Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors 330
pnorth writes "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of the Australian regulator's own Wikipedia entry. The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content. The very same link motivated the regulator to serve Aussie broadband forum Whirlpool's hosting company with a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine. Last night, the link became the subject of 'warring' between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to its removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."
What's the point? The site's hosted in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:1, Insightful)
Well I don't know about protesters holding up graphic images in public, but concerning shock sites:
The internet is not for children. It is not PG-13. It requires parental supervision, like so many other activities.
Re:fpfpfpf (Score:1, Insightful)
Careful where you aim that! You don't want it in your eye, trust me.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Insightful)
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public and demeaning of social groups?
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very worse off at all.
But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be.
Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list.
Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded.
Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State.
I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it.
Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them.
Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Insightful)
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?
It is arguable that there are some materials so objectionable that ThePeople(tm) in a democracy could ask their governments to ban or restrict general access to them. But that is not the case here! This was meant to be a secret list, which means we have a (supposedly democratically elected) government acting without public oversight. This is to be tolerated only in the rarest cases when it strictly necessary (such as on some issues of national security). What the Australian government is proposing here is intolerable.
Hopefully the release of the list will serve to warn people about the potential scope of the secret list. And hopefully this will strengthen Sen. Xenophon's resolve (and perhaps pursuade some other cross benchers) to scuttle the enabling legislation in the Senate.
Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a banned list also inevitably leaks out, and provides a *huge* number of links to such sites, which is even more disturbing to me...
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it. Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them. Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...
I agree fully, and that's why my Troll moderation is nonsensical. Apparently I should've laid down the sarcasm a bit more thickly...
Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't surprise me if the list has been updated to include Wikileaks. It seems that the site is not responding, but that could be the slashdot effect kicking in.
What really offends me about this mess is that (AFIK) images of aborted babies are not illegal to look at, even if they are gory and sickening to a lot of people. In fact, these very images can serve as educational material AGAINST abortion because most people don't really believe that there's a little person in there yet until the day they give birth... it would serve well to show the gruesome things that are done in the name of "choice" (I am pro-choice, but I think education on the facts is still worthwhile).
Government controlled secret censorship lists are a bad bad thing. Conroy did a bad bad thing (I could go the whole way with a parody of Chris Isaak here). Why are they fearing making the list public? If all the sites are required to be blocked by ISPs then there should be no way Australians can access the 'disgusting' material on the list anyway. *sighs*
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?
Re:The censorship has started. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool down a notch or two there. I'm in Canada, and Wikileaks isn't loading either. Slashdot effect or other server problems, I expect.
Pornographic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
Who decides what "hatemongering" is? As far as I have been able to tell, at least in the Western world, it currently works like this: Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and it's hate. So you think speech should be "free" and yet it should totally be confined to whatever speech the powers-that-be decide is offensive or isn't offensive to different racial or religious groups through obvious application of double standards? What's free about that?
Already happened. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?
Either learn to make a proper counter argument, or stop using the "For the CHILDRENZ" argument. Both will help you look less like a fool here on slashdot.
Secondly, while I don't disagree that we wouldn't be worse off without the two sites you mentioned - I do STRONGLY disagree that sites that for example promote anti-abortion should be disallowed. (For the record I am pro-abortion). My point is if the law was passed to block child porn sites, okay, block child porn sites. Don't start using it to block anything you want on a secret list that you can't discuss.
Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US (Score:1, Insightful)
Better that than give them the right to censor Wikipedia for the rest of us.
Why are they trying to censor links to the content, though? Isn't censoring the content itself enough?
Re:A history lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed
On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship (all things being equal), because working on an encyclopedia demonstrates in interest and love of knowledge, whose antithesis is censorship. That's why Librarians are often advocates for free speech. It's not very surprising.
Re:*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember is order to ban these sites public servants have to visit them and view the content.
C'mon, that would involve work. This is a government department we're talking about here.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?
I would presume that the fetuses are naked, and nudity is often equated with pornography by the religious right (when it suits their political needs). Showing dead naked fetuses presumably bring out necrophiliac impulses in people who are prone to have that "illness", so in order to stop fetus abuse we need to stop encouraging the demand by limiting the supply. That's the theory the Australian (et al) government uses against the purveyors of fetus abuse. Or at least that's the mindset as far as I can understand it.
No. It's real (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely the list is real, and it has been salted with additional sites. It is very much in Conroy's interest to try and make people believe that it is fake.
Conroy's press release [dbcde.gov.au] does not say the list is fake. It says:
A huge difference. You can be sure that "some common URLs" translates from politico speak as "1061 URLs", meaning the list is ACMA's. The delightful irony is that the only way Conroy can defend himself is if he actually says which URLs he considers to be fake, thereby giving even more info on the contents of ACMA's list.
Ask yourself this question: "If it's not ACMA's list, why is Conroy threatening:"
It's not illegal to distribute a list of random URL's. The only way Conroy could make the above threat is if the list is the real thing (or a superset of the real thing).
I'm curious as to whether Conroy's threats extend to the off-line world. For example, would it be illegal to print out the list of URLs and attach it to a noticeboard?
Re:mirrors (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice, apparently all of /b/ is to be blocked...
img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
mock a Muslim and it's intolerance
From my media-driven viewpoint, and as far as such groups can be generalised, Muslims are the first to jump on the "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant religion.
Re:What exactly are they trying to prove? (Score:3, Insightful)
They prove that forcing Australian servers to remove links to banned sites is pointless, as the links will just show up elsewhere. Wikipedia is a high-profile site and banning it would attract a great deal of attention to how stupid this whole thing is.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd argue that speech itself is an action and to incite others to act via speech is something that one should be held accountable of, after the fact. Talking is just talking until some action results from that.
If the bartender had obviously encouraged the person to break the law (drive whilst intoxicated, getting drunk is not a crime in most places, its when the drunk gets behind the wheel), this can be done. But of course in this scenario both are imprisoned as both are culpable, but it is more likely the bartender goes to court in a civil suit. But clear evidence must always be shown, the thing about hate speech laws is that in order not to be abused they must 1. take place after the destructive event and 2. have clear evidence (but most hate mongers like to record their ramblings).
Speech should be unrestricted but it should not be without consequence as this would just invite abuse (E.G. inciting to riot, this should only be a crime after the riot has occured).
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
If people didn't post those things, we would be no worse off. But the issue isn't about whether they are posted. It isn't even about what is posted. The real issue is that a government can make decisions about what gets blocked, with no transparency, no review, and no acceptance of responsibility. This is the most extreme danger, because it gives a government so much arbitrary power that cannot be challenged.
So they say this is about protecting children. Yet the mechanism they use goes beyond that ... far, far beyond that. So clearly, "protecting children" is a mere excuse. This is about government trying to take control over people ... adult people.
A proper system would provide for a means of review, including by anyone that chooses to be a reviewer. Clearly, anyone choosing to review this better not be squeamish. There also needs to be a process to challenge this. Anyone reviewing, or impacted, must have a means to have each entry reviewed, with a public openness of the challenge process.
A proper system for protecting children would be focused on children. For example, parents could be required to restrict children to a special internet connection reserved for children, while as adults, they personally can choose to bypass that protection. Mandating these filters for schools is understandable. But for every adult, too? Something is very rotten down under.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that I only hear about Neo-Nazis when their freedom of speech is curtailed, censoring them is almost counter-productive. Crackpots love to be censored - it's free publicity, and their flaky ideas are not tested in any public arenas.
Re:What's the point? The site's hosted in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
The Pirate Bay is hosted in Sweden, that didn't stop the whole world blaming them for copyright infringement violation of DMCA piracy arrrrrrrrr ... etc etc
Offtopic I know, so save your mod points for something useful ;-)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Insightful)
That would depend on the breasts in question ... some of the flabby, dangly, purple-veined monstrosities you tend to see are perhaps better hidden from fragile eyes.
It's their sensorship, not ours. (Score:3, Insightful)
'Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point.'
That seriously sounds like that what German people said when the Nazis deported the Jews.
"I don't want to get involved."
aka
"It's their internet censorship, not ours".
This attitude fails to see that once this censorship has established itself in other countries it will eventually come closer to being a global issue more and more.
There is no point in having freedom and no censorship in your country when all others around you are already gagged and have censored content. The internet community has eventually to realize that they are sitting in the same boat.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Insightful)
The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions.
Wrong. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity were valid religions, ie: Islam, but their versions of the Koran (having once been identical to the Muslim Koran) have been corrupted. The central claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is specifically refuted, as is the claim of Judaism to be the inheritors of the promise to Abraham, Islam claiming that inheritance passed to Ishmael rather than Isaac. Without these claims, Judaism and Christianity essentially do not exist and certainly aren't valid. That is why Islam teaches that a person converting to Islam from any other religion is acceptable, but converting from Islam to any other religion, including Judaism and Christianity, is a punishable offence.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the woman's breasts are perfect (a rarity on a real woman's real breasts and usually a sign of a boob job) or, as you put it, "flabby, dangly, purple-veined monstrosities." Either way, the woman has the right to feed her baby anywhere she happens to be. If that means giving her baby a bottle of milk or a breast filled with milk, it doesn't matter. If your eyes are so fragile that you will suffer irreparable damage seeing a small portion of a real woman's breast being used to feed a baby, then there's a really simple solution: Look away! No one is forcing you to stare at the woman feeding her child.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's ridiculous also. A woman can wear a string bikini with only the barest square of cloth covering her nipple and she's ok. But should that tiny square move over an inch or so and suddenly it is the end of the civilized world and children in a five mile radius are scarred for life. I was watching a "History of Sex" program on the History Channel one day and they mentioned that it was once thought that the mere sight of a woman's leg would drive a man into a fit of uncontrollable lust. In fact, men were thought to be so weak that a table's leg would remind them of a woman's leg and they would go into fits. Table skirts were invented to hide the table legs and protect men from the embarrassment of being caught humping a table leg. (Seriously, were men back then that weak-willed?!!)
I think if women were allowed to go topless whereever men are allowed to go topless: In the short term, there would be a lot of stupid, drooling teenagers and heart attacks among religious conservatives. In the long term, the female breast would become like a woman's leg. An object of attraction, but not considered solely a "sex object."
Certainly, tiny wardrobe malfunctions shouldn't cause national uproar and millions of dollars in fines.