It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debate Internet Censorship

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:33 AM
I’m sure many aware, but there's growing debate in Australia over the new 'Blacklist' that’s being collated by the government.

This lists primary function is to deny access to websites containing

- Child Pornography
- Rape
- Incest

Basically sites which conflict with moral integrity.

Wikileaks released a version of what it claims is the developing list.

Wiki Black List

A couple of things

- This list contains a dentists website
- This list contains the artwork that has recently been in the news (due to young boys being photographed
- I’m a red blooded male, and look at porn.

There are some sites that contain nothing but common porn images. I wont name them on here, but they are obvious names with no mention of child, rape or such. But they are on the list.

Now, the government debated that the dentist website was on the list because the 'Russian Mafia' used blank frames within the dentists site to transmit child pornography. And after hours of being uploaded to this frame, 12 million hits took place.

But, within the debate the word 'jihadist' came up as a possible scenario in which prohibited material would be banned.

The debate focused on this for a second, with the governmental official stating
' In now way will this list focus on political sites '

Well, that’s all good and proper, and excellent word play but there's a slight problem.

Jihadist material is Religious, not political. But, this was never brought up.

One thing Id like to know, is will 'treasonous' websites be considered eligible for entry onto this list.
Lets Broaden this to ATS, where on a daily level people often debate the finer points of illegality within government, corruption and talking about needing a revolution.

What happens when it is decided, talking about anything against Australian society is considered bad for moral integrity?

Overall, I don’t think anyone doubts the necessary to block such filth coming in, but.. It shouldn’t be the government deciding what is considered blockable material.

Secondly, why can’t it be transparent? Why can’t the list be displayed freely for all to see, so that mistakes can be alerted to the authorities?
They say publishing the list will mean these websites become know,
That is true.. But if you’ve blacklisted and blocked them they cannot be accessed.
So what is the harm in letting people know what the site was called?

I am very AGAINST the blocking of websites in Australia.
To be honest, I
at the fool who honestly believes he can censor the internet.
What im
about is that it has begun, in my backyard. I have no say in what the government says is good for me or bad for me, im not allowed to know what they consider bad for me and im being told we have to have faith in them.

If the Internet becomes censored I would seriously consider leaving the country.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:46 AM
Damn slow internet.
Please bin this thread.


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

I take it you watched ABC tonight too! I downloaded the blacklist last week. Near the bottom of the list there's one of those Cat sites where they have the silly pictures of cats with stupid captions.

I couldn't believe that such a site could be on the list... as the remaining images loaded (it was a big page) I noticed a few that said "Jesus... blah blah blah" or "Hell... blah blah blah". Then it struck me. Who are the only people that would take offense to such words?

Religious Groups! Those that believe those words to be blasphemous. I find that rather worrying because there's a clear agenda for a site like that being blacklisted. When you notice that everyday porn sites are also on that list, the agenda and those behind it becomes even clearer.


[edit on 26/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
The problem with censorship comes down to this, If I were an agent of some governemnt somewhere and I wanted to disrupt access to most of the people to networks in certain areas so we could use those areas then I would just post just that was illegal and have access to them banned by most if not all providers, hence rendering a section of the network usable only by government channels.

Also If idesired to disrupt my opponet I would post nasty crap like viruses or porn in his channels to get them shut down. It appears so obvious why can anyone doubt that they would not try to flood the net with garbage in the hopes it would reduce functionality, since they want control over the networks and some of them want to stop criticism it only seems natural they would construct laws made to obstruct communications in areas they can't control and then seed those areas with the information intended to disrupt the channel, I see it all the time. They come from government servers and post incendiary crap or illegal crap and I think it makes sense to try to disrupt your critics by trying to do guilt by association, they just paired Turner Diaries with Ron Paul voters and of course they try to do the same on the net.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

I did,
and it was so frustrating.
So much so i was cringing at every question.

The audience had good questions, the response was very political and before the audience had a chance to say

'' excuse me, answer my question ''

they'd move on.

Why cant we ask the hard questions and get a response?

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:50 PM
I pity the people who are going to click on some of those links only to have a 4:00am visit from the police

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:59 PM
I think it's a bad thing that they're censoring the internet ... but i also think that it's a good thing ... the only reason why is because i wouldn't want to have to worry about my little brother or sister coming across a child porn site, let alone a porn site ... i think that there is some possible controversy that they will slip some sites in there that don't need to be censored ... Australia isn't the only government that is censoring these kinds of sites, i viewed Denmark's list on there last week ... i think the site list should be hidden though because then they could catch the ip's of whoever may be going to it through a search engine etc. ... and possibly hunt them down ... i don't i'm kind of mixed on the issue ... it could be a good thing, yet it could also be a bad thing ...

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:45 PM
This is just the begining in my mind.

The classification board has been hacked today:

The message is clear, do not attempt to censor the internet.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

Personally I think the hack was done by the little Asian guy that appeared on ABC last night wearing the surgical mask and Guy Falks thingamabob... or mates of his. Power to them I say!

The hack in itself sends a clear message... it's just a shame that they didn't express themselves in a mature fashion. If they had of been intelligent and articulate, their message would be much stronger... and public joe, who isn't interested enough to give a rats arse about censorship, might sit up and take notice for once.


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

I completely agree.

His message was genuine, but the way he came across with it, distorted it.

I think this hack goes to show how vulnerable the internet is to such things.

Honestly, I dont mind them trying.

But the list must be public and open.

How they expect us to have faith is beyond me,

How can the government decide what websites to block without telling anyone?

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:09 PM
Im sure the government is able to do this to some extent already. Do you know anything of the hidden internet that isnt accessible from normal search pages. I figure if you could hack into this you could find some amazing data bases

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:53 PM
I remember some Indian hacker awhile ago (cant remember his name think he was fairly young) said that China's goal was to control the world's internet.

They could have already gained strong influence over western governments, and can now pressure them to start censoring the internet and have free-tibet and similar websites put on these ban lists. As their economic and military strength grows they can then exert even more pressure on western governments to ban all sorts of websites and articles, or even demand information to track down individuals (like us).

China's influence has slowly becoming more obvious over the past decade with them influencing Bill and Hillary Clinton and having strong influence over Australian politics, especially now with the Joel Fitzgibbon scandal.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:10 PM
Thats precisley what the chinese person was saying,
He mentioned how he left China because of the human rights and limiting of freedom,
Then he stated how China was now doing the same in Australia.
I had to think a second to see if he made a mistake..

but under your thinking, it could be possible.

After all, China are pulling out of a lot of mining deals in Australia atm, and our economy is starting to hurt.

new topics

top topics


log in