Govt launches net crackdown

[DeathvadeR]

THE federal Government plans to outlaw using the internet for "offensive and menacing purposes", proposing new laws that could mean two years in prison for activities like organising or advocating violent protests through the internet.

A joint statement from Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston and Justice Minister Chris Ellison said the new laws were part of a crackdown on e-crime.

"People using the internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests, for example by spreading information on methods of violently disrupting international meetings and attacking police officers protecting such gatherings, including those using the internet to harass or menace others are amongst those who could be prosecuted under the new offences," the statement says.

<http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7010682%255E15306,00.html>

[blackcat77]

1. Damn! Say something about AUSTRALIA, please!

You about gave me a heart attack.

[Zhade]

15. Don't put aside the defibrilator just yet...

After all, look at Sherman Austin's recent (bullshit) prosecution and sentencing.

We need to back up the Aussies as much as we need them to back us up. We're all in the same boat. Hell, I thought things like Peekabooty were needed for places like China, not freaking Australia (though I understand Howard is a right-wing nutbag).

Edit: also, remember that the FCC rulings apply to internet consolidation, too. They're going to do their damndest to kill i-activism and free speech. We're not through the woods yet.

[Dover]

2. Have they visited Free Republic? How about protections against

those advocating violence against others with different points of view?

Actually....this is Ashcroft's wet dream isn't it? Cracking down on the internet and calling any dissenters "terrorists".

[genius]

3. How about humor?

Or discussions of what kind of military sentence Bush should receive for deserting in time of war?

We need to demand that our legislators oppose any restrictions on our freedom of speech on the Internet.

[genius]

4. However, I'm cool with restrictions on child pornography

That's a Republican specialty.

[Dover]

5. Yes....this situation calls for an immediate and strong response

Here's the big loophole:

The legislation will also introduce "criminal penalties for placing material on the internet that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive".

Now I ask you....do you know of ONE 'reasonable' person that would actually assume that a judgement call like this won't open the internet to oppressive manipulations and false accusations by gov.?
Would a 'reasonable' person vote for this sham law? Let's define "reasonable" shall we?

They often attempt to bundle these things with issues like "child abuse" or "pornography" in order to pull at heartstrings and get passage.

[Hobarticus]

10. Remember when...

...the whole Mappelthorpe thing was going on, and they couldn't define what a "reasonable" person would find offensive?

It's called OBJECTIVITY, and it can't be defined by one body.

But if that's the case, hell, I find Coulter, O'Reilly, Sabage, and Limbaugh offensive, how 'bout kicking them off the 'net?

Fucking Nazis...Hitler's alive and well, my friends...

[tom_paine]

6. The Totalitarian Shadow begins to take shape

Always hard to predict the details of the future.

But the future is now being born.

"What rough beast, it's hour come 'round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

HINT to Wm. Butler Yeats: The Beast's name is Bush.

[nolabels]

14. Hard to see the shadows that lurk within the mind of another

Poetic justice for many that never approve a sigh and a whisper, a thud and a groan. A tortured mind is a devastation of a world within, the light upon which shines outward, with attempt to mimic its reality. The mind that knew no foe, only the coming shadows for which it were to partake

[rabid_nerd]

7. eeek

[Wednesdays]

8. Oh man, that slope looks really slippery...

And very steep! :scared:

[AndyTiedye]

9. You Aussies Will Give Asscroft Ideas

:-(

[Rose Siding]

11. The Patriot Act

Couldn't something in there be used this way already if Ashcroft had a mind to do it? There is something in the HS bill about it being illegal to do something that could be "construed" as a threat or disruption of govt activities, I believe.

[muffit]

12. A slippery road indeed

The Aussie government has already begun along the road of internet censorship, probably more than any other country I am aware of, that supposedly believes in "Freedom, Democracy the right of free expression"

The arguement always starts the same way, they pick a topic that anyone will find hard to justify (In our first foray into internet censorship, it was child pornography, this time violent hate crimes) and then draw their line much furthur down the road. It is illegal to host any material above MA-15 rating in Australia now due to our internet censorship laws.

I have not heard parliament debate this latest bill, but the one thing that became clear to me when I listened to our senate debate the first internet censorship bill 12 months or so ago was that it was clear that they had no idea about the technology they were debating.

So if they pass this bill, I will be able to be jailed for doing nothing other than writing on a website. Not actually committing hostility, but writing about how it could be done.

Unfortunately in Australia we do not have the 1st amendment rights you guys in the US do, we have no similar thing in our constitution protecting our rights to free speech as citizens.

[pink_poodle]

13. Here it comes. -nm

:

[rman]

16. odd phrasing

"including those"
Who are "those"? Are those "people using the internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests", or just "people"?

Is it that besides "people using the internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests",
also
"people using the internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests _and_ using the internet to harass or menace others"
will be targetted?

That seems kind of superflues.

Or is it that both
"people using the internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests"
and
"people using the internet to harass or menace others"
will be targeted?

In case of the latter, this is a very slippery slope indeed.
Only the fact that it is phrased somewhat vaguely is imo reason for concern. Besides, "cyberstalking" (harrasment via internet) is already covered; no need for another law for that.

[gasperc]

17. the Supremem court ruled

merely writing offensive material is not cause to have it banned