People finally realize that they don't want internet censorship - Polidicks

[release]As Prime Minister Kevin Rudd attempts to fend off a slump in the Labor's approval rating, evidence is mounting that one of its key initiatives - mandatory internet filtering - may not prove as popular with voters as the government had hoped. If Australia censors the web, what will the others do? In February, a phone survey run by McNair Ingenuity indicated widespread support for the initiative among ordinary voters, but new findings from a study commissioned by the Safer Internet Group indicate that the more parents find out about the proposed filter, the less they support it. The filter has been mired in controversy since its inception, with internet industry groups, academics and backbenchers labelling it heavy handed. The US State Department has also raised concerns about the plan. “While parents were certainly concerned about what their children might be exposed to on the internet, when details of the proposed mandatory filter were explained and they became aware that other filtering options were available, their enthusiasm for the government's approach dropped,” said the report conducted by GA Research. Christian groups have been vociferous supporters of the filter because they believe it will protect children from illegal content, such as child pornography, on the internet. However, others argue that the measure could prove ineffective and open the door to censorship of other important non-illegal material. The Safer Internet Group, which is made up of companies and organisations that include Google, Internet Industry Association, iiNet, Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Library and Information Association, said it commissioned the research to better understand the awareness, knowledge and perceptions of Australian parents in marginal seats on the proposed filtering legislation. Sue Vercoe, chief executive of GA Research said that, although the scope of the research was limited (with a total of 39 people taking part in four focus group interviews), the findings helped to explain the results of the McNair Ingenuity Research, which indicated 80 per cent of people supported a mandatory internet filter on Refused Classification content. She said the GA study revealed that, while there were fairly high levels of awareness of the internet filtering legislation, most of those interviewed had only a low level of knowledge about it. “It was clear that those supporting it were taking a relatively simplistic view that it would help children stay safe online and deter paedophiles, while those opposed it asked a lot more questions,” Vercoe said. “More research needs to be done,” she added. In line with the McNair study, the focus groups indicated initial broad support for the government's proposed legislation, “however, when details of the proposal were explained in the focus groups and people became aware that other approaches to filtering are available, enthusiasm dropped. The more information parents received, the less they supported the government's proposed solution,” the GA report said. Researchers said that, when given options on different ways of approaching internet filtering, the overwhelming majority of participants in the focus groups did not choose the government's proposal. Instead their preferred option was for more education of parents and children in how to use the internet more safely and access and install free filters, while their second preference was for an optional filtering system with different filter levels for adults and children in one household. Their third preference was for mandatory filtering of a narrow range of content focused on child pornography. The government's proposed mandatory filtering was lowest on the list. On Monday night's Four Corners program on ABC TV, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy gave a pre-election undertaking not to broaden the government's proposed level of internet censorship. "We're making it very clear, this is our policy: refused classification only," Mr Conroy told Four Corners. "If a majority of the Parliament in the future want to broaden the classification, well then, Australians should stand up and say 'just a minute', and I'll be one of them," he said. "Individual pages will be determined by - at arm's length from government - by the Classification Board, as it should be," he said. Conroy also told Four Corners that he and the US government were "going to agree to disagree" on mandatory filtering. He was yesterday appointed to a new United Nations commission on broadband. [url]http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/study-casts-doubt-over-net-filter-support-20100512-uvo0.html[/url][/release]

[quote]may not prove as popular with voters as the government had hoped.[/quote]Really? i thought they would love it! oh well. [quote]because they believe it will protect children from illegal content, such as child pornography,[/quote] what kind of child wants to even see that stuff in the first place?

Just another pile of shit to add to the no R18+ games. :/ It better not go through.

What nonsense! Who wouldn't love slower internet and useless filtering that makes the government treat it's population like a bunch of manbabies?

If Parents let their kids see or play stuff that they shouldn't be seeing or playing, it's bad fucking parenting, others shouldn't suffer for their dumbfuckery. Instead of this, they should think about teaching Parenthood instead. :/

[QUOTE=xDrTran;21897704]Just another pile of shit to add to the no R18+ games. :/[/QUOTE] Hey! That may change soon! ....Probably not though

[QUOTE=xDrTran;21897736]If [b]Parents[/b] let their kids see or play stuff that they shouldn't be seeing or playing, it's bad fucking parenting, others shouldn't suffer for their dumbfuckery. Instead of this, they should think about teaching [b]Parenthood[/b] instead. :/[/QUOTE] Pretty sure those aren't proper nouns

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;21897785]Pretty sure those aren't proper nouns[/QUOTE] I know, I just tend to do that to point it out more. :/

[QUOTE=Sparkwire;21897692]Really? i thought they would love it! oh well. what kind of child wants to even see that stuff in the first place?[/QUOTE] Some kinda wierdo kid who tries to find nude pics from his/her aged kids.

[QUOTE=Combine 177;21898184]Some kinda wierdo kid who tries to find nude pics from his/her aged kids.[/QUOTE] child implies young child, ie 5-10.

[QUOTE=Sparkwire;21897692]Really? i thought they would love it! oh well. what kind of child wants to even see that stuff in the first place?[/QUOTE] dude how the fuck would a child get ahold of cp anyways, i've TRIED to find cp just to see how hard it'd be and came up empty.

Wake up and smell the ashes of freedom.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21897711]What nonsense! Who wouldn't love slower internet and useless filtering that makes the government treat it's population like a bunch of manbabies?[/QUOTE] Ugh, slower internet in australia, the thought boggles the mind. I didn't think it could get much slower than it already is.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21897711]What nonsense! Who wouldn't love slower internet and useless filtering that makes the government treat it's population like a bunch of manbabies?[/QUOTE] Your avatar is great. [editline]08:20AM[/editline] I am reading your comment in Paul Giamatti's voice.

Of all the shit I've seen on the internet, I have never seen child pornography. I have seen mangled car accident bodies, dead lady stuffed in freezer retain shape of how she was in freezer after she was taken out, beheaded children, nasty poop sex, etc.

One thing: I saw a news report in Iceland about extra censorship, where everyone was afraid that their kids would accidentally "bump into child pornography on the web". One quick fact that no one seems to know. [b](according to some sources and normal common sense)[/b]You [b]Can't[/b] run into CP. If you really want to see that shit, you have to really fucking look, and look hard. Pedoes apparently only share within groups and very rarely upload their stuff. They hide their shit and they hide it good. It's impossible to run into CP.

[QUOTE=TheIceman;21900892]One thing: I saw a news report in Iceland about extra censorship, where everyone was afraid that their kids would accidentally "bump into child pornography on the web". One quick fact that no one seems to know. [B](according to some sources and normal common sense)[/B]You [B]Can't[/B] run into CP. If you really want to see that shit, you have to really fucking look, and look hard. Pedoes apparently only share within groups and very rarely upload their stuff. They hide their shit and they hide it good. It's impossible to run into CP.[/QUOTE] /b/ has proved that untrue. I mean, really. I have to clear my firefox info whenever I go to 4chan. I'm almost entirely sure there's CP there.

I approve this!

What the fuck are these mates on about? I think it's time I start looking into proxy usage and what not.

[QUOTE=the_KMM;21902857]/b/ has proved that untrue. I mean, really. I have to clear my firefox info whenever I go to 4chan. I'm almost entirely sure there's CP there.[/QUOTE] I have yet to run into CP on 4chan.

About time they realised

The internet is cencord? Well thats [sp]FUCKING[/sp] [sp]Bullshit![/sp]

Internet censorship can be good for the youth, but it's rather unsensible adults have to follow censorship laws, unless for illegal activity. Parents should actually act like parents and not let their kids look at inappropriate content instead of letting a filter do it for them.

[QUOTE=the_KMM;21902857]/b/ has proved that untrue. I mean, really. I have to clear my firefox info whenever I go to 4chan. I'm almost entirely sure there's CP there.[/QUOTE] No, /b/ is irrelevant, because you go on 4chan with the knowledge that you will indeed find raunchy stuff. That's finding stuff on purpose literally. On the worldwide web you could never run into CP.

kevin rudd is a cunt

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;21905753]Internet censorship can be good for the youth, but it's rather unsensible adults have to follow censorship laws, unless for illegal activity. [/QUOTE] No it is not? What is this "we have to protect our children from everything remotely bad" attitude nowadays? Letting kids grow up in a falsely secure environment and "artificially" prolonging their innocence is not gonna help them cope with the hard facts of the real life out there. I never had any real restrictions on my media consumption from any of my parents and i wouldn't say i turned out as a bad person.

good

[QUOTE=the_KMM;21902857]/b/ has proved that untrue. I mean, really. I have to clear my firefox info whenever I go to 4chan. I'm almost entirely sure there's CP there.[/QUOTE] Damn straight. I should be able to have my kids browse /b/ without worrying about them bumping into CP.

Remove Porn Get a girlfriend ????? Profit. But even so your girlfriend or boyfriend would actually know and do porn anyway, ruining their erotic business of pleasure and relationship. Kidding.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21897711]What nonsense! Who wouldn't love slower internet and useless filtering that makes the government treat it's population like a bunch of manbabies?[/QUOTE] The governments full of idiots who want this stuff done. It didn't help when I realised last week I was related to the guy in charge of the scheme... My whole life is a LIE