A tax on violence or starving the egregore
by Amonakur

 

An example on censorship use, abuse and regulations applied in Australia.
This is just to show you that many institutions are facing the problems I was
talking about in the “Tumblr’s article”, considering these topics from a “secrecy” point of view rather than a social point of view.
Protecting their interests, these private groups and servers, that act like banks, serve more private interests propagandizing ideas and infos that say what they
want people to believe in, rather than helping society protecting children and youngsters from bad example and brainwashing.


Instruments should be used, not abused, and harmonic principles shoud scientifically run the architecture of these systems, in an organic way, rather
than an artificial one. Who controls the controllers? This is the point. And who decides circa the list of words that should be classified, canceled, erased, diverted etc…

before they even reach your google search query? These are matters that should be discussed in a round table, and as the net is a
spreading widely all over the world, contents should be equilibrated, and a par condicio granted, considering topics that could effect thinking,
behavior, and deeds.

It is time to work on languages and equilibrate their contents, reintroducing the 20000 + words that have been hidden away, diverted and erased. We
should try to harmonize English language together with etymological respect for Sanskrit roots, to build a new instrument capable of elevating mankind
to an higher level.

As a musician, I can tell you that if I do not tune my instrument before giving a concert, the result will certainly be a fiasco and someone will shout at
me boooo boooo and whistle!
Languages tune people up, and as society is made up of the voice of people that use concepts, words and follow linguistic rules, rational logic together
with social mind, will be forced into a conflicting instrument that creates hate and quarrel every time you will ask a group of people to express their
opinions about something.

Ignorant people are rather competitive once they learn a function, and stupidity makes them shout so loud that we think they are right. When truth is
wispered, silence follows, because when the word is sacred, there is nothing to add or correct.

Lets work together on the harmonization of languages first, then on the unbalanced contents of discussions that are taking place everywhere stressing
out which kind of mental fault is damaging the system. Once we make clear that this problem comes from an unbalanced diet, we will correct it and
enjoy life.

Every one should practice, count, write down and cancel the negative words that create conflicting attitudes and misunderstanding of life. Fear and
horror, terror and sufferance must be abandoned and not used as a propellant to make people behave and do things they would never do.

Dis functional languages create mental disorders, and as I cannot blame the inventor of the rifle today, because it is too late, we shall have a talk with the guys
that are using these weapons in media.About Australia: Internet censorship in Australia currently consists of a regulatory regime under which the Australian Communications
and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a “black-list” of overseas websites which is then
provided for use in filtering software.

Since October 2008, the governing Australian Labor Party has proposed to extend Internet censorship to a system of mandatory filtering of overseas
websites which are, or potentially would be, “refused classification” (RC) in Australia. This means that internet service providers would be required to
block access to such content for all users. As of June 2010, legislation to enact this policy still has not been drafted. The proposal to introduce
mandatory filtering has generated substantial opposition, with a number of concerns being raised by opponents and only a few groups strongly
supporting the policy. Such legislation may therefore have difficulty passing through the Senate. With the announcement made on 5 August 2010 by Joe
Hockey that the Coalition parties will not vote in favor of the policy should the Labor party be re-elected, it is now virtually impossible for the filtering
scheme to pass through the Senate.

In November 2010, Department of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy (DBCDE) released a document indicating that the earliest date
any new legislation could reach parliament was mid-2013.

Broadcasting Services Act 1992

The provisions of Schedule 5 and Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 inserted in 1999 and 2007[6] allow the Australian Communications
and Media Authority to effectively ban some content from being hosted within Australia. Under this regime, if a complaint is issued about material
“broadcast” on the Internet the ACMA is allowed to examine the material under the guidelines for film and video.

The content is deemed to be “prohibited” where it is (or in ACMA’s judgement likely would be):
refused classification, or classified X18+
classified R18+, and not protected by an adult verification system
classified MA15+ and not protected by an adult verification system, where the user has paid to access the content.

Where content is deemed to be prohibited, the ACMA is empowered to issue local sites with a take-down notice under which the content must be
removed; failure to do so can result in fines of up to $11,000 per day. If the site is hosted outside Australia, the content in question is added to a
blacklist of banned URLs. This list of banned Web pages is then added to filtering software (encrypted), which must be offered to all consumers by
their Internet Service Providers. In March 2009, this blacklist was leaked online.

A number of take down notices have been issued to some Australian-hosted websites. According to Electronic Frontiers Australia in at least one
documented case, the hosting was merely shifted to a server in the United States, and the DNS records updated so that consumers may never have
noticed the change.

Suicide Related Materials Offences Act 2006

In 2006 the Federal Parliament passed the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act, which makes it illegal to use communications media such as the
Internet to discuss the practical aspects of suicide.
Copyright Legislation Amendment Bill 2004
The Copyright Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 was passed on 9 December 2004 by the Australian Senate, and extended copyright reform beyond the
Australian-US free trade agreement (FTA). The impact will be felt most heavily by Internet service providers. The Internet Industry Association and
EFA are actively opposing these efforts.
State and territory laws

Some state governments have laws that ban the transmission of material unsuitable for minors.In New South Wales, Internet censorship legislation was
introduced in 2001 which criminalises online material which is unsuitable for minors. In 2002, the New South Wales Standing Committee on Social
Issues issued a report recommending that the legislation be repealed, and in response the New South Wales government stated that the legislation “will
be neither commenced nor repealed” until after the review of the Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation had been completed.
Notable examples

In 2002, New South Wales Police Minister Michael Costa attempted, without success, to shut down three protest websites by appealing to the then-
communications minister Richard Alston. The Green Left Weekly stated these were Melbourne Indymedia and S11 websites, and that the Australian
Broadcasting Authority (the predecessor to ACMA) cleared them of breaching government regulations on 30 October 2002.

Also in 2002, and under the terms of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Federal Court ordered Dr Fredrick Töben to remove material from his

Australian website which denied aspects of The Holocaust and vilified Jews.

In 2006, Richard Neville published a “spoof” website that had a fictional transcript of John Howard apologising to Australians for the Iraq War. The

website was forcibly taken offline by the government with no recourse.

After the devastating bushfires in February 2009, details about an alleged arsonist were posted online by bloggers. Victorian police deputy
commissioner Kieran Walshe has asked the state Director of Public Prosecutions to examine the possibility of removing these blogs from the web, as
they might jeopardise any court case.

In March 2009, after a user posted a link to a site on ACMA’s blacklist on the Whirlpool forum, Whirlpool’s service provider, Bulletproof Networks,
was threatened with fines of $11,000 per day if the offending link was not removed. The same link in an article on EFA’s website was removed in May

2009 after ACMA issued a “link-deletion notice”, and the EFA took the precautionary step of also removing indirect links to the material in question.
The 2009 winner of the George Polk award for videography shows footage of 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan being shot and dying during Iran protests.
This footage has also been declared “prohibited content” by ACMA, attracting fines of $11,000 per day for any Australian website which posts a link to
the video.

After the Australian government announced plans to mandate web filtering in Australia in December 2009, an anti-censorship website hosted on
stephenconroy.com.au (The full name of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) was taken offline by auDA after only
24 hours of being published online.

In October 2000, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) attempted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to obtain documents relating to the
implementation of the web filter. While a few were released, many were not, and in 2003 new legislation, “Communications Legislation Amendment
Bill (No. 1) 2002”, was passed by the Liberal government and four independents, and opposed by The Greens and the Australian Labor Party. While

the stated reason for the bill was to prevent people accessing child pornography by examining the blocked sites, this bill exempted whole documents
from FOI, many of which did not reference prohibited content at all. EFA state that the bill was designed to prevent further public scrutiny of web
filtering proposals.

History Wikinews has related news: Portions of Wikileaks, Wikipedia blocked in Australia


In 1999, the Federal Government attempted to get an Internet censorship regime together to gain support from minority senators to assist with the sale
of Telstra, but this censorship plan did not work.
In 2001, CSIRO was commissioned to examine Internet content filtering. The report focused primarily on evaluating the effectiveness of client-side

filtering schemes (which were generally ineffective), but also discussed some of the difficulties with ISP-based filtering
In March 2003, the Fairfax papers The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald reported the results of a survey taken by The Australia Institute of 200

children, which found that many of them had found pornography on the Internet. Over the next few days was a storm of media and political attention,
and there were calls for finer Internet filters and tougher censorship laws. Analysis of the report showed little new material, and only 2% of girls had
admitted being exposed to pornography, while the figure for boys was 38%; such a difference between boys and girls would seem to indicate that
inadvertent exposure was rare, contrary to the conclusions of the report. After the controversy died down, no new action resulted from the new report,
media attention, or political speeches.

In 2003, the Labor Party opposed filtering at the ISP level, with Labor Senator Kate Lundy stating

“Unfortunately, such a short memory regarding the debate in 1999 about Internet content has led the coalition to already offer support for greater
censorship by actively considering proposals for unworkable, quick fixes that involve filtering the Internet at the ISP level.”
Shortly before the 2004 federal election, two political parties issued new policies on Internet censorship. The Australian Labor Party’s policy involved
voluntary adherence by users. The Family First Party released a far stricter policy of mandatory filtering at the Internet service provider level.

The Australian Family Association petitioned the Australian Federal Government in 2004 to further restrict access by children to pornographic material
via the Internet. The petition was submitted in December 2004.

On 21 March 2006, the Labor party committed to requiring all ISPs to implement a mandatory Internet blocking system applicable to “all households,
and to schools and other public Internet points” to “prevent users from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by the Australian

Communications and Media Authority”.

On the same day, the then communications minister Helen Coonan stated that to “filter the Internet will only result in slowing down
 the Internet for every Australian without effectively protecting children from inappropriate and offensive content”
Policy of current Federal Government

On 31 December 2007, Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government’s intention to introduce an ISP-based filter to censor “inappropriate
material” from the Internet to protect children. In this announcement, it was stated that adults could opt out of the filter to receive uncensored access
to the Internet.
In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million “cybersafety plan” which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision.
This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related
to terrorism.

In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as “conspiracy
theories”. He stated that the filter would only be used to remove “refused classification” (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television,
radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation. However, Labor’s
policy statement on the issue contradicts this. It is also contrary to an earlier ministerial release in 2008.

The most recent explanation of the government’s position on this issue is provided on the ministry website. This clearly states that only ISP-level
filtering of (designated) refused classification (RC) material will be mandatory under their policy. However, ISP’s will be encouraged to offer ISP-level
filtering of ‘adult content’ as an optional (commercial) service to their customers. Such an optional extra service is aimed at parents trying to protect
their children from ‘undesirable’ content that would otherwise be available, because it would not be RC (e.g. it might receive a classification of “R”).

Labor Senator Kate Lundy said in January 2010 that she is lobbying within the party for an “opt-out” filter, describing it as the “least worst” option. In
February 2010 she said she would propose the opt-out option when the filtering legislation goes before caucus.
Stephen Conroy has stated that 85% of Internet Service Providers, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet, welcome the Internet filter.
 In response, Steve Dalby, iiNet’s chief regulatory officer, stated that iiNet as a company does not support the Internet filter, and never has.
On 9 July 2010, Stephen Conroy announced that any mandatory filtering would be delayed until at least 2011.

In June 2011 two Australian ISPs, Telstra and Optus, confirmed they would voluntary block access to a list of child abuse websites provided by the
Australian Communications and Media Authority and more websites on a list compiled by unnamed international organizations from mid-year.
Opposition policies and statements
The Liberal Party

In February 2009, then opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin obtained independent legal advice confirming that a mandatory
censorship regime would require new legislation. In March 2009, after the ACMA blacklist was leaked and iiNet withdrew from the filtering trials, he
stated that Stephen Conroy was “completely botching the implementation of this filtering policy”.

In March 2010, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey attacked the filter, saying “What we have in the government’s Internet filtering proposals is a scheme that
is likely to be unworkable in practice. But more perniciously it is a scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader
scale”. During the 2010 Federal Election, Liberal communications spokesman Tony Smith announced that “a Coalition government will not introduce
a mandatory ISP level filter”, with Joe Hockey also announcing an intention to vote against the policy if Labor is re-elected.
The Greens

The Greens do not support the Internet filter, and Greens senator Scott Ludlam predicts that due to obstruction in the Senate, the legislation will not
be introduced until after the next Federal Election.

At the end of 2008 he asked questions in parliament related to the filtering trial, for which the Government provided answers in January 2009:
When asked about the stated public demand for Internet filtering, the government responded that the filtering was an election commitment
The Internet filter would be easy to bypass using technological measures
674 out of 1370 blocked sites on the mandatory list relate to child pornography; 506 sites would be classified as R18+ or X18+, despite the fact that

such content is legal to view in Australia. The remaining 190 sites from this number on the blacklist can be viewed at the full revealed blacklists on

Wikileaks.

Ludlam believes that the Labor party may have hit a wall of “technical impossibility”, and the filter does not suit its purpose:
“This isn’t a great advertisement for the workability of any large scale scheme. The proposal has always been unpopular, now perhaps the Government
is starting to come to grips with what the industry has been saying all along: if your policy objective is to protect children on-line, this is not the way to
go about it.”

Despite their lack of support for the filter, The Greens preselected Clive Hamilton, whose think-tank The Australia Institute first suggested an ISP-
based Internet filter,[30] for the by-election in the seat of Higgins.
Independents and minor parties
In October 2008, Family First senator Senator Steven Fielding was reported to support the blocking of hardcore pornography and fetish material under
the Government’s plans to filter access to the Internet. A Family First spokeswoman[who?] confirmed that the party wants X-rated content banned for
everyone, including adults.

A spokesman for independent senator Nick Xenophon said

“should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in

Australia”.

Senator Xenophon has, however, stated that he has serious concerns about the plan, and in February 2009 withdrew all support, stating that “the more
evidence that’s come out, the more questions there are on this.” He believes that money would be better spent educating parents and cracking peer-to-
peer groups used by paedophiles.

A political party associated with The Eros Foundation, the Australian Sex Party, was launched in November 2008 and plans to campaign on issues
including censorship and the federal Government’s promised Internet filter.
Two Blacklists

As of October 2008, the plan includes two blacklists, the first used to filter “illegal” content, and the second used to filter additional content unsuitable
for children. The first filter will be mandatory for all users of the Internet, while the second filter allows opting out. The government will not release
details of the content on either list,[55] but has stated that the mandatory filter would include at least 10,000 sites, and include both the ACMA blacklist
and UK’s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) blacklist. In December 2008 the IWF list caused problems when the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer was
added to the list, as it prevented many people in the UK from being able to edit Wikipedia.

The ACMA definitions of “prohibited content” give some idea of what could potentially be blacklisted. Online content prohibited by ACMA includes:
Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography,
depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material
that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated
sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.

In answer to a question in Parliament in October 2008, the government in January 2009 stated that the black list contained 1370 websites. 674 were
related to child pornography, and the remainder would be classified as R18+ and X18+.

Two websites are known to be on the ACMA blacklist after they were submitted to ACMA for review. When ACMA responded with the advice that
these sites had been placed upon its blacklist, ACMA’s response was in turn posted back to the web by the original submitters, with the purpose of
demonstrating that political content would be censored by the mandatory filter. One was an anti-abortion website, with details posted to Whirlpool,
and the other was a copy of Denmark’s own Internet blacklist, with both the blacklist and ACMA’s response posted on Wikileaks. The web hosting
company for Whirlpool, Bulletproof networks, was threatened with $11,000 in fines per day if the link was not removed, so Whirlpool voluntarily
removed the link to the restricted site. Civil liberties campaigners regard the inclusion of these sites on the blacklist as a demonstration that it is not
difficult to get a site placed on the blacklist, and that the blacklist includes sites which are themselves not illegal to view.

Leaking of the ACMA blacklist

18 March 2009: WikiLeaks publishes a list which is

“derived from the ACMA list for the use of government-approved censorship software in its “ACMA-only” mode.” Included in the list were “the
websites of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator”.

19 March 2009: Australian media sources report that the ACMA blacklist has been leaked to WikiLeaks

“The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to
ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence.”

ACMA claimed that the list which appeared on the Wikileaks website was not the ACMA ‘blacklist’, as it contained 2300 URLs. ACMA claimed the

ACMA list contained only 1061 URLs in August 2008, and has at no stage contained 2300.

The ACMA report on the issue noted the similarities between the two lists, yet addressed only the claim reported in the media that the list was the

blacklist. The report only contains the following claims about the two lists:
“The list provided to ACMA differs markedly in length and format to the ACMA blacklist.”
“The ACMA blacklist has at no stage been 2300 URLs in length and at August 2008 consisted of 1061 URLs.”

20 March 2009: WikiLeaks published another list, this time closer to the length published by ACMA. Wikileaks believes that the list is up-to-date as of
the time of publication

25 March 2009: Stephen Conroy has reportedly stated that this list closely resembles the ACMA list.

26 March 2009: The above report of 25 March 2009 was followed by the Minister’s statement on the ABC’s ‘Q&A’ television program the following

day[65] that “the second list which has appeared appears to be closer [to the true black-list]. I don’t actually know what’s on the list but I’m told by […]

ACMA it appears to be closer to the actual, legitimate list.”
On the program Senator Conroy also explained that the seemingly inexplicable censoring of a dentist’s website was due to subversion of the website by

the Russian mafia, who had inserted RC material.
In the same discussion Bill Henson’s website, despite the PG rating given to his photographs by the same body, appeared on the blacklist due to a

technical error according to Stephen Conroy[65][66] The ACMA has since released a statement claiming the technical error was a “computer system
caching error” and further stated “found that this is the only URL where a caching error resulting in the URL being incorrectly added to the list.”
Live filtering trials
The government has committed to trials of the mandatory Internet filter before implementation.

On 28 July 2008, an ACMA report entitled “Closed Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering” showed performance and accuracy

problems with the six unnamed ISP-based filters trialled. EFA analysis of the report showed that:
One filter caused a 22% drop in speed even when it was not performing filtering;
Only one of the six filters had an acceptable level of performance (a drop of 2% in a laboratory trial), the others causing drops in speed of between

21% and 86%;
The most accurate filters were often the slowest;
All filters tested had problems with under-blocking, allowing access to between 2% and 13% of material that they should have blocked; and
All filters tested had serious problems with over-blocking, wrongly blocking access to between 1.3% and 7.8% of the websites tested.
The trial tested speed on a simple ‘black listed or not’ basis for all simulated clients on all systems, yet the report outlines the ability of the filters to

provide customised filtering to each client (as would be required by the two levels of filtering which ACMA is proposing) which would significantly

impact test results.

In November 2008 the Government hired Melbourne company ENEX TestLab, an RMIT spin-off, to design a live pilot test on a real network.[71] In

this trial, in which several ISPs have expressed an interest, 10,000 blacklisted “unwanted” websites would be blocked in addition to 1,300 websites

identified by ACMA. As an incentive for participation, the department states that participating ISPs

“will be recognised for their participation in the Pilot. This recognition will strengthen their brand image with the community.”

These ISPs will also be allowed to keep any software and hardware purchased by the government for the trial. The trial may include some ability to

block or alert on the presence of proxies. Both filtered and unfiltered users will be surveyed as part of the trial.

ISPs participating in the Live Trial will be required to enter into a non disclosure agreement with ACMA.

Communications from Senator Conroy’s office have indicated that the live trial will occur without the participation of any customers due to concerns

about the impact on network performance of filtering 10,000 URLs. Telstra and Internode have stated that they will not take part in the trial. iiNet has

stated that it will take part in the trial only to show that the filtering will not work. Optus has stated that it will only test a heavily cut-down filtering

model containing only 1300 URLs in a limited geographic area, and customers will be allowed to opt out.

At the end of 2008, Stephen Conroy anticipated that the live trial would test the filtering of Bittorrent traffic, but in March 2009 he stated that the

proposed filters would not be effective on peer-to-peer traffic.

The trial was originally scheduled to be commenced in December 2008, but, after the existence of a report critical of the trial became known, the trial

was pushed back. On 11 February 2009 a new filtering trial was announced, initially with the ISPs iPrimus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield,

OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1. Testing with each ISP will take place for at least six weeks once filtering equipment has been obtained and

installed, and iPrimus expects the trial to begin in late April or early May with five or ten thousand participants. The trial will be opt-in, with ISPs asking

for volunteers, although all WebShield customers already receive a filtered service. None of the top three ISPs, Telstra, Optus and iiNet, have been

included in the trial, although both iiNet and Optus did expect to be involved at a later time. iiNet withdrew itself from consideration for the trial in

March 2009, with Michael Malone giving as reasons the media storm around the leaked blacklist, the changing nature of policy, and “confused”

explanations of the trial’s purpose.

In July 2009 some results from the trials began to emerge. Five of the nine participating ISPs reported minimal speed or technical problems associated

with the trials. Some ISPs reported that thousands of their members had voluntarily participated in the trials; others, that less than 1% had participated,

and that this was not a representative sample. Some customers complained about over-blocking, and withdrew from the trial. One example was the

blocking of the pornography website redtube.com: ACMA refused to confirm or deny if the site was on the list, or if the site was legal.[82] Leading

Australian statistic experts, however, have labelled the trials as unscientific, lacking in proper methodology, unrepresentative and “about the worst way

you can do it”.

In December 2009, the results of the filtering trial were released. Stephen Conroy stated that “The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering

demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on Internet speed” However, concerns have

been raised about the report: only a small minority of ISP users participated; the trial did not test using any high-speed Internet connections similar to

those available with the National Broadband Network; there is evidence that the filter was evaded; and with only 600-700 sites on the RC blacklists,

then the effect of the filter would be marginal at best.
Filtering Technology

The Swedish vendor NetClean reported that its own product, WhiteBox, will be trialled in Australia. WhiteBox is a hybrid filtering technology which

routes web traffic, for IP addresses known to host objectionable material, through a transparent proxy.

Some risks and limitations of hybrid filters have been identified, including heavy congestion when blocks are applied to busy web servers, and a

procedure to use the filter itself to identify all sites on the blacklist.

Some vendors[who?] have approached smaller ISPs and offered to provide them with required equipment to take part in the filtering trials.
UK IWF blockage of Wikipedia
Main article: Internet Censorship in the United Kingdom

The IWF blacklist will form part of the mandatory blacklist used in Australia. In December 2008, hybrid filtering technology implemented by UK

providers caused disruption of Wikipedia operations in the UK when a Wikipedia page was added to the IWF watchlist. When Wikipedia
blocked UK vandals by their IP address, this block affected all users coming from these IP addresses. As these IP addresses belonged to the filter
proxies, some Wikipedia users in the UK, depending on their ISP, attempting to edit an article without a login name were blocked. Some proxies also
collapsed under load generated by Wikipedia traffic.

After widespread coverage, the IWF removed the Wikipedia page from its blacklist, citing the availability of the image on other websites as a factor:
“IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the Internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have
had the opposite effect … We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users.”
Opinion Polling

In February 2010 ABC’s Hungry Beast program commissioned McNair Ingenuity Research to perform a telephone poll of 1,000 Australians. Key results
were
To the proposition We need Government regulation of content on the Internet the same as we have Government regulation of content for other media

62% agreed, 35% disagreed.
Having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is

Refused Classification? Refused Classification was defined as Images and information about one or more of the following: child sexual abuse, bestiality,

sexual violence, gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes, detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs.

80% were in favour, 19% against.
A Government appointed body determining whether a website is appropriate for you to visit? 50% in favour, 46% against.
If a mandatory Internet Filter is established, are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused

Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification? 91% in favour, 8% against.
Some opponents of the Government’s mandatory Internet Filter are concerned that if it were put in place, future Governments could use Internet

Filtering technology to restrict free speech or block other forms of website content they don’t approve of. Do you share this concern? 70% concerned,

27% unconcerned.

The wide variation to answers to essentially the same question can be attributed to variations in the wording of the questions asked.[citation needed]

The results were initially reported as “80pc back web filter: poll” despite the fact that 46% were against “a government body determining whether a

website is appropriate to visit”.[94] The question asked were whether respondents supported the results despite the evidence that the filter will not

effectively achieve these results, respondents were not made aware of the limitations of such a filter.

In February 2009 a national telephone poll of 1,100 people was conducted by Galaxy and commissioned by GetUp!. It found that only 5 per cent of

respondents want ISPs to be responsible for protecting children online, and only 4 per cent want Government to have this responsibility.

In March 2010 the results of the Whirlpool Australia broadband survey 2009 were published. This survey was of 21,755 experienced Internet users, and

only 8% were in favour of the mandatory filter.

In May 2010 the results of a study commissioned by the Safer Internet Group were published. The Safer Internet Group includes Google, Internet

Industry Association, iiNet, Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Library and Information Association. 39 people

participated in four focus group interviews. The study stated that while people were aware of the pending filter legislation, they did not understand its

details. When details of the Government’s proposal was explained, along with the possible alternatives, enthusiasm for the filter dropped.[96]
Anti-censorship campaigns

Protests involving hundreds of people were held on 1 November 2008, with people in all capital cities nationwide marching on state Parliaments, and

on 13 December 2008, in all capital cities.[98] The Digital Liberty Coalition organised these protests, declaring an intent to rally continuously until

censorship as a whole is taken off the table.

The Internet-based political activism organisation, GetUp!, which has previously run mainstream campaigns action against Work Choices and to free

David Hicks, is backing the offline action of the DLC to oppose the web censorship plan. GetUp! first called for donations during December 2008 to

raise awareness of Internet censorship in Australia. The group raised an unprecedented $30,000 before the end of the appeal’s first day.

GetUp! teamed up with award winning, non-traditional and digital creative agency Fnuky Advertising to launch a campaign in Australia to raise

awareness of the Australian Government’s flawed plans to introduce web censorship. The campaign impersonated the Australian Federal Government

by presenting web censorship as a mock consumer product branded as Censordyne,[102] a parody of the toothpaste brand, Sensodyne. Fnuky

Advertising’s Creative Director, David Campbell selected toothpaste as the platform for the campaign after Stephen Conroy stated the purpose of web

censorship in Australia was to ‘Fight Moral Decay’. The Censordyne campaign was launched online during July 2009 by a single Twitter post by fake

Stephen Conroy, a popular impersonator of the Australian Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy. The campaign featured an online video,[103] a

Censordyne product website and a Censordyne search engine. Within 24 hours of launch, the words GetUp and Censordyne were the number 2 and 3

most talked about brands on Twitter worldwide. The campaign received widespread coverage in most major Australian newspapers and news websites.

Censordyne become a topic of discussion on Nova 96.9 radio in Sydney and was featured on the Australian ABC television program Insiders.

GetUp! raised over $45,000 in donations from the general public during July 2009 to see the Censordyne commercial on TV and on Qantas flights

during the month of August 2009, where all Australian politicians would be travelling to Canberra. Following the Censordyne campaign launch, Qantas

chose to censor the anti-censorship campaign from their flights.
Response

The debate over Internet filtering has incited some tension in Australia, with threatening phone calls and emails being received by advocates of both

sides of the debate.

In a speech in January 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accuses countries with Internet censorship of breaching the UN’s Universal

Declaration on Human Rights, and the Australian filter literally fits her definition for censorship. Stephen Conroy welcomed Clinton’s speech, and

agrees with her that “freedom of expression has its limits”. Colin Jacobs responded in turn to note that while there are limits to free speech, Clinton

had stated that the advantages of the Internet would be jeopardised by introducing censorship. As part of a diplomatic assault by the USA on Internet

censorship in many countries, US State Department spokesman Noel Clay has raised concerns about the filter plan with Australian officials.

The leaders of three of Australia’s largest ISPs (Telstra, iiNet and Internode) have stated in an interview that the web filtering proposal simply cannot

work for various technical, legal and ethical reasons. The managing director of iiNet, Michael Malone, has said of Stephen Conroy “This is the worst

Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [Internet] industry has existed,” and plans to sign up his ISP for participation in live

filtering trials by 24 December to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it [the filtering proposal] is.”

Dale Clapperton, then chairperson of EFA, argued that the Labor party cannot implement the clean feed proposal without either new legislation and

the support of the Australian Senate, or the assistance of the Internet Industry Association. As the Liberals and Greens have both stated that they will

not support legislation, it can only be implemented with the support of the IIA.

International lobby group Netchoice, which is backed by companies including eBay, AOL Time Warner, Oracle Corporation and some trade

associations[who?], is likely to oppose the mandatory filter. Google opposes the filter primarily because the scope of content to be filtered is too wide,

and is likely to delay the introduction of Google TV to Australia because of technical concerns about the filter.

Internode engineer Mark Newton was the subject of a letter of complaint from Stephen Conroy’s office for his participation in a Whirlpool forum

showing the negative impact of the filter on Internet access speeds.

Some child welfare groups ( Save the Children / National Children’s & Youth Law Centre ) have attacked the filtering plan as ineffective, stating that

resources would be better spent elsewhere, and agreeing with the opposing position presented by Australia’s ISPs. Other child welfare groups continue

to support the filters. In 2008, ChildWise defended the plan as “a victory for common sense,”

NSW Young Labor has abandoned the web filtering plan, passing a motion rejecting Conroy’s plans, and calling on him to adopt a voluntary, opt-in,

system.

Colin Jacobs, vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering were illustrated by the problems in the

UK caused by the blocking of a single Wikipedia page. He also said of the IWF blacklist:

“In Australia, not only would the Government have the ability to secretly add any site to our blacklist, but an unaccountable foreign-based organisation

would as well”.

Conservative South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi does not support the mandatory web filter. He considers Stephen Conroy’s plan to be “so

devoid of detail” that it is impossible to form an opinion on it, and says

“Parental responsibility cannot and should not be abrogated to government - if it is, our society will only become weaker … Yes, illegal content should

be banned from the web … but it is wrong to give the government a blank cheque to determine what is appropriate for us to view on the Internet.”
Clive Hamilton, a senior ethics professor at the Australian National University whose think tank the Australia Institute was responsible for the initial

media attention for a mandatory Internet filter in 2003, argues

“The laws that mandate upper speed limits do not stop people from speeding, does that mean that we should not have those laws? … We live in a

society, and societies have always imposed limits on activities that it deems are damaging. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Internet.”[36][121]

Despite proposing the filter, he has been chosen by The Greens to stand in the Federal seat of Higgins.

Retired Justice Michael Kirby believes that it is a bad example for the government of a democratic country like Australia to take control of what people

hear and what information they get, and made comparisons to the situation in Iran and Burma

In an open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Reporters Without Borders states that the web filter is not the solution to combating child sex abuse,

and the plan entails risks to freedom of expression. The blocking of websites by ACMA, rather than a Judge, is in contravention of laws. The criteria

for blocking “inappropriate” websites is too vague, and it would be a dangerous censorship option to target “Refused classification” sites, many of

which are unrelated to sexual abuse. Subjects such as abortion, anorexia, aborigines and legislation on the sale of marijuana would all risk being filtered,

as would media reports on these subjects.

The Howard Government commissioned a number of independent technical experts to examine Internet filtering. The resulting report was delivered to

the Australian Government in February 2008, and released publicly in December 2008. Professor Bjorn Landfeldt, one of the report’s authors, stated

that filtering technology simply does not work, as it can easily be bypassed and slows access to the Internet by up to 87%. In response, Stephen Conroy

has stated that the report involved no empirical testing, and was simply a literature review of material available from other sources; any problems raised

by the report would be tested during the filter trials scheduled for mid-January 2009.

A report by Tim Stevens and Dr Peter Neumann for the London-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence

(ICSR) analyses each of the available ISP-based filtering solutions and concludes that they are ineffective in the fight against terror. A hybrid filtering

scheme was rated the best, but it is ineffective against dynamic content such as chat pages and instant messaging, and had political implications because

it required the existence of a blacklist of blocked pages. The report instead advocates the use of take-down notices for extremist content, and

prosecutions to “signal that individuals engaged in online extremism are not beyond the law.”

The Metaverse Journal suggests that because web filtering logs every site visit, and some information about who is visiting the site, then it is ripe for

abuse by whoever runs the filters. It potentially allows surveillance of any user of the Internet, such as journalists, political opponents, or even the

family members of politicians.[
Ross Fitzgerald of The Australian believes that the filter was not introduced in 2010 to defuse it as an election issue, and that if it is re-introduced into

the next parliament it could be even more censorious than the current proposal.

Australian radio presenter and writer Helen Razer dislikes the filter because she enjoys pornography, does not believe it causes harm to adults, and

doesn’t think that children are at much risk:
“I enjoy pornography. Perhaps not quite so much as I enjoy living among citizens who take an entitlement to free speech for granted. But I do like it

quite a lot. And it seems that my porn is endangered. If Conroy’s clean feed works, which some tech sceptics argue that it cannot, it will prevent access

to all pornography … I can report that one doesn’t simply amble into X-rated or even R18+ material … I have become adept at this; children,

presumably, have not. And if they have, clearly they are the issue of the world’s most reprehensible parents and should be sent to live with Hetty

Johnston forthwith … Despite the best efforts of some, there is no evidence that pornography will negatively affect me or other consenting adults …

The only lasting effect of my access to porn is a reflex giggle when the pizza delivery man knocks on my door.”

Attacks on Government Websites

On 26 March 2009 the Australian Government Classification website, http://www.classification.gov.au/, was attacked by the Internet group

Anonymous, automatically redirecting them to a page on the same site with a message mocking censorship efforts with the text:
This site contains information about the boards that have the right to CONTROL YOUR FREEDOMZ. The Classification Board has the right to not

just classify content (the name is an ELABORATE TRICK), but also the right to DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISNT APPROPRIATE and BAN

CONTENT FROM THE PUBLIC. We are part of an ELABORATE DECEPTION from CHINA to CONTROL AND SHEEPIFY the NATION, to

PROTECT THE CHILDREN. All opposers must HATE CHILDREN, and therefore must be KILLED WITH A LARGE MELONS during the

PROSECUTION PARTIES IN SEPTEMBER. Come join our ALIEN SPACE PARTY.

In September 2009 the group Anonymous reawakened, in Operation Didgeridie, in order to protest the policy of Internet censorship, and on 9

September initiated a Distributed Denial of Service attack against the prime minister’s website. As a result of this attack, the site was taken offline for

approximately one hour.

On 10 February 2010, the Australian Parliament of Australia’s website, www.aph.gov.au, was attacked by Anonymous once again. The attacks included

distributed denial of service, blackfaxes, prank calls and spam emails. The attacks commenced at 12 midnight local time and the website has been down

for over 2 days. The attack, named “Operation Titstorm” is reportedly in defiance of the Government’s banning of small-breasted women & female

ejaculation in pornography. The group called for physical media to be distributed to members of the Australian Labor Party as well as assaulting email

addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers with spam and pornographic images that were in the categories to which were going to be filtered by the

government’s policy.
Arguments for Internet censorship
It will limit access to some adult content by the general population.
Internet users will be able to use a complaint system which will allow them to report offensive websites that can be blocked.
Websites that teach crime and terrorism will be blocked.
Arguments against Internet censorship
The web filter will not just block child pornography; it will also block any “RC rated material” which will include blocking access to web pages of

banned films, books, hardcore pornography (and video games that do not meet the MA 15+ standard).
Material that is illegal to view (eg instructions on criminal activity, depictions of child abuse) is a much narrower subset of material that may be

classified RC and filtered.
The organisation responsible for classifying media in Australia will not be involved in any way in the filtering process- so the filtered material will

typically not technically be RC.
The web filter will block content that meets the requirements for an MA 15+ rating if the Government disapproves of the access control software on

the website offering the content.
The web filter will not be able to block peer to peer networks and file sharing programs which are usable for distributing child pornography and allow

users to download large amounts of it in a short period of time.
The web filter will also block access to websites about politically sensitive issues which have changing criminality statuses eg euthanasia and abortion.
The web filter may slow down access to the internet; this will contradict the Australian Government’s plan to provide faster broadband access speeds.
The proposed filter may damage Australian - United States relations as the United States government is against Australia’s filter plan.
The web filter may be deemed “unconstitutional” under the Australian constitution and may not pass parliament.
The web filter can easily be bypassed by a proxy server.
The web filter’s implementation, deployment and maintenance costs would be footed by the tax-payer.
Peadophiles and terrorists use sophisticated techniques to conceal their content from the general public- limiting the need to protect people from this

largely invisible information
The most common form of child abuse and including child sexual abuse material can be found on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter published by the

children it involves- eg Cyberbullying.
The Australian Federal Police will not allow ACMA to filter child abuse material if doing so will tip off criminals to the discovery of their crime.
After the Australian Federal Police (potentially involving Interpol and the domestic police of the host country) complete a criminal investigation of

child abuse material, the filter will only be effective if the police then choose to allow the server hosting the material to remain operational.
It would be more effective to spend the money on cross-border capabilities to shut down hosts of child abuse material at their source.
Terminology

The proposed filter has been referred to in the media variously as an Internet filter and a web filter. The world-wide-web is a myriad of software

documents containing pointers to each other, hosted on server computers around the world. The Internet is the physical network used to convey

requests from users’ computers to these servers and responses from the servers back to the users.

The proposed filter only monitors certain ports specific to conveying web traffic. As it aims to monitor the majority of web traffic, it is appropriately

referred to as a web filter. As it is agnostic of the majority (99.99%) of other connections a user’s computer might establish with other computers on the

Internet, it is something of a misnomer to refer to it as an Internet filter.

Since the proposed filter is situated at the Internet service provider (the junction between users and the Internet at large), introducing such a filter

cannot possibly slow down the Internet itself. It can only (potentially) slow down access to the Internet by users of that ISP. Ignoring load

considerations, communication speed across the Internet for any non-web traffic would be unaffected.
Topics targeted for censorship
Political Parties

The website of the Australian Sex Party is banned from within several state and federal government departments, including Stephen Conroy’s ACMA.

Convenor of the Australian Sex Party, Fiona Patten, has described this ban as “unconstitutional”.
Euthanasia

On 22 May 2009 it was disclosed in the press, citing wikileaks.org, that the Australian Government had added Dr Philip Nitschke’s online Peaceful Pill

Handbook, which deals with the topic of voluntary euthanasia, to the blacklist maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority

used to filter web access to citizens of Australia.[135] Euthanasia groups will hold seminars around Australia teaching how to evade the proposed filter

using proxy servers and virtual networks. A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy said that euthanasia would not be targeted by the proposed web filter,

[136] however Stephen Conroy has previously stated that “while euthanasia remains illegal it will be captured by the RC filter”.
Video games
See also: Australian Classification Board#Classification of Video Games

In June 2009, it was confirmed that the Government’s proposed Internet censorship regime would block downloadable games, flash-based web games

and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard, such as eBay and Amazon.
Racism

In January 2010, the Encyclopedia Dramatica article “Aboriginal” was removed from the search engine results of Google Australia, following a

complaint that its content was racist. George Newhouse, the lawyer for the complainant, claims the site is “illegal” and should be blocked by the

mandatory web filter. As the address of the site appeared on the leaked ACMA blacklist, it is likely that the whole site would be blocked by the filter. A

search on terms related to the article will produce a message that one of the results has been removed after a legal request relating to Australia’s Racial

Discrimination Act 1975.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Metaphysical sociology:


So, now I guess that you have a tiny idea of what has been going on lately.
Multiply it for dozen million pages facing this problem, and you will get the picture.

From my point of view, the introduction of a tax on Violence and violent contents, as violent language, images and videos depicting violent scenes,
deadly situations or war scenes, riots etc… should be considered. Violence should be banned from movies, as they have, attentively and continuously
brainwashed people with mental horror, terrific and depraved emotions, that corrupt mind. These violent contents, that teach the people to become
violent, corrupt the mentality of the great majority of people that are exposed to them.

Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Porn, are still considered something that children should not smoke, drink or see, ( practice i would say nowadays ) and social
limitations are fixed to 16+ years old use, whilst violence, is not even regarded as the origin of conflict within groups, people and society.

I’m asking you how come, when the tax on Porn was created, no one discussed the possibility of a tax on “Violence”. Ask yourself who really needs deviance.

A hundred years of mental brainwashing is really the kind of world in which you wanted to live? Are you sure that this is what you deserve?

Who’s punishing you? Are these matters, something that happens by chance?
Go back to see the amount of money they spent on censorship ( only in Australia ) and then answer me back.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, ideals, thoughts, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
 I just found out who runs the porn industry, and I assure you that the people we are talking about are really pretending to have “holy and sacred” beliefs.


It is time to break the spell. Untie the knots. Break the chains.
Switch on TV, close your eyes, and listen to the continuous yelling, then relax for the advert, and go back to pain… you can switch it off now.

If you do not feed the Egregore, it will vanish, and harmony will teach you the way of the heart.

It is as simple as this: and when they will tell you that they are giving us what we want,( drugs, violence, porn ) realize that it is the first time someone is
doing something for you, without even asking, and it is absolutely free !!! Wow, how cute.

Wasn’t it a wooden horse, or what was it…?……..

by Amonakur