaging to society then a government censor with the ability to punish poltical speach.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bicycler View Post
                    That is an interesting comment since it seems to me to that "hate speach" and "hate crime" legislation seems to be well supported by the Left and resisted by the Right.
                    Hate speech and hate crimes are two different things. A hate crime would be if you go commit an act of violence against someone because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or something like that. Like Mathew Shepherd who was brutally murdered because he was gay.

                    Hate speech is when you say something nasty to someone because of race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever. Here in the US there are some on the left who want to stop hate speech but most of them are in the private sector, like college administrators who adopt BS speech codes. Most liberals in congress or organizations that represent people in front of the courts (the ACLU) support free speech for everyone, including racists, offensive & other forms of "unpopular" speech.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Canada already has hate speech laws: http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...te_a_crime.cfm

                      As far as I know, these laws have been used against extreme situations. The famous cases have needed to be shut down. One particularly notorius case was that of Ernst Zundel. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/zundel/; http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zund...=2&item=zundel

                      I believe that free speech is extremely important and would not want to see it curtailed. Unfortunately, there are those whose speech has crossed the fine line into oppressive hate speech. Fortunately they are a minority.....I hope.

                      Here is some more information from a Canadian perspective: http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...ree_speech.cfm

                      So, to answer your question; no I do not want unecessary government censorship. Yes, I do believe there is a place for some government sanctions in extreme cases.

                      I also note that biggest proponents of freedom are often the biggest oppressors. The current US admin may be one example. Why is it in the country that values freedom so much shuts down those who speak against the war or other atrocities commited by the government?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hate speach

                        If hate speach was not popular, it would not be a problem. The problem is that when you allowed hate speach, it can become very popular. The young man who brutally murdered Mithew Sheppard must have heard so many homophobic speach that he must thought that he was doing a good thing by killing Mathiew Shepherd.

                        Just look at the popularity of muslim terrorism in many parts of the world. Listen to Michael Savage and you will hear hate speach almost non stop.

                        In Canada, like many europeans countries, we have a law against hate speach and I think that it is quite a good thing for democracy and public order. Hate speach is no more tolarated in public spaces in Canada.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Eric you might like a song by Janis Ian about Matthew Sheppard. Here are the lyrics: http://janisian.com/lyrics/Matthewrev.pdf

                          I particularly like the chorus:

                          What makes a man a man
                          The cut of a coat, the hint of a tan
                          It's not who you love, but whether you can
                          What makes a man a man

                          I agree, I wonder how much hate speech and thoughts the young men who killed Matthew had listened to before killing him. NO group of people should be subject to that. It was a shame for the young people who killed him, and of course for Matthew.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fitz1980 View Post
                            Hate speech and hate crimes are two different things.
                            Well of course they are but they are related and generally speaking if you favor one, you favor the other. Based on my observations the belief in both are much stronger on the left side of the spectrum than on the right.

                            One man's hate speech is another man's gospel. I used Rev. Wright as an example of this. In order to control hate speech you have to have a censor. No thank you. I like the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It has served us well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              First amandment

                              With a "don't ask, don't tell" rule in your military, your first amendment looks like a total joke to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X