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."
Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
>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."
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
Re:Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
Why don't you get an account and then log in and say that, Jimmy Wales?
A history lesson (Score:5, Informative)
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:A history lesson (Score:5, Funny)
This article needs a cleanup to remove excessive negatives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oops I'm wrong, they left the link in there, my bad.
Re: (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
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Funny)
how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public
We would be very much worse off! The breastfeeding rate would fall. Child abuse in the form of bottle feeding would become rife, with obvious negative effects on future economic and sporting performance as well as the rise in criminal acitivity among abused children. In cases when mothers resisted such bottlefeeding abuse, we would have an increase in the number of hungry babies crying in public. Worse still some mothers might take their babies into public toilets to feed them, the psychopathological effects of which don't bear contemplating!
But yeah, you're right ;)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
You broke it.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
Dang. And I think this had a shot at being a new Slashdot meme.
Free speech meme, we hardly knew ye.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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: (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: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.
Already happened. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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, getti
Re: (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 wh
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: (Score:3, Funny)
and Travel agents for that matter
Computer says no ... *cough* ...
(For those of you in the dark, look up "Little Britain" on youtube).
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?
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: (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'
Re: (Score:2)
Very, because the very worst of us at least have the function of testing how much freedom we really do have. Once society starts selecting which views can be public and which can't, then ALL of our heads are on the chopping block because that means we are only allowed to express thoughts society lets us express. Great if you're a huge conformist, not so great if you want to think independently. Do you really want to put yourself at the mercy of Leviathan?
What's scary is, liberals tend to like that idea be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The solution is education, of which free speech is an integral part. How am I supposed to know if their purposes are nefarious if I'm never allowed to hear them? Oh, I see. I should take your word for it. How do I know if your purposes are nefarious?
> 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 histo
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Informative)
Your speech is certainly free - very free. Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word. I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought he had typoed and they were holding up signs of confetti!
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That IS NOT what happened. It is just a TEXT link, clearly labelled and you proceed at your own risk if you want to see it.
Pornographic? (Score:3, 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: (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 unders
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
My beef with abortion protesters isn't with their right to use graphic images to support their argument. I doubt they've received any form of consent to use the images. It's distasteful from the patient's perspective to abortion-rights advocates and from the child's perspective to pro-life advocates. I dislike the campaign's tactic for the same reason, a political site, or even pornography, would have been a better choice.
Also, there's a difference between street corners and targeted communication like
Re: (Score:2)
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?
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have you?
(This isn't a personal attack, I'm just trying to point out that one man's lols is another man's wtf, so to speak.)
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:You're Trolling... (Score:5, Funny)
That reminds me, who's up for veal?
Apostrophe's (Score:2)
"the lead up to it's removal"
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif [angryflower.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's meta funny because the comic's claimed grammar rules actually make it sound like "it's" can be either "it is" or "its" (possessive)
The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikileaks.org [downforeve...justme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Man, why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory? I thought my ISP was blocking me (when they shouldn't be, apparently) and was getting nice and toasty under the collar.
Or, is downforeveryoneorjustme in on it? Oohhhhh
don't want to be used to prove a point? (Score:4, Funny)
i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just want to be a record of all points.
Well, all points that someone at Wikipedia takes a liking to.
Re: (Score:2)
Why they did it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. If the administration had taken a public stance that they weren't going to take down the link no matter what, I would've been motivated to donate to Wikipedia for the first time ever.
Error in story (Score:4, Informative)
The story pretty much describes the opposite of what happened - the page was protected because a minority of users (many of them IP users without a login) kept on removing the link.
Re:Error in story (Score:4, Informative)
Check the history. The link was removed when the page was protected, and then re-added by someone else seven hours later for reason: "Restoring state to prevent a witch hunt or anything. Could people please assume good faith in future?".
Definitely sounds like a bit of an internal edit war, etc.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
So is anyone able to see if any of those IP addresses are from the ACMA offices?
Update: full block list available on wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)
For those who are interested, the Sydney Morning herald reports [smh.com.au] that the full internet filter list has been leaked. It's pretty interesting - there's a lot of not-actually-illegal content on it (including a dentist's site?).
It's interesting to note that this is the minimum that will be blocked in Australia; the gov may (and will) add to this. This sounds like much more of a test of the censors than what TFA writes about...
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks seems to, unfortunately, not be loading right now... Anyone have a mirror?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?
Re: (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
mirrors (Score:4, Informative)
ppl have been having issues, so here's some mirrors:
Re: (Score:2)
None of those sites work for me. (im in aus btw)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
woops, false alarm, tin foil hat removed...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice, apparently all of /b/ is to be blocked...
img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html
Re:mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
From the list:
www.goat.cx, 2girls1cup.com
So Australia's legislating for taste, then?
(lots of IP addresses including some with reputable hosting providers like Verio)
So hard luck if you got them after the original user whose content was blocked, then?
partypoker.com, www.pacificpoker.com, pokerroom.com, coralpoker.com
OK, the obnoxious advertising is more than a little annoying, but blacklisting them? Isn't that a little extreme?
hogtied.com
Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.
encyclopediadramatica.com
OK, I know they're blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia (with good reason), but blocking the entire site for an entire country -- a little extreme for being obnoxious, isn't it?
biz
Huh?? Not sure how their interpretation of this list works, but with a badly written filter this would probably block all .biz domains. With a well-written one it would achieve precisely nothing.
myusenet.net
A usenet service provider.
churchofeuthanasia.org
A site that seems to be intended to make a political statement about population control, although doing it in a rather crude fashion.
satanservice.org
A site of information about self-identified satanic religious groups.
libchrist.com
From the site: "Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Nonmonogamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others."
18yopics.com
So, they're not even pretending to have underage models, yet they get blocked anyway? Presumably on the off-chance that some of their models are younger than they claim?
www.torrentspy.com/directory/1503/adult/videos+%2d+hardcore
A list of hardcore movies, 99+% of which are totally legal (although, in most cases, copyright violations).
http://xfreehosting.com/
A hosting service provider's web site.
pornspaces.com
Another one.
http://pornstarpasswords.com/
A site with a collection of pictures of well-known US adult stars and a 18 USC 2257 compliance statement.
www.bowwowlyrics.cn
A site that, when it existed, probably contained lyrics and images relating to a vaguely-popular 80s New Wave pop group [wikipedia.org], and in a mirror of the Wikipedia/Scorpions debacle was probably blocked for hosting a copy of this album cover [wikipedia.org], which shows the naked back of the band's 15-year-old lead singer.
torrentfive.com
A generic bittorrent links site.
legal-models.info
A collection of non-pornographic images of children.
pussy.org
An average, run-of-the-mill hardcore porn site with US legal compliance statement.
sensualgetaway.com
A swingers' classified ads site.
piratetourism.com
"a full service travel agency, operating with the full license of the Ministry of Tourism and a member of the Association of Travel Agencies of Turkiye"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n
Two collections of somewhat-risque pictures that appear in wikipedia articles. None of these images appear to constitute child pornography.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:mirrors (Score:4, Informative)
Iran, China, Russia are all fine. You can access wikileaks from there. We Australians can't though.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't access it but it seems to just be slow / timing out. A traceroute gets through to what I think is Sweden, and the behaviour is the same across my home ISP, my work ISP, and my server at a colo in the US.
Maybe Australians are the only ones caring enough to report the site is unreachable?
Re: (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Conroy has since said that the leaked list is not the actual/current ACMA blacklist.
Either way, the blacklist is a fucking stupid idea and I'm ashamed that any mainstream group are pushing for it.
Links are there and locked, now (Score:5, Informative)
You might hope that Slashdot editors would CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINKS THEY POST and see the story is wrong at the time of being published. The current version of the page does indeed include the links, and it's been locked. Of course, the part of it being the subject of an edit war was true, and the linked Discussion page is a warzone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Links are there and locked, now (Score:4, Funny)
They enable?
*** GOVERMENT IS ASSISTING DIST. OF CHILD PORN *** (Score:2, Informative)
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...
What exactly are they trying to prove? (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Moving to China (Score:2)
At least there I know I'm being censored and for what.
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
The List is Fake, or so it appears... (Score:2)
Also, one of the ISPs involved in the testing confirmed that this list is not the ACMA list. More news coverage here on the ABC [abc.net.au]
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
Speedy work by Wikipedia (Score:2)
From the summary: Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours
So much for the claim (so often made by the WikiMafia and their fanboys) that trolling is caught and reverted within minutes.
Time to Karma-Whore (Score:4, Informative)
WP:POINT (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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.
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.
A *greased* Yoda? (Score:2, Informative)
Ah fuck. I was supposed to grease up the Yoda doll? That explains the horrible pain and encrusted blood on the backside of my wizard's robe.
Re:Phirst Poast Tsarkon Reports YODA GREASE UP YOU (Score:5, Funny)
I concur it was rather obvious but still, it could at least get an 'informative'.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia a starting ASIO Intelligence Analyst role was going quite cheaply - before 9/11 anyway.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
..... and that by loving browns and mud people they'll somehow get in the pants of "hip stylish urban women" who love to agonize over the supposed crimes of whites against "oppressed minorities."......
Sounds very much like you're agonising over the fact that those "hip stylish urban women" won't let you into their pants and you're blaming everyone else for it. Sad, man.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I say we wrap the list into every torrent for every recent released TV show, its a trivial amount of extra data, and it means a huge amount of aussies are "helping to distribute it" :)