Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day

Is wikileaks banned in the United States as well? I can't access it. I have never heard of it before but now I want to check it out. It would suck if the gov has beat us to the punch

reply to post by Diplomat


Nice avitar...O-Bush-ama...fitting..and correct.

As to this little problem down under, well you folks down there need to form a political movement and gather around parliment and start voicing yourselves to these leaders you all put in there and call for a change, otherwise your just letting them do what they want.

Its sort of the same here in the US...populace here tends to do alot of moaning and groaning about how the US government is screwing the pooch out of everyone's pocketbooks, yet these moaners and groaners keep putting these idiots into power that keep screwing them even more, and the cycle continues.

Either stand up, do something about it..or sit down and pipe down and live with it.

That goes to both Oz and US.



Cheers!!!!

I can't access wikileaks. Have they blocked it already?
Hopefully I don't get fined for attempting to access this forbidden site.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Well I could be a jerk and tell the people of OZ to go get their guns and show the government just who is in charge. And then say "Oh that's right, you voted to give them up over that nut job at the marina." And then say,

Not true, Aussie's didn't get to vote on this. It's true that there was a lot of support for tighter gun control laws during that time. Not all guns are illegal, mainly automatic & semi-automatic rifles including pump-action shotguns.

Originally posted by Diplomat
Isn't Australia still basically under British authority? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong.
Australia is an independent nation. The Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia, but we are not governed by British rule.

Australia’s system of government

reply to post by yizzel


Precisely, I can't access it either. I'm wondering if anyone outside Australia can?

To break the one liner, just heard on the radio that Conroy has come and said anyone posting the wikileaks link could face 10 years imprisonment.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by mattguy404]

reply to post by mattguy404


I get timeout errors.
Normally blocked sites shows the 404 error.

Could be DDoS attack!

Edit to add:
How can they justify 10 years imprisonment for posting a link. Outrageous !!

It's easy enough to google the link..

[edit on 19-3-2009 by yizzel]

Well we have a further development of BS with this story, Communication minister Stephen Conroy (know his name) says the list is a fake, the number of urls are different so it cannot be ACMA list.

With no disclosure of the real list mind you to back it up!

Typical BS from a cornered rat I say. Get this, you can still be charged for linking to a so called fake list? Apparently the site that that hosted the list is currently down. Probably because it's being bombarded with hits ever since the news broke. Ha! Censorship will not work, it's like an advertisement on steroids.

A SHOCKING list of "banned websites" did not come from the communications watchdog, says Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

The list, purported to be from the Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA), was "leaked" to an international website and included an Australian dentist's page, poker websites, and a porn site ranked in Alexa's Top 50 most popular websites in Australia.

www.news.com.au...

But do remember, it's for the sake of the children.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by squiz]

Hey, is this the link to wikileaks: 88.80.13.160...


I live in Canada, but I think everyone in Australia should start linking it up and then sue them ASAP in a class action and make it very clear that they're only going to stay in if they admit their fascists and withdraw this draconian bill. People should serve notice on their leaders, that they're going down these steps to have this redressed, legally, then they're ousting them completely. Thats the polite way. So its in their best interests to cave now rather than be tossed.


Edit to add: http://__._/

Apparently they're overloaded with people trying to access their website. News of this ban must have increased their popularity!
[edit on 19-3-2009 by mystiq]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by mystiq]

Well actually I just visited the wikileaks page with the list, I was going to post it but after scanning the list... There are some pretty nasty sites on there, although I didn't bother searching out for any gov docs, it's a long list.
Because of the content I didn't really want hyperlink to a site with some of those links, simply because I didn't personally think that would be right, and this is my argument to the government, It's not there place to impose morals on me, that's my job thanks.

As the previous poster stated, Wikileaks is back up. It must have crashed due to a large amount of traffic... or a Ddos type attack if your into conspiracies..lol!

Most of the sites are just porn.. That's cool if that's what your into but it's not the governments job to tell adults what they can and can't look at.

If it's an illegal activity like child porn or beastiality etc... then I think those sites should be taken down, not blocked. Anyone who hosts sites like that isn't right in the head.

I guess all those porn shops in Canberra will be closed down too? The irony is that it's the politicians that make them such a lucrative business.

IRM

Here's the most relevant points made on the page in question.

While Wikileaks is used to exposing secret government censorship in developing countries, we now find Australia acting like a democratic backwater. Apparently without irony, ACMA threatens fines of upto $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist -- a list the government hopes to expand into a giant national censorship machine.

History shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behavior.

This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks. We were not notified by ACMA.

In December last year we released the secret Internet censorship list for Thailand. Of the sites censored in 2008, 1,203 sites were classified as "lese majeste" -- criticizing the Royal family. Like Australia, the Thai censorship system was originally pushed to be a mechanism to prevent the child pornography.

Research shows that while such blacklists are dangerous to "above ground" activities such as political discourse, they have little effect on the production of child pornography, and by diverting resources and attention from traditional policing actions, may even be counter-productive. For a fascinating insider's account, see My life in child porn.

In January 2009, the Thai system was used to censor Australian reportage about the imprisonment of Harry Nicolaides, an Australian writer, who wrote a novel containing a single paragraph deemed to be critical of the Thai Monarchy.

Most of the sites on the Australian list have no obvious connection to child pornography. Some have changed owners while others were clearly always about other subjects.

Australian democracy must not be permitted to sleep with this loaded gun.

Yeah, most of the links are standard porn though. As if your going stop that.
So, if the list is semi accurate I would expect it too be a cover for more important (incriminating) information. All too familiar story isn't it?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by squiz]

The site has also published Thailand's internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

It's interesting to note the MO at work here. Something that everyone can agree is bad (child porn) is used as a trojan horse to get the laws passed. Then, these same laws are used to cover subjects that are not so black and white and that most Australians probably wouldn't want censored.

truly disgusting.

So this means that if ATS links to wikileaks, it will eventually be banned in Australia?

Most controversial Australian websites will simply host their sites outside Australia, no?

S&F

[edit on 20/3/09 by ConspiracyNut23]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


Don't the law usually follow the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law?

I was under the impression this was the case in the US as well.