Category Archives: porn

the things you read

recent articles from online newspapers.

Holocaust denier priest, Bishop Richard Williamson, thinks he’s a rock star?

The Holocaust denying bishop flew out of Argentina under a government expulsion order on Tuesday after scuffling with a reporter at the airport.

A local television station showed Richard Williamson – wearing a baseball cap, a black fleece jacket and dark sunglasses – raising his fist toward a reporter, then shoving him into a pole with his shoulder as he hurried through Buenos Aires’ Ezeiza international airport to catch a flight for London.

Two men accompanying the bishop then grabbed the reporter by his shoulders and held him back by while Williamson hurried away. from smh.com.au

Don’t know what to make of that article?

Web filter debate descends into slanging match.

As most of you should know by now the Australian government wants to filter the internet at the ISP level. Ostensibly to filter out child pornography, but who know what else they may filter? At a recent technology conference a debate on the topic turned into a slanging match when

filtering advocate Bernadette McMenamin, chief executive officer of Child Wise, accused filtering opponents of spreading “hysteria” – a reaction that drew a hostile response from the room. from news.com.au

A journalist pointed out that:

“(Senator Stephen) Conroy himself said that anyone who disagrees with this policy is a supporter of child molestation,”

McMenamin brought out the old “think about the children” to which some one replied:

it is ridiculous and frankly juvenile to suggest that political opponents have faulty morals or support child molesters.

So which side is spreading hysteria?

Gmail porn

Google apologises for the 2 1/2 hour outage of their Gmail service the other day (I never noticed it?)

What was mildly amusing about this story was

Quick-thinking porn-peddlers capitalised on the situation by creating a Gmail user group titled “Gmail Down” that displayed sex pictures and videos to people that went searching for information about the problem. from news.com.au

Heh, filter that Conroy.

Which just goes to show, that no matter what sort of filtering you use those clever little pornographers will find some way to showcase their wares.

Octuplet Mum to star in porno?

Nadya Suleman, the American woman who gave birth to octuplets, has been offered $US1 million ($1.5 million) to star in hardcore porn. from smh.com.au

Not sure how popping out 8 babies at once qualifies you to star in pornos, but what would I know about porn?

That’s three stories in a row about porn, time to change the topic.

Is this the latest in Hijabs?

A designer has unveiled a full face headdress made of real mice and rat carcasses… from smh.com.au

Yes, there is a picture on the linked page.

Deadly Dozen

Finally a slideshow featuring the 12 deadliest Australians.

Click the links to view the full stories.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under atheism, burqa, internet censorship, internet filter, pope, porn

Too tired to wank

MGK has a good rap-up of some of the latest articles on the Internet filtering debacle titled ‘prohibited’ does not equal ‘illegal’, well worth a read.

Of interest is a study MGK found by Todd Kendall, from the Economics Department of Clemson University, who thinks the proverbial “pornography use causes sex crime” accusation is invalid.  Kendall’s research indicates that since the internet came online, and thus freer and greater access to pornography has become readily available, the rate of sex crimes has dropped. There may be other reasons for the drop, as the Ohio.com article states,  but it may also be that, to put it bluntly,  some rapes have been avoided because the perpetrators were too worn out from too much wanking?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

6 Comments

Filed under internet censorship, internet filter, porn

Why aren’t PC-level filters sufficient?

Because most people are stupid. Well, that’s the inference I get from Senator Conroy’s response to my comment on the governments website.

Some while back the government opened their pathetic excuse for a blog where people could respond to the ISP Filtering debacle [side note: there are now 768 comments on his ‘blog’, I wonder how many others Conroy responded to?) . I left two comments and Senator Conroy has responded to one of them.

Whatever happened to parents being responsible for what their children view? The government has already provided a PC based filtering system, which only about 3% of households took up. Which, to me, just goes to show most parents don’t care about filtering anyway.

Posted by OzAtheist / 10 Dec 2008 10:21am / Permalink

Conroy’s response:

The previous Government’s Protecting Australian Families Online strategy focused on providing families with PC-level filtering software. However, despite an $84.8 million government program and $15.5 million in advertising, only about two per cent of households with dependent children are using a filter. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters. ISP-level filtering could provide important protection for those families with limited technical expertise.

We understand that ISP filtering is not a ‘silver bullet’ for this purpose. However, in conjunction with the Government’s numerous other initiatives in this area, we believe it can make an important contribution to protecting children online.

Stephen Conroy

Which I think is a cop out. It is obvious that parents are just not bothered with filtering, they are too stupid or both. Either way filtering everyone is hardly an appropriate response.

The government has already spent  over $100M on previous filters that have proved a complete flop, why spend more? Are the children really in that much trouble on the net? From some reports in the media, chat programs such as messenger pose more of a threat than children just accidently stumbling upon porn on the net. From what I’ve heard Conroy’s filter won’t protect children on chat programs. Really why is he bothering?

Interesting Conroy’s own admission that the filtering is “not a ‘silver bullet’”, this is a bit of a departure from early statements he made.

Hat Tip to Sean for finding the response, and letting me know about it via twitter. What you aren’t on twitter?

 

6 Comments

Filed under censorship, China, freedom of speech, internet, internet censorship, internet filter, no clean feed, paedophile, porn

Why Internet Filtering is NOT a good idea

When someone decides the picture on an album cover is offensive and adds it to a black-list then everyone suffers. from Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist

Wikipedia has been blacklisted by a British online child pornography watchdog, causing almost every internet user in Britain to be blocked from contributing to the site anonymously.

The British Government-backed Internet Watch Foundation blacklisted Wikipedia over an article on the 1976 album Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions.

At issue was a screen shot of the album cover, published with the article, that featured a naked, young girl with her genitals obscured by a simulated tear in the photograph.

After hearing of the blacklisting, Britain’s six main internet service providers blocked their users from accessing the article.

Here in Australia our government is considering having mandatory ISP filtering, unlike the UK where it is not compulsory. But as can be seen if something is considered child pornography then most operators will also consider it such, quite likely to avoid being seen as being soft on child pornography, it then becomes a matter of self censorship. Having seen the offending picture I can see how it could be considered child pornography, but then again I thought Bell Henson‘s pictures were as well.

The problem with the ban is that now all users appear to wikipedia as one of six users (the six ISPs blocking the site), so if just one user gets banned then all users on that ISP will be banned from modifying wikipedia. This may seem a bit innocuous but think of the consequences.

One person complains to the watchdog (and in this case it was only one user), the site gets blacklisted, all users on those six ISPs (about 95% of home internet users) now appear as one of six users. Lets say six people, one on each of the six ISPs, purposefully get themselves banned by wikipedia, then just about every internet user can no longer edit anonymously. Then using an alternate ISP these nefarious gang of six edit various wikipedia sites, the rest of the populace now finds it difficult to correct these edits. These new entries come

I know I’m probably being a bit paranoid and ‘conspiracy theorist’ here, but it just shows how easy it could be, if mandatory filtering was in place, for a small group of people to wreck  havoc on the internet for everyone else. Worse still, in Australia you might not even know it had happened, as the government doesn’t have to expose which sites have been black-listed.

1984 anyone?

In more political correctness gone wrong, comes the story of the man who has been convicted of possessing child pornography, and then lost his appeal. The offending matter?  A cartoon of Homer Simpson having sex with Lisa Simpson. Yes folks a cartoon! The judge (where do they find these people?)  stated:

the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …,”

and

“… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.”

feckin’ genius this judge, even most four year olds know the difference between a cartoon and a person, but not our ‘learned’ judge.

There are a few other bloggers covering this and they have come up with some, at times quite funny, extrapolations of this ruling. How far could this go?

2 Comments

Filed under activism, atheism, censorship, freedom of speech, internet censorship, internet filter, no clean feed, porn

Random Findings

Here’s a bunch of things that have come my way the last few days:

God Trumps playing cards – very funny

————————————-

Internet Filter prophesy

————————————-

And speaking of the Internet Filter. There is a new political party here, the Australian Sex Party (I kid you not) due to commence it’s campaign this weekend in Melbourne at Sexpo (hey Sean didn’t you have some involvement with this). The sex industry is launching the new political party to counter the increasing influence of religious groups in politics and government, in particular the ridiculous Internet Filter (see No Clean feed in side bar). Reported a few days ago here.

Some more stuff on the Internet Filter. If Conroy and his loony buddies want to filter sex, violence, rape, murder, etc; then shouldn’t they also be filtering all references to the Bible on the internet, one of the most violent books ever written? Jack Marx thinks so in this excellent opinion piece, and if you have some spare time there’s over 400 comments to read. Watch the fundies get eviscerated. The bottom line is; if you don’t like it don’t read it, same goes with everything on the Interwebs (so Conroy don’t filter the thing, we ain’t China, Iran or North Korea).

update

Came across another great site called libertus.net with plenty of resource material on censorship in general, net censorship, and the mandatory ISP filtering plan. I’ve placed a link in the No Clean Feed section in the side bar.

————————————-

From the dispute on whether the New Testament trumps the Old Testament (mentioned in the comments from above). No it doesn’t. Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God.

————————————-

Monday night TV, two different shows, two different people said “I’m an atheist”. The Hack Half Hour had a discussion on Sex and Sin, interesting in and of itself, but nice to see someone openly say they are an atheist on National TV. If you missed this show I highly recommend you watch it via the HackHalfHour website. (I’m going to download it so I can re-watch it later). The other show Good News Week and the host Paul McDermott (well known atheist and religious shit-stirrer) openly states he’s an atheist. Maybe there is some hope for Australia if we can announce on prime time TV that we are atheists, and people still love us.

————————————-

Well that’s all for now, I’ve been in a blogging frenzy lately, I may take a break for a day or two. I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff to keep you busy here and in all my recent posts.

9 Comments

Filed under atheism, atheist, bible, Good News Week, internet censorship, internet filter, jesus, porn

Net Censorship – part 262

The absolutely ridiculous idea of our ‘so called’ Minister for Communications has featured in the news again. This time, Michael Malone, the managing Director of one of the largest ISPs has agreed to be involved in the trials. But there is a twist, he’s agreed to be involved, 

to provide the Government with "hard numbers" demonstrating "how stupid it is" – specifically that the filtering system would not work, would be patently simple to bypass, would not filter peer-to-peer traffic and would significantly degrade network speeds.

He’s not the only one questioning Stephen Conroy, Senator Ludlam raised the issue in question time today. Ludlam asked Conroy to retract his claims he’d made in a Senate Estimates committee, namely that

… Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand had all implemented similar filtering systems.

However, in all cases, participation by ISPs was optional and the filtering was limited in scope to predominantly child pornography.

So Conroy may not of outright lied, but his obfuscation is equivalent to lying, surely? So why aren’t the government opposition and media calling him on this? I’m really over people lying to me by not quite telling me the truth, or providing a half truth, or by bullying me into just believing what they say no matter if it’s true, false or something in between.

And that’s how he’s getting away with it in the media and ‘general’ public. He indicates he’s doing this to ‘save the children from pornography and paedophilia’ so who would dare to say anything against it? Well me and many others fortunately, people who realise this is all a smoke screen. Filtering porn on the net won’t stop paedophiles, for a start they tend to use messaging and peer-to-peer services to contact children and pass media to each other. The filter wont prevent any of that, and the police already have plenty of powers and technology to investigate, find and prosecute these people (as has been evidenced with numerous prosecutions around the world recently).

So we look into this filtering further and find that Conroy wants to filter “illegal” sites (whatever illegal is), but there is already a ‘black list’ of illegal sites in service in Australia. So what’s the porn thing all about? Well, you wouldn’t know it but the government might need one or two of the Independents to vote with the bill. Guess who the Independents are? Senator Fielding – right wing religious nut job party; and Senator Xenophon – anti-gambling nutter. How these two absolutely minority Independents got into parliament is beyond me. How Australia’s Internet, freedom of speech and right to view adult entertainment are all being curtailed by a few BRAIN DEAD MORONS is  beyond belief. Democracy at its worse.

I like Malone’s conclusion:

"This is the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed."

and we’ve had some real shockers! Why has Australia had so many complete imbeciles running technology portfolios?

Share this post :

3 Comments

Filed under censorship, christian right, democracy, freedom of speech, hypocrisy, internet censorship, paedophile, politics, porn

The Internet, China, Porn and Hypocrisy

Interesting to read Sean’s blog on Friday discussing Senator Conroy’s plan to filter porn via Australia’s ISP’s, and then to read about the outrage when it was discovered that China had censored the Internet to the international media at the Beijing Olympics.

For the few people who may not have heard the story, the IOC had arranged for the visiting foreign media to be given unlimited Internet access during the games. However China has censored the net, including sites that relate to human rights abuses.
update: It seems that due to pressure from the IOC and the international community China has since provided slightly more open Internet access to the visiting media.

The media had several reports of officials and government members decrying China’s Internet censorship, and the SMH editorial called for action:

The Australian Government, meanwhile, should carpet the Chinese ambassador, telling him plainly that internet bans and spying are an unacceptable breach of faith, …

Oh, the hypocrisy, is it just me or do others dislike hypocrites? People who say they would never do X then turn around and go and do X. People who criticise others for acting in a certain way, then go and act the same way themselves. How can this country, at least some of it’s political leaders, condemn China for censoring the Internet when they are planning on doing similar?

I don’t condone China’s attitude to Internet censorship, and I also don’t condone my own countries plans for censoring porn on the net. Like many other people, I believe in self censorship, I believe it’s the responsibility of parents to restrict what their children see. We don’t need a ‘big brother’ totalitarian government telling us what we can or can’t see and read on the internet or elsewhere.

Filtering is unworkable anyway, there are usually ways around it and these ways are often discovered by the young children the filter is supposed to protect in the first place. Classic example was the filtering software the Government made available for PCs a while back, that some 16 year old boy cracked within 30 minutes.

Similarly when the government banned internet gambling sites being hosted in Australia, all it did was drive all the money overseas. Similar to the ban on selling X-rated material in Australia except in the Territories, again all this did was to drive all the money to a few mega-shops in NT and ACT.

So when will the government realise that banning all these things is just a waste of time, money and effort? That by trying to prevent a few people seeing things they probably shouldn’t, the rest of society has to suffer. Yes, there are certain things that should be controlled, such as child and violent pornography, and we already have sufficient laws to control these.

Do we need the government to filter our Internet access even further, and are they being hypocritical condemning China for their censorship?

Share this post :

3 Comments

Filed under China, hypocrisy, internet censorship, porn