On the political spectrum, it’s a bit of a funny one. I think people in the majority tend to think that’s what the government is there for, that they’re the only people with powers of censorship and the like. Rudd has done his best to propagate the idea. For example, what really infuriated me was when he stepped in on the Bill Henson debate.

I feel like he used his political weight to lean a situation in one direction, a blatant abuse of power/status. Plus, it asserts the idea that the government should be deciding what ‘art’ is, or that there is an objective view on the like. You’d think for a man that went from catholicism into anglicanism, that he would understand the shades of grey within things of a subjective basis. Using your status in that way declines subjectivity by attempting to force a decision onto the public. The correct line should have been ‘While I don’t agree with the nature of Bill Henson’s work personally, art is a very subjective thing and it is not the role of someone in my position to neuter the debate by officially putting my name to either side.” Opinion made, way less harm done.

Oh dear, I feel another article coming on.

Cheers for the feedback,
Sam

This is yet another example of denial of personal responsibility…why think for yourself when Rudd can do it for you? Tis Freedumb of Speech.

It’s a scary thought, one which I hope won’t go much further. The thing is that this stuff will never get voted upon by anyone with a vested interest in online media. It’ll be debated by men in suits who are too busy arguing/lawmaking to be involved in any form of online interaction. That’s fine if that’s their life, but they will never realise the impact that it has upon the general population because of their lack of interaction with it.

The other point worth considering is, does this put Australia behind even further. Our internet is already way slower and less accessible (WiFi wise) than the US, to the point where we notice it in simple things. HD videos on YouTube take forever to load here, because the bandwidth is built for the United States. Why put a restriction on things when the time could be spent building a national internet solution like he proposed leading into the election.

When I first heard about the trials, I was completely incredulous. Surely not here in Australia? They must be talking about North Korea or Iran. Oh, wait, hang on, it’ll actually be MORE repressive than Iran. How on earth is this happening here?

The issue is that those without a current opinion will naturally be drawn to whatever seems right/ethical/safe.

It’s hrad to argue against protecting children and banning illegality, so they’ll get a lot of numbers there, that’s why it’s important to show an opposing side. I tried not to mention China, purely to avoid being thrown into the extremist camp, but there is some merit to it. Government control of a filter starts at a mature versus safe level and could escalate, in times of political tension, to subtly banning opposing propaganda and the like.

I’m glad you enjoyed the article

cheers,
sam