Good Lynx Kimeros – this subject, rather that fading, becomes ever more important.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I believe this has become an issue that needs some attention again now that the DIA (under the cover of darkness*) has gone live with the filter.

Here are a list of reasons why Stop the Filter believes that the DIA’s Filtering system won’t work.

http://stopthefilter.org.nz/content/why-the-filter-does-not-work

* http://techliberty.org.nz/dia-is-failing-on-openness/

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

ha~you guys should come to china and check out the internet filtering of Chinese information department, they block youtube, twitter, and lots of others, and i heard that google will be blocked, because we have “our own” SE Baidu~ i can only use a proxy to explore twitter. and they spend 7million USD on a rubbish software called green dam, compulsorily installed in every computer sale in china, just to block some websites…that’s how they spend our tax….so you guys should feel lucky~

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Once it becomes commonplace to block incoming information from specific websites it will only be a short step further to block politically sensitive sites.

Just as Helen Clark was complicit in poor treatment of Falun Gong due to Chinese pressure, so our weak-kneed National government will in future permit internet censorship because of potentially “damaging” access to politically hot websites.

Same as Iran.

Either the internet is free, or else it is a tool for thought control. You choose.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

You need captcha frog to get rid of the spam bot

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC

You pointed out the need. ’tis true. I am acknowledging the reality.

The fact is that this system is completely NON-transparent and unaccountable.

That is what has me so excitable about it. Once in place , nobody will know who is filtering what.

If that is what “the law society” reckons we need for a good democracy I will accept it as evidence that they have been bought or are victims of excessive inbreeding. However, the EFA in whatever form it takes, is publicly accessible and understandable. It can be overcome and changed through the usual means.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You seem to have missed this and I did put it at the top.

“Sure we need any censorship of the internet to be transparent and accountable.”

If there is filtering, then this is made known (transparency). Then those who did this can be held accountable. All it needs is someone who is charged with monitoring such filtering and checking that it occured for valid reason.

PS The Law Society wants to limit campaign finance in the hands of representatives of the people and to unlimit private campaign financing (sounds like an ACT/BR programme for the economy).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC

You miss the point.

Nor is it apparent that there is any government intent to censor lawful activity or free speech opinion.

Once this is in place you will not know what you do not know. You can have no idea whether the state is filtering your traffic or when or to what purpose.

The excuse for it is a good one. Nobody likes child-pornography, but the method contains the seeds of disaster…. nobody will know that there is something to protest.

The election rules were visible to everyone and thus harmless. This is a far more insidious and dangerous thing.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sure we need any censorship of the internet to be transparent and accountable.

But real censorship of the net is unlikely in a democracy as there are (other) means to protest about it (letters to newspapers/meetings with your MP, etc). Nor is it apparent that there is any government intent to censor lawful activity or free speech opinion.

Thus it is this issue, rather than election/campaign spending rules, which is the marshmallow fight.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t want anyone opening my mail.

I don’t want anyone tapping my phone.

I don’t want anyone sniffing my underwear.

I don’t want anyone spying on my internet searches.

This is all about greedy people gaining money and power by controlling others. It needs to be fought strongly.

Judge people by the real harm they do, not by the things they see or think.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Hi wat dabney

I enjoy your posts. I’m Interested in reading deeper into the free-market economic philosophy. Are you riffing on Hayek? Austrian School?

What books would you recommend I read?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes DBuckley, It calls to mind Aristotle’s claim that the brain is an organ that only existed to cool the blood and is not involved in thinking. It appears he was correct with respect to some people.

I have grown weary of tolerance at this point.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat

If the law says don’t do X and you break the law, the consequences are not usually “violence” unless you initiate the violence. This is a real problem with your diatribes and one of the reasons you are not taken seriously.

The difference between us is that you claim to know what is best for society; I don’t.

The damage to the society as a whole can be measured economically and run to millions of dollars and a number of deaths every year. If you are planning to dispute that, be explicit about it. Tell us all how drink driving and alcohol induced violence isn’t a problem for the society.

You accused me of arrogance and a propensity for violence and questioned whether anyone knows that drink driving and alcohol abuse causes problems in the process. I’m calling you on that bit of ideologically induced idiocy Wat. Put up or shut up. Make the case that this doesn’t cost us all money and lives.

Then look at the 4 choices of societal action on offer and choose one of them or explain a fifth.

You attempted to avoid the question by pretending there wasn’t a problem. Just assume that you know that there IS a problem this time and answer it.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,

You rather missed the specific point being made about the bibles.

bjchip,

- “Is advertisement, pushing your message into everyone’s lounge, a right?”

I have never had adverts “pushed” into my lounge. I have, however, bought a TV and watched channels which are funded in whole or in part through advertising; a wholly voluntary act on my part.
This is a purely private, peaceful agreement between me and the TV company: they can broadcast programmes and films which I may watch, along with whatever adverts they choose to show alongside them. I don’t remember ever asking you about it. In fact, I’m sure I didn’t. Yet you choose to initiate violence against both me and the shareholders of the TV company, just so you can censor what I am allowed to watch.

Wow. What en enormous ego you must have to feel justified in taking that violent action against us, whom you have never even met. I’m reminded of the incredible sense of frustrated superiority displayed by that university lecturer currently on trial. That’s the sort of mentality you leftists have towards the rest of us.

And those terrible gangs you mention? Not one of them has ever tried to censor what I am allowed to see and watch. Only you.

- “If it is an attempt to sell a product which has harmful effects (liquor or cigarettes) the choices are different. The society benefits to the extent that the use is minimized, but the measures it can take to achieve this are limited.”

The difference between us is that you claim to know what is best for society; I don’t.

Oh, plus the fact that you are happy to use violence to impose your superior wisdom.

Ask a dozen different people and you’ll likely get a dozen different answers as to what constitutes the “good society.” So all you can (and should) do is leave everyone alone to pursue their own happiness; even if that involves doing things to themselves which you obviously find objectionable; like drinking more than you think they should, enjoying a smoke, or getting high.

- “The state can allow the product to be advertised, doing nothing. The deleterious effects take hold and the society is thereby damaged.”

Apparently freedom is not one of the attributes of this ideal society of yours; not when it interferes with your tractor production statistics.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Well, here we go again, theres a really important issue at hand and we’re back to relative irrelevancies…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Whereas the lawyers submission on Election Campaign Finance is an attempt to censor politicans and allow open season for those with private money.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No Wat, it isn’t going there at all.

The first part of it is that the control of the advertisement is something that everyone knows about. It is open to inspection and objections. The censorship is completely black. You cannot tell what is blocked, or why.

The second part is that the commercials are just that. They aren’t the same as having a ban on people buying or owning a bible or other book, as THAT requires an act of acquisition on the part of the person. A “pull” if you will.

The commercial advertisement is without any apologies, a “push”.

Neither push nor pull can be abrogated in secrecy without entailing ALL the ills that a state censor can possibly create. This is the core of my objection to this move, and the clearest difference between the 3 activities.

The difference between push and pull is public vs private. I have much more difficulty justifying any censorship, publicized or not, of a “pull”. The child pornography qualifies though, so there is a validity to the state wishing to do it and no excuse for the secrecy of the sites being blocked.

That it might work is a dubious proposition in any case. The people who look for this stuff aren’t going to go direct, they are going to work out cut-outs and aliases and they are going to encrypt like their lives depend on it.

===============

Censorship of advertisement is a little less clear cut. Is advertisement, pushing your message into everyone’ s lounge, a right?

If it is a political message, not an attempt to sell a product, then I have to affirm that in general it is, and that should not surprise you. Nor should you be surprised that I make a specific and special exception in respect to the exercise of the democratic process. No real democracy can long endure the effects of wealth having a megaphone and everyone else having to whisper in corners come election time. The dominance of the “haves, and have more’s” in the USA is not accidental.

If it is an attempt to sell a product which has harmful effects (liquor or cigarettes) the choices are different. The society benefits to the extent that the use is minimized, but the measures it can take to achieve this are limited.

The state can advertise in competition with the product advertiser. The Newspapers and Radio companies love this approach. The war of words is extremely profitable for them. Expensive for the taxpayers.

The state can ban the sale of the harmful product. Advertisement becomes word of mouth and the Mongrel Mob handles distribution. Where this has worked I have no idea. I don’t think it ever has. Very expensive for the taxpayers.

The state can allow the product to be advertised, doing nothing. The deleterious effects take hold and the society is thereby damaged. Expensive for the taxpayers.

The state can ban the advertisements. This will reduce the use of the product somewhat without allowing the gang takeover of distribution. Least expensive to the taxpayer.

Find me a fifth way or choose one of the 4 listed.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There used to be some brave Christians who risked their liberty smuggling bibles into Communist countries. That’s right, bibles which were paid for by the organisation. You can see where this is going…

Yes, directly back to your usual hyperbole. You compare religious persecution and the smuggling of bibles to what? – maybe Americans smuggling in advertising over the limit during the election campaign on a pirate tv station operating in the Hauraki gulf? They could throw in a few cigarette commercials during family tv time too. That’ll teach the persecutors won’t it. Do try not to be so absurd.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

wat – So, you’d support the banning of pornography by a democratically elected government?
I’d invite discussion from all concerned and arrive (hopefully) at a concensus as to what to do to manage the issue (if it was agreed it was in fact, an issue).
btw – Banning porn would doubtless be as effective as banning alcohol, or cannabis, in my view)

etc….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greenfly,

So, you’d support the banning of pornography by a democratically elected government?

You’d support the censorship of material from unpopular “extreme” political groups?

You’d support the banning of Christian religous tracts by populist Muslim governments?

bjchip,

- “the EFA and the Beer and Fags business was about money changing hands for ADVERTISING and had publicly defined scrutiny and clear limits, while the issue of actual state censorship doesn’t have any possibility of public scrutiny or limit.”

Your argument – ‘It was paid for, therefore the state can censor it’ – is a complete non sequiteur.
It’s like me saying ‘this material was written by foreigners, therefore the state can censor it’, then sitting back and imagining that I’ve presented an irrefutable argument. It doesn’t follow.

It’s only in your mind that you think you’ve presented an argument. In reality, you haven’t.

There used to be some brave Christians who risked their liberty smuggling bibles into Communist countries. That’s right, bibles which were paid for by the organisation. You can see where this is going…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)