ALP internet-crippling plan is GO; will the Liberals join the Greens in blocking it?

Crikey, two hours ago, wondering if the ALP really would proceed with its awful internet-crippling plan:

At 2pm we’ll learn whether Conroy and the Prime Minister’s Office — which as with previous Government, is really the key decision-maker on media policy — has seen sense and accepted that mandatory filtering is not merely a gross infringement of Australians’ basic rights, but unworkable and an extraordinarily backward policy for a Government determined to right the wrongs of decades of failed telecommunications policies under both sides of politics.

The answer? No. The ALP has accepted nothing of the sort. They will, if the Liberals agree, ram this garbage through parliament next year.

After all, there are control-freak wowsers in marginal constituencies to pander to. Screw the rest of us.

(And no, I don’t seriously think the Liberals would vote against it: after all, it’s a fantastic tool the ALP is giving them for when they’re next in Government.)

UPDATE: Conroy’s media release reveals the detail:

The cyber-safety measures announced today include:

  1. Introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) –rated content.
  2. A grants program to encourage the introduction of optional filtering by Internet Service Providers, to block additional content as requested by households.
  3. An expansion of the cyber-safety outreach program run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Cyber-Safety Online Helpline – to improve education and awareness of online safety.

The nannies/authoritarians have truly taken over.

ELSEWHERE: Weez goes through the results of the unbelievably nonsensical trial. The filter was able to achieve good speeds when it didn’t block anything; and when it did block things, it (a) didn’t block the things it was meant to block; (b) blocked things it wasn’t meant to block; and (c) slowed things down. Absolute garbage, and if the ALP, Liberal and Fundy First MPs vote for such a thing (which they will), then every internet user needs to make a point of not voting for them next year.

UPDATE #2: And the “Australian Christian Lobby” is already pushing for the filter to be widened:

Managing director Jim Wallace issued a statement claiming the Enex report had “proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet.

“This is now clearly feasible and we need a review in three years that might test this in practice, particularly using third party providers of URLs,” Wallace said.

Conroy would undoubtedly have rathered Wallace kept quiet about those plans until after the next election, but oh well. That’s what happens when you do a favour for Jim Wallace!

Advertisements

22 responses to “ALP internet-crippling plan is GO; will the Liberals join the Greens in blocking it?

  1. *head hits desk*

  2. No! Do you not remember the one that you ALERADY have? You know,t he one that parents can put in if THEY HAVE CHILDREN!? Did that slip your mind? Or do you now think that you are the parent of every kid in Australia?

  3. Astounding! Maybe the Liberal grass roots brigade will hound their politicians into taking a stand against this legislation too. Or maybe not.

    I wonder if a Bill of Rights would help in this situation. My guess is that it would be drafted so as to entrench existing abuses, particularly when it comes to free speech.

  4. Stand by for furious lobbying by music and film industries …

  5. I think there’s very little chance of a Tony Abbott-led Liberal Party telling the government it can’t have this. What a disaster.

  6. Wouldn’t it be nice to be treated like a grown-up for a change?

  7. And they just need one of the three non-Green Senators… does anyone think Fielding won’t be the first to vote for it?

  8. …does anyone think Fielding won’t be the first to vote for it?

    Urrrghhhh… That’s depressing.

  9. So, to be clear, will I still be able to access free and degrading internet porn?

  10. At first, probably yes. Give it a few years, probably no.

    It’ll be down to what Jim Wallace and other lobbyists of the major parties want.

    I doubt the commercial media will give the government too much grief over this – they’ll be considering how they can best profit from it.

  11. ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH… WTF IS THIS IDIOT CONROY DOING?? WHAT A DOUCHE!!!!

    ooohhhhhhh well, I’ve already got an encrypted VPN connection to the UK (so I can watch eurosport online – vpnuk.info) – looks like I’ll be using that as my main internet connection in a few years time. It’s surprisingly fast too, can easily handle a max quality video stream.

    d.

  12. I’m sure the newly-expanded internet police will be watching you VERY closely, Dylan. Don’t like their filter, eh? YOU MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

    Also, last I heard the British government was giving itself magic powers to cut off internet users in the UK if any corporation claimed they’d done something wrong. No proof required, no proper process, just on a complaint. Your UK VPN might not be particularly reliable for all that much longer.

  13. Zippy the Pinhead

    ” including … detailed information about how to use drugs … ”

    so I’ll be filtered whenever tell someone to ’stick it in their pipe and smoke it’ ?
    Well in that case they can go s

  14. Is there any way that these laws can be overthrown in the High Court??? Fuck I hope so…The Liberals definitely aren’t going to help the situation. Although WikiLeaks might.

  15. Given a few years, there will be a lot more than porn and drugs hidden from view.

  16. The one time I want the coalition to oppose something, I wonder if they’ll have the spine?

    Otherwise I foresee a mass email deluge on my Liberal local member and a barrage of calls to radio shockjocks!

  17. NOOOOOOOOOO!

  18. Does this mean I’ll be forced to do something other than troll 4chan when i have absolutely nothing better to do with me time?

  19. I guess there’s going to come a time when we all say “Remember when the internet was new and free? Man those were some good times – before the government and the corporations figured out how to control all the content.”

    I weep for the future.

  20. As a relatively new member of the ALP, this is extremely depressing. I truly thought this little toy of Conroy’s was going to be dropped well before the legislation stage.

    Why is he so persistent with this? Is Rudd calling the shots on this? If this abortion ever gets to the bill stage, ill revoke my ALP membership and join the Greens.

  21. Andrew glad to hear you’re sticking with your principles unlile Kate Lundy who has gone from articles like this. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/29/1059244609141.html

    To backing Conroy and his filter

  22. I’ve always admired Kate Lundy (one of my senators), and truly understand/sympathise that the ALP machine does not really accommodate caucus members (esp in govt) to oppose govt policy.

    I’ve always thought that if the outrage/heat against this policy was more directed at Rudd himself (rather than Conroy), he might get antsy and quietly tell Conroy to drop his baby rattle.

    Why? Why? This makes no sense! I would find it hard to believe that most of the ALP caucus are happy with this policy. What is he getting out of this?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s