No clean feed

Catallaxy has picked up on the Internet filtering issue and has offered a useful link for those keen to get mobilised on this issue.


From the No Clean Feed website:-

Call the Minister

There’s nothing like a personal phone call to get the message across. Call the minister’s office on (03) 9650 1188 and let them know your objections.

Write to the Minister

A personalised letter to the Minister sends a powerful message: We don’t like the policy, and we care. Letters can be sent to the Ministerial office:

Senator Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

The No Clean Feed website includes other options also such as petitions and the ministers email address. Check it out and start making some noise.

UPDATE: if you’re a facebook user then you can join the facebook cause to spread the word.

34 thoughts on “No clean feed

  1. Keep pushing this one guys. Apart from the fact it’s a disgraceful attack on our individual liberties, it’s a good way to lift the image of libertarianism

    While the Greens agree with us on this issue, I wouldn’t want them hoggin all the limelight on it.

  2. Should someone from libertarian “officialdom” then send a formal letter with a number of “signatories”?

    One from the ALS and one from the LDP?

    There is press release potential here people.

  3. Nanny states quickly slide into police states.. this needs to be stopped dead.

    who’s up for a protest?!

    But what i find really fucking scary interesting is that this topic has not hit the 6 o’clock “news

  4. We might have to get some chain emails started to spread the word quickly.

    I’ve gave my opinions to the Minister and I agree this is a fantastic chance to advertise libertarianism through a good, activist cause.

  5. Now Fielding wants to filter ALL material above R18+ (ie all X rated and RC rated content).

    And Xenophon wants to filter out online gambling sites.

    This is getting draconian to the extreme.

  6. Why doesn’t Fielding take a look at some of the adult stores in Sydney. They illegally sell X rated material just a stones throw from the state parliament that made it illegal. If he really cares why not insist that the existing laws are policed rather than piling on more ineffective laws.

  7. p.s. Most material on the Internet isn’t rated so talk of banning X rated material fails at first base to deal with the issue of classification. In any case X rated material is by definition material that shows consensual non-violent sex between adults. The evening news should be banned before this stuff.

  8. PEDRO- No, libertarian officialdom is NOT a contradiction in terms, though anarchic officialdom would be! Our officials would be the minimum needed, and no more, and nobody is compelled to support them.

  9. It is not hard to find stuff on the Internet that is tasteless and awful and which if blocked would not be missed. However with a blacket ban on selected websites it would be very hard to find stuff on the Internet that should be unbanned. As such Internet censorship, if accepted, will tend to ratchet toward being more and more restrictive.

  10. Pedro, I’m the maker of weak jokes here. You provide the voice of one of the oppressed minorities. It would help if you were a bisexual lesbian with an addictive habit, and if you had some aboriginal ancestors, but we don’t insist on it.

  11. Xenophon is a particularly immoral MP IMO.
    His media obsessions show a worrying lust for power.

    He is an extreme statist hell bent on destroying the freedoms he should rightfully be employed to protect. And it’s no surprise he supports compulsory government internet censorship.

    If Xenophon was run over by a bus, I and every Australian would be better off for it IMO.

  12. Xenophon wouldn’t be better off. And the bus driver might be distressed. So that’s at least two counter examples assuming the bus driver is Australian. 😉

  13. I’m starting to suspect that all this talk of child porn and now X rated porn and fetish sites are merely trojan horses for introducing censorship. It goes like this – no-one will argue in defence of child porn, and virtually no-one will argue in defence of hardcore porn and fetish sites, making it easy for the legislation to pass.

    Once the filter is in place it will be much easier to ‘tweak’ the definition of illegal content, or worse still, just add sites to the blacklist.

    Another consideration – not that I’m particularly knowledgeable about hardcore porn sites mindyou, but I would imagine the URLs would chop and change frequently, especially the really tasteless/illegal stuff, if servers are shut down and relocate to other countries etc.

    How many government bureaucrats are going to have the ongoing job of tracking nasty websites and updating the blacklist? I hope their role comes with free psych counselling – they’d be exposed to some horrible stuff in the course of protecting us from harm!

  14. If they know the web address where child porn is situated then arrest the people running the site and shut them down. The practice is morally repugnant and illegal pretty much anywhere in the world. If they don’t know the web address then how are they going to blacklist it?

  15. The thing I find most laughable is that they somehow think the WEB is the best way to track and find child pornographers.

    I don’t claim to be an expert on it- but from my experience with file sharing networks- they seem to be a far better safe haven for illegal activities (and I assume purveyors of kiddie porn) than the web. As if anyone committing illegal activity would rely on something as public and open as google. IRC, IM, anonymous, encrypted email servers, programs like limewire are all far better venues for illegal content (I assume the kiddie porn underground works like the piracy underground).

  16. Papachango; I think once they get the legislation up, changing the rules on what is censored becomes simply an executive decision, thats the way it used to work. The trick is as you allude to, getting the legislation in place.

    Child porn and so on is not the big danger on the web, the pedophile networks are, and this will do bugger all to prevent that.

  17. Pingback: Private Internet Filtering « Thoughts on Freedom

  18. Of course, if they mean simply not letting Graemebird ever get on the net, I’m all for it! (Oh, darn, there’s that Voltaire quote, about not agreeing with everything you say, but letting you say it anyway. But Voltaire never met GraemeBird!)

  19. Jim, #23 is by ME, #24 is TimT, I complain at 25, you talk about the comments at #26, this line should be #27. Is that what you see?

  20. No mate, 23 is TimT, 24 is you complaining, 25 is my November 1 comment, and 26 is your response. unless someone else gets in first this will be 27.

    I think this is the same as happened to me.

  21. What do other people see? Is Jim playing a joke, or does the filter affect differing sites differently?

  22. I’m not kidding.

    The way it happened, was that my comment would seem to go up, but did not appear in the recent comments section. On these occasions the thread just went on as if the comment didn’t happen, even after baiting Temujin.

    I then noticed that the comment number on the bottom was different to the number of comments at the top. This one has “28 comments” at the bottom of the post, and your question about am I playing a joje is on the bottom at 28.

    If the two don’t match up you have the same problem I had. The trouble is I don’t really know why it happened.

  23. Well, my #23 comment was how I was all in favour of censorship if it kept GMB off the pages. Then I remembered Voltaire’s quote, about not agreeing with what people say, but defending to the death your right to say it. But, I pointed out, Voltaire never met GMB! This should be #31

  24. If a comment comes out of moderation it is inserted according to when it was originally posted and then the numbers all jiggle to accomodate.

Comments are closed.