There is Hope

The SMH had a story about a “virtual rape” computer game, and ended off with poll: “Do you support mandatory internet filters to block material such as the online game RapeLay?”

Even with a leading question like that, 65% of respondents (at time of writing) answered with a clear “No”. I know these polls are hardly scientific (and people who vote in online polls are arguably more tech-savvy, and therefore opposed to the filter,) but this does leave me with some level of hope that we can block this thing. The support for this filter just isn’t there, and it could be disastrous for Rudd if he tries to push through. I hope Abbott doesn’t screw this one up – this is a golden opportunity (and an easy goal for the Greens if he doesn’t oppose it completely and absolutely)

Time to start sending a clear message to the Liberals now! It worked for the ETS – it can work here!

8 thoughts on “There is Hope

  1. I think Rudd’s form is to ban things. Remember the paintings, and his ‘absolutely disgusted’ reaction to them? He will do the same here. And I think prohibition will fail, as it has done in the past. The game sounds typically moronic, and I will exercise the only power that a free adult should possess, and choose to have nothing to do with such a game.

  2. A virtul rape computer game is disgusting. I love Internet filters because they help to constrain carnal appetites and protect against a culture of depravity. I run one at work and one at home. I agree however that a mandatory government run filter is a terrible idea.

  3. Abbott finally gave an indication of his position on the filter on the ABC’s Q&A. Sadly (though perhaps predictably,) it sounds like he’s having an each way bet… seems he supports the concept of a filter (boo, hiss), but suspects it won’t work and will have an overall detrimental effect. I guess you could call it the Andrew Bolt position.

    “I want to see protections in place. I don’t want to see our kids exposed to really terrible stuff on the internet. On the other hand I don’t want to see the internet destroyed by a filtering system that won’t work so I guess for me it’s a factual issue.”

    I hadn’t really followed the technical details behing the implementation, but from Conroy’s comments, the filter is to be url based:

    It’s 100 per cent accurate because it targets a defined URL address … it’s an individual page within a website.”

    Should be pretty easy to circumvent… if/when the filter goes live, I’ll post details here, outlining various methods.

  4. I think this will be technically possible soon enough. However my concern has never really related to the techical impact this may have. I actually think filtering is a good idea I just don’t want the government to control what gets filtered and I want an opt out option from any other filter.

  5. p.s. Even if it is easy to circumvent you still need to know that the content is worth the effort. Most people won’t bother.

  6. Also, why do you need filters if it is against community values? I remember that Atari came out with some sort of game where you could get a quickie off a cartoon woman, whilst rescuing people from nasty red Indians, and the communtiy outrage did a better job of stopping the game than any Government censorship rating!

  7. Looks like I’ll have to hold my nose and preference Greens over Liberal.

    The internet filter was my “vote deciding” issue this year.

    I’ll probably still preference Liberal over Labor. Unless either party does something big in the interim.

    Minor parties against the filter such as the LibDems, Sex Party and Pirate Party will all be getting my preferences over the parties with elected reps. I hope said parties try and form some sort of solid anti-censorship preferencing bloc in the election. We’ll see, though.

Comments are closed.