Oh and I think the purposal of the filtering seems to have changed a bit (from what I have read) since this post was written. At that time it seemed that the Gov was looking for some sort of age classification (or least thats what they wrote). Now it seems like a two tiered filter. I don’t see Second Life being “Illegal” so it won’t be filtered under the mandatory filter (I wouldn’t think) and even if it was filtered under the stage two “Clean” filter, you can opt out of that (as I will).

So Take a chill pill and head back to Second life and have fun! Hope this helps.
Molly
PS. Would you be “goose stepping” in real life or Second Life?

I have made many international friends in SL over the last few years, and we have lots of fun and laughs. The thought of someone having a hissy fit and blanket banning it is wrong. Next they’ll be telling me I must goose step down to the public square carrying my books to be burnt.

Nazi bastards!

If you do, then why should the internet be any different to a video or a magazine? Don’t say it won’t work, because Video and Magazine censorship isn’t 100% prefect either.

And the free press thing is just silly and the point of the whole post. THE SKY IS FALLIN THE SKY IS FALLING!

Molly

You are correct when you said the government hasn’t told the public what websites will be blocked because I really don’t think they know yet. What they are proposing will be a huge undertaking (compiling a blacklist). But what myself, Molly and Frank have maintained from the beginning is: assuming the government is going to use the ISP filter to censor and abuse freedom of speech is ridiculous.

I hope the government ultimate decides to implement something similar to the CP80 initiative, instead of ISP filtering. But we will all have to wait for next round of announcements to find out. I’m already getting a headache thinking about what opposition that will bring because some people on the web will always oppose any and all changes to the Internet.

Deborah

Deborah’s recent post on a US proposal to offer an opt-in dedicated port for filtered content, based on Ratings similar to Radio/TV/movies, sounds like the most suitable at this present time, as it allows customers to select what level of “filtering” they would like to use, and that it also places onus on content providers to rate their sites accordingly.

The Website for this proposal is here: http://www.cp80.org/

Unfortunately, the naysayers would no doubt prefer the “World Wild West” version of the net, and insist that PC filters and supervision will cure the problem.

In reality, Client based filters CAN be bypassed (and Senator Coonan’s You Beaut Filter was disabled by a tech-savvy teen in less than an hour), plus you cannot control your kids 24/7 – what happens when the kid goes to a friend for a sleepover etc, wthere the net isn’t filtered ? And what if said parents don’t care ?

As I’ve said elsware, this is a complex problem, and no one solution will solve it, but frankly resorting to juvenile name-calling and other personal attacks weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.

I believe that Duncan was originally from NSW and was a Merchant Banker, according to that first BIo, and I believe this happen ed in the nineties and that Young Libs are 25 and under, so i’m assuming it’s one and the same – considering who he was once employed by.

If he has mentioned on his blogs and podcasts, then I apologise, but his “about” page only mentions “Duncan has a diverse background. Having started in merchant banking in Sydney in the mid 1990’s he’s had stints in Management and as a staff member to a Federal Member of Parliament.’

http://www.duncanriley.com/about/

And he also mentions he’s in his early to mid 30′s and the Green Left article dates back to 1997.

You are correct that both this blog, and Hoyden About Town have shown some maturity to discuss the issue in a mature way, and haven’t resorted to the Riley Method of personal attack, which unfortunately he doesn’t seem to realise, and takes EVERY comment as a personal insult.

BTW, if this reply isn’t suitable for publication, by all means remove this and the previous one and/or edit it, and we can continue this offlist.

But on Duncan’s “politial leanings” I think he has made it every clear on his blog and podcasts on a number of occasions that he is a former Liberal party staffer.

Molly

PS. Are you sure it is the same Duncan Riley in that Green Left post? From what I can see (and its not 100% clear) that group is in NSW yet I beleive Duncan is in Perth and would have been at that time. Also, it seems to be a young liberal site and hes an old fart!

http://www.australianwomenonline.com/?p=126#comment-168

And more disturbingly this:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/287/16167

I’m amazed that his one man crusade can be so spiteful – no wonder his former employer’s party lost at the election, and also, they also entertained a similar filter as well – talk about rank hypocrisy.

Also, I notice his spies are out in force

http://www.duncanriley.com/2008/01/08/mrs-robinson-cant-keep-her-word/#comment-214984

I’ve not seen anywhere refer to a black and white classification system of what will and won’t be blocked under this policy. Regardless of any of the (considerable) technical problems, we’re effectively at the whim of whoever is running the programme once it is in place. Is there a government document setting out what is and isn’t acceptable content?

From what has been publicly released thus far – a few phrases with non-specific terms such as “objectionable content” – the only thing that we can be certain is to be on the list (and quite rightly so) is child pornography. However the question is still wide open as to what else could be on that list. The fact that the classification system is not public and transparent is a huge problem.