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."
There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?
Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?
Re:Error in story (Score:3, Interesting)
Link at the bottom of the page was removed 15 minutes after inital the protection by the same administrator who protected the page. Personally, I considered that short enough a time to consider it "at the same time". Approximately seven hours later (significantly longer than the initial 15 minutes) it was added back by another administrator.
Diff in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278141091&oldid=278071658 [wikipedia.org]
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Well, Australia would have an R18+ video game classification, for one thing.
Civil disobedience (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm an Australian and I just downloaded the blacklist. Now what is ACMA going to do about it? I am tempted to start printing off the list and handing it out to strangers as a list of "all the good sites on the Internet". From a quick scan most of it looks to be random pron sites, they would have never gotten away with actually banning that many pron sites. Aussies love their porn. Though maybe they didn't ban the big pay ones as a thanks for all those anonymous donations.
Oh, and they have all the *chans. /b/ might almost be readable again if they ban all us Aussies.
Re:Update: full block list available on wikileaks (Score:1, Interesting)
what is the url of the dentist's website? Im happy to check that site from work to see if its blocked (im in a filtered isp), I'd rather not check one of the childporn sites ;)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Interesting)
It's proper Latin, you insensitive clod!
If you're talking about leaving the o out, then yes, it's proper Latin. The word was fetus in Classical Latin. It gained an o in the mediaeval period. Standard English overwhelmingly prefers this later spelling, but the etymology does give Americans a very good excuse for removing the o in this particular word.
The plural of this word in Latin is spelt the same as the singular, but the u is lengthened in the pronunciation. When this is the case, we in English just give the word a normal English plural in -es.
Giving the word a plural in -i (by analogy with words like alumnus) is a forgivable mistake, but "f(o)etii" is just idiocy. You might as well write "babyses".
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems you don't know the meaning of the word pornographic. [merriam-webster.com]
I quote the third meaning of the word:
Re:WP:POINT (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.
Being able to see the content that was blocked increases the encyclopedic value because it allows the reader to decide for themselves whether or not blocking it was appropriate.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree you should be free to say, or write anything you want, from a philosophical point of view. But when you go further and attempt to extend free speech to mean freedom to deliberately cause trouble, real physical trouble for other members of the world, then you're over stepping the mark.
It's pretty childish to just finish the sentence at "allow free speech" without qualifying where that freedom ends, especially when you conflate free speech with complete and total freedom to do what you want. It's like people bitching about dependence on motor vehicles or being stuck in traffic and burning fuel. The glib answer is "ride a bike". You say "but I have to travel 50 miles" or "I have only got 1 leg" but they don't have an answer to that. They don't want to consider the consequences just make a point and move on.
Take the Nazis for instance. If you really believe your nation would be better run by Nazis, then you need to read a bit of history. Time and time again the democratic process has proved that people don't agree with it. But you are willing to give the Nazis the right to free speech and you just hope that nobody ever takes them seriously enough to get any power. I think there should be limits before it gets that far. You are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery - why should you be allowed to vote for a vicious, xenophobic, racist, elistist bunch of scumbags like the nazis ? Giving them a platform in an election is lending them legitimacy, as if it's OK to kill people you don't like or agree with. I don't believe that is a legitimate viewpoint.
Draw a line where you believe no respectable political movement should go beyond, or you will end up regretting it. It's like the "your freedom to throw a punch, ends at the tip of my nose". It's too late when they hit you, they have already gone too far. If you allow the nazis sympathisers to march up and down a predominantly jewish neighbourhood, that is getting pretty close to the tip of a lot of peoples noses, and for what ? Are you seriously defending the right to deliberately piss people off just because you can ? And yet we see the same apologists complaining vehemently about cases of bullying even when it takes place over the net and there is no physical danger to anyone. Can we have some joined up thinking please ?
I'm not against free speech, I'm against finding out the hard way.
(note that the Nazis didn't originally come to power under a banner of "let's kill all the jews", their politics were socialist and publicly promised beer and kittens. Any organisation that is still prepared to call themselves Nazis must be referring to the Nazis as they turned out to really be [hate, ethnic cleansing, racial purity, etc], or else they have a pretty stupid marketing guy. The BNP figured that one out, but "British National Party" is still a bit too close so they have been spotted)
There have been (too) many cases in the UK of people with babies and toddlers allowing their dogs to have free reign. They always say that the dog is no threat, it has always been sweet tempered and friendly towards people. Then one day the dog takes the kids face off. Guess what, it's too fucking late.
What's the quote ?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Who's watching ? You ? Your elected representative ?
It appears to me that like most things these days, it's somebody elses job to do that, while you just sit around mouthing platitudes.
Congratulations if you made it this far. Most people who should read this (the ones I have a problem with) stopped reading as soon as I disagreed with their point of view (ironic huh). Now you can make your own mind up on what is acceptable in a civilised society. I hope you question yourself thoroughly. I'm not running for office, I'm appealing to common sense (heh).
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with your doubt, but why does that mean we suck? We suck because we're not totally irrational?
Even people who say things like "I will die for your rights!" realize that "free speech" as an absolute cannot exist alongside other absolutes like "privacy" which you mentioned, or "religion" or anything else that has a component that may restrict speech.
The West's rationality and introspection is a great strength not a source of suckiness. I guess it's not a strength, but more a thing of beauty. I know what you mean though. It sucks when you have that attitude but the people you're fighting don't. Things change, exceptions are made.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get how this does anything other than annoy the Australian censors. What point are they trying to prove? "It you put fetus pictures on a webpage, it'll be blocked?" Isn't that point already proven?
I think they're trying to do 2 things here.
For 1, this is straightforward enough.
For 2, this is interesting, as the people publishing the forbidden link are anti-abortion. Now, many people who are anti-abortion (I would guess) are quite rabidly pro-ACMA. They also view abortion as a form of child abuse (remember, they usually consider conception to be when life begins, not when the baby comes out of the breach). So what we end up with is essentially people publishing images of murder victims/abuse victims with the explicit intent of showing the harmful effects of the abortions. The ACMA probably claims to be banning the material because it's graphically revolting, but then again, that would be a personal judgement call. Given the reason for the ACMA (think of the children), this probably oversteps the boundary of what they are there for. One might also make the leap and say that just by blacklisting the site, the ACMA is making conflicting statements ("We condemn child abuse, but you aren't allowed to speak against it unless we approve.")