back to article Australia's smut-shocked senators seek net censorship (again)

A perennial silly season story has resurfaced for the umpteenth time, with a cross-party gaggle of Australian senators fretting about Internet pornography. A motion passed nearly unnoticed by the Senate last week will establish an inquiry into the impact of pornography on Australian children. The full motion, here, was backed …

  1. mr. deadlift

    cite all the things

    that pdf's pretty tenuous in terms of scope, definition and goal isn't it?

    any public policy worth it's salt needs to be ambiguous

    pornography's just a handy scapegoat to "think of the the children." as the auth kind of implies.

    the fact that the kids are just as likely watching isis pop prisoner's heads off with explosive wire probably wont be analysed and evaluated now will it?

    thanks Obama Helen

  2. Steven Roper

    At this point

    the question of an internet filter is rapidly becoming irrelevant. With the metadata retention scheme now in place, and the copyright enforcement regime to force everyone to pay Murdoch's outrageous prices to watch Game of Thrones now active, I, and just about everyone I know is now using VPN services ubiquitously. Mine is always on - my ISP now sees nothing but an endless stream of encrypted data between my house and PIA's VPN servers.

    Needless to say this will also bypass any blocks the government puts in place. I fought against the internet filter some years ago knowing that the government would try again and again until they got one through. The response all over the country has been a mass sign-up to VPN services.

    As a result an internet filter no longer matters. They've already lost control of the internet population here.

    1. DainB Bronze badge

      Re: At this point

      "I, and just about everyone I know is now"

      That's a hardly representative sample. You might know just one person, or noone at all. Or everyone you know is paranoid IT professional and so on.

      "The response all over the country has been a mass sign-up to VPN services."

      And your observation based on what exactly ?

      Although there is some very limited awareness of VPN technology, people who do not need to use it for remote access to their workplace at large do not know about it and do not normally use it for web surfing.

      1. DiViDeD

        Re: At this point

        I have to agree any 'everyone I know' evidence is anecdotal at best, but I should add that I get more and more reqyests these days for 'something to stop the buggers spying on me' from people who wouldn't know a VPN from a hole in the road, whatever that tells anyone.

        1. DainB Bronze badge

          Re: At this point

          Sure, we don't want to be spied, that's why we're going connect to facebook only via VPN and dump our life there ourselves for everyone to see.

  3. poopypants

    It starts with porn ("protect our children"), then extends to terrorists ("protect our citizens") and before you know it the government is blocking anything that it considers "disruptive to good order". Like comedy shows that make them look stupid, stories from investigative reporters and FaceBook posts that insult our Dear Leader.

    Then we become Turkey.

    1. Oengus

      Our leaders (and most politicians worldwide) don't need comedy shows to make them look or sound stupid. All they have to do is open their mouths.

    2. Myvekk

      I thought you were going to say, "Then we become North Korea." (Or China...)

  4. silent_count

    It seems a disturbing number of adults in Canberra spend their time thinking about children and pornography. Now those same deviates are brazenly trying to find an excuse to get paid to indulge in their favourite pass time - thinking about children and pornography.

    Perhaps there should be some kind of national register so parents know who these people are, and some restrictions, maybe a 5km exclusion zone around every school, to keep those of their ilk away from our children.

  5. Shane 4

    Both parties need to stop being a parent!

    First they uses tax payers money to hand out to single parents and bludgers, Then it gives baby bonuses to new families like a grandparent would do to help out, Next is first home buyers grants like a mum/dad would chip in for their kids.

    Now it is acting on behalf of a parent in censoring things from minors, My advice to all you in government positions is GTFO!

    What next RFID chips implanted in newborns, So they can be tracked at all times?

    We can all laugh now but just you wait what the future holds, When they are just left alone to pass any law they like, All in the name of "protect the children", "terrorism" or "national security".

    Forget Nth Korea,Pretty soon it will be Malcolm Jong-un leading the democratic people's republic of Australia!

  6. MrDamage

    Here's some violence and porn

    Aimed directly at these politicians.

    Get the fuck out of our lives before I jam my boo up your collective arses.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Citations

    I know that many men in IT regard p0rn as a sacred right (just see the current reactions), however, there is much research published on this. Just look up a citation index (not wikipedia) for Gail Dines or Renate Klein, and you will see a wealth of research.

    Just because it might be unpleasant for some doesn't mean that it is not true or well founded.

    1. Kernel

      Re: Citations

      "I know that many men in IT regard p0rn as a sacred right "

      No, you're wrong there - what many people (not just men) in IT and else where regard as a near to scared right is access to the internet without censorship of information that some politician happens to disagree with/is embarrassed by.

    2. ChrisBedford

      Re: Citations

      "Just because it might be unpleasant for some doesn't mean that it is not true or well founded."

      I think you've missed the point, which is that it is a parent's job to ensure children are exposed only to what's good for them - I very much doubt anyone disputes that porn at too young an age does not fall into that category.

      It should never be the government's or an ISP's job to implement censorship, because that is too general an approach, except in cases of extreme material that consensus has agreed is bad all round, like kiddie pr0n or live beheadings.

    3. dan1980

      Re: Citations

      @AC

      Gail Dines and Renate Klein? Both of whom self-identify not just as feminists (which I have no problem with) but as radical feminists? (Which I do have a problem with.)

      Now, Klein I actually have some respect for but not Dines - she is a wowser of the highest order whose MO is to attempt to engender moral panic and her rhetoric is ENTIRELY one-sided because she is a professional feminist first and foremost.

      Yes, she is an academic, but her studies and work are born from and driven by her feminist agenda, in the same way that you can say that some religious fundamentalist academics are driven by their beliefs. That doesn't mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect but and so seek out only the data that support their conviction and ignore or discredit or marginalise or shout down any that contradicts them.

      She is an "anti-pornography" campaigner and her strident, black-and-white message admits of no nuance or accommodation: all of it must be banned.

      Of course she talks about what she asserts to be damage to children but this is almost always in the context of damage to women following from this and so it's not about a filter that one could opt-in or opt-out of because it's not about simply restricting access to material designed for adults; her line is that, for the sake of women, pornography must be banned full-stop.

      The overblown moral panic she packs into every statement is well evident in her claim that bondage/BDSM is "torture" and thus companies creating such content are engaged in "torture porn" and so are in violation of the UN conventions against torture. Really - that's what she believes and that particular bit of mouth-foaming came in response to a Cosmpolitan article that apparently listed one such site in its list of "best porn sites for women". She of course then called out Cosmo as "selling torture porn" and being "shills for the porn industry". (Which she calls "Big Porn".)

      One of the prongs of very message is that women are the victims of violence in pornography (not just because of it) and thus this is clearly a problem. If that is the case, then yes, it needs to be addressed. But is it? How often? Is it the 'big porn' studios that produce all this 'mainstream' content or smaller groups and operations? Not that that would likely matter that much to her because she clearly see any sexual acts rougher than a tickle to be violence in and of itself and thus ANY (female, of course) porn actress involved in a bondage shoot is, ipso facto, the victim of violence in the porn industry.

      But wait - aren't the actresses willing participants? Don't they choose to be in the industry and choose what to do? Don't they explicitly consent and discuss what will be done? Don't the laws require that consent to be recorded?

      Irrelevant, we are told, because one can't consent to torture and, as we have just decreed that bondage is torture, our case is now air-tight.

      Gail Dines? No thanks.

      * - Through the group she setup to publicise her books and speaking engagements: Culture Reframed, which itself came from the previous group she setup for the same purpose earlier: 'Stop Porn Culture'.

    4. DocJames

      Re: Citations

      Hmmm. I think AC has a point, albeit it doesn't mean we should all worship the introduction of censorship.

      1) there is plenty of research on porn

      2) this research supports the assertion that porn is getting more violent, and there is an association between more violent porn and sexual violence (note: not proving causation, but wiggling eyebrows suggestively etc etc)

      3) a balance always needs to be struck between negative and positive freedoms (ie in this case freedom to enjoy porn, and freedom from sexual violence).

      In summary, it's more complicated than humans want (on both sides). And *way* more complicated than politicians can deal with.

  8. dan1980

    "recent studies have shown that exposure to pornography has measurable negative effects on brain development and behavioural outcomes"

    Good old 'recent studies'. Oh the things they show.

  9. Colin Tree

    What flavour porn would you like this morning sir

    We would probably have a far inferior internet without porn.

    Porn was the earliest successful business model on the internet.

    Porn can certainly show Hollywood how to build a business while giving away free content.

    Porn has driven data bandwidth and download limits.

    Now video content providers have learnt how to do it the internet will hopefully become more kid friendly.

    Waitress:

    Well, there's egg and bacon,

    egg, sausage and bacon

    Egg and porn

    Egg, bacon and porn

    Egg, bacon, sausage and porn

    porn, bacon, sausage and porn

    porn, egg, porn, porn, bacon and porn

    porn, sausage, porn, porn, porn, bacon, porn tomato and porn

    porn, porn, porn, egg and porn

    porn, porn, porn, porn, porn, porn, baked beans, porn, porn, porn and porn.

    Choir:

    porn! porn! porn! porn!

    Lovely porn!

    Lovely porn!

  10. ratfox
    Angel

    "The motion claims pornography is easy to get online"

    O RLY?

  11. Dave 15

    same rubbish in the uk

    Used to censor anything and everything.

    Same lax thinking used for mass surveillance

    Also today a stupid and incorrect report about alcohol

    Unfortunately the stupid masses keep voting the politicians into their cushy jobs with the backhanders, pay hikes and benefits packages.

  12. faddat

    Six months till porn becomes politics

    Australia already can see which of its citizens are viewing porn, so why not just find then and remove their reproductive bits?

    Isn't progress like that what government is for?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like