Internet filter fear grows

Internet filter fear grows

Gay businesses have voiced renewed fears they may fall victim to the federal government’s proposed mandatory internet filter ahead of a soon-to-be-released report on a trial filter.

Sax Fetish owner Wayne Nicol was unsure whether his store’s website would be affected and said there’s a lot of confusion for businesseses.

I’ve read as much as I can on it, it just all seems so terribly vague, he told Sydney Star Observer. If someone decides the theme of what we do, which is obviously adult and specifically to do with alternative sexual practices, [our site] could easily be wiped off over night.

Eagle Leather owner Brian Mier said it was a waiting game to see if his site was banned.

It’s hard to know, our [site] is advertising products and they’re not usually attached to a body, Mier said. We just don’t know and we’ll find out after the event, when sales drop off or people ring us … this is the thing, it’s all being done by stealth.

Last week lobby group GetUp launched the controversial Censordyne advertisement which fiercely opposes the filter.

Senator Conroy defended the government’s position saying only already illegal sites, such as those containing child pornography, bestiality and pro-rape would face ban.

He said there had been scaremongering about the scope of the ban and sites would only be prohibited in line with the Broadcasting Services Act.

Concerns, however have been fueled in part by a leaked alleged blacklist of sites in March this year which contained many gay adult and BDSM websites.

GetUp! director Ed Cooper told said he had major concerns about the scope of inappropriate material affected by the filter in years to come.

We’re concerned about the creep of content [the ban] may apply to … a lot of groups in the community are justifiably anxious about that, he said.

It really is up to the whim of the government of the day, with no proper transparency or scrutiny of these processes, and any changes to the scope of content can be done through regulations that wouldn’t have to be passed by parliament.

When you’re talking about something as spurious as censorship you really need to balance it with proper systems and processes that make those decision-makers accountable.

You May Also Like

20 responses to “Internet filter fear grows”

  1. I can see religious people complaining about glbt sites like this one, and my worry is that whoever is in charge of deciding what should be banned or not might actually seriously consider the views of those religious nutters and ban access to harmless glbt sites. A number of high schools already have filters in place which prevent access to some harmless glbt sites.

  2. Oliver, if the filtering takes place, and as your suggestion kids will be more curious as to why it has been blocked, it will only mean they will find a way around it. There are always alternatives around filtering such as proxies.
    Your logic is flawed and contradicting.

  3. Oliver, if you dont want your child to view something, then supervise them yourself. Install a filter yourself, and put the computer in a public area like the living room. What you may consider “filthy” or “offensive”, i may not.
    And yes children are curious, and will want to push the boundaries, but then would you let a child drive your car? Or get drunk? No, of coarse not.
    But then again people like you are more than willing the trade more and more of our freedom for the illusion of safety.

    And just so you know, the filter will fail and not stop anything because there ARE ways around it. How do you think the people of China and North Korea get around their filters?

  4. Oliver, you mention filthy websites and a decline in society. Who gets to define filth and what is the decline measured against? I’m witnessing a decline in the freedom to direct our own lives, and abuse of power is far more filthy than what goes on in anyone’s bedroom.

    I don’t deny that the uncensored internet is no place for a developing child. But any parent can install a filter on their home computer. It does not need to be forced upon every adult in this country. It’s not about that anyway, it’s about the vocal minority forcing their morality upon the rest of us. “For the children” is just their excuse to do so.

  5. To respond to that GM, Children are always curious and will explore material over the internet and see how far they can go. On TV any show that has a strong M rating, Children are more curious to watch it. Thats why these Filters are vital. GM, its these so called “Adults” that create these filthy websites and contribute to the decline in society.

  6. Well said BRW,
    I am sick and tired of this continuous spewing of “we need to protect the children”.
    If you are so concerned about them, then act like an adult, and more importantly, like a parent and look after them yourself. Stop forcing the rest of us to act as some sort of surrogate parent, just because you haven’t got the brains to look after your own children yourself.

  7. Whatever happened to self censorship, what the government is planning is Machiavellian in many aspects. Is protection of the young the real reason for imposing this on the community. What more will they restrict once this is in place. Seems like the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ to me. Also, what has happened to parents watching over their children. No, all the government seem to be worried about is what they see as the pornographic side of the web and for that television as well. What about the terrible violence that is in our world. Sending the cream of young men & women off to war seems to me to be a better area to concentrate on. Why don’t they censor that. This is just another area are made prominent in my opinion to obfuscate the real things that need to be fixed in our world, don’t you think? When it is all said and done people are behind government. Government It’s not some robotic mechanical mechanism that runs without our input. Come on everyone be real, look first at the real problems facing us all and the planet before wasting time and enormous energy and monies on a scheme that simply will not work in the best interests of us all.

  8. Some web sites are absolutely Off! No wonder theres heaps of violence in the world.

  9. Dem, best you not tell your God you’ve been browsing sinful homosexual websites getting aroused!

  10. What are you saying, Dem? Trust in God and we wont’ have to ever worry about governments ever making bad decisions? That doesn’t sound like good advice to me.

  11. I fully support the move as it protects younger generations from exposure to inappropriate material. No business will be affected apart from those godless pro pornography producing businesses, trust in god and you wont be affected by censorship because you will have no need for inappropriate material, love your family and avoid sin. Simple

  12. What would make me laugh about Conjob’s compulsory internet censorship, if it wasn’t so serious, is that nobody wants it. Nothin’ like givin’ it to the people. You can guess where.

  13. All ISPs have to do, and I mean *ALL* ISPs, all they have to all do is just so ‘NO’ to the filter.

    And if the government doesn’t like it, then they (the ISPs) can cut-off the Government’s Internet supply!

    Why doesn’t ALL ISPs stand-up to the government!?

  14. Im starting to think maybe this NBN isnt such a good idea if theres goin to be a filter and crap involved. If parents dont want their children to see Homo dating services and bedroom toys so on, they should buy a Filter. No need to force it on the Nation!

  15. Sigh. Does Wayne Nicol realise that if his site fell foul of the guidelines, assuming it’s hosted in this country, it would already be gone?

  16. Stephen Conroy is blatantly lying to everyone. I can’t believe some people cannot see through this!

  17. And that’s the major problem with this proposed country-wide blacklist: there is no appeals process to get a site removed from the blacklist. If a site is accidentally blocked, or is blocked due to misinterpretation, how does it get unblocked?

  18. Even Conroy’s mythical list of “almost exclusively Refused Classification” covers an exponentially broader scope than “illegal.”

  19. There is no scaremongering. The prohibited list from the Broadcasting Services Act covers far more than just “illegal” sites. Conroy continues his lies as per usual.