Filters are for Spliffs you government bitches....

So I dunno why this hasn't been getting more press, but sooner than you think Senator Stephen Conroy, the Communications Minister, will supervise the test phase of a filtered internet feed throughout Australia. Late last year he announced it (on his blog, no less) and it quickly fell out of the press, probably because this type of thing is debated pretty much constantly. Any day now, some of Australia's internet service providers will join in a pilot of the minister's "undesirable content" filter.
This filter will block content blacklisted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Once again, This filter will block content blacklisted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
No discussion, no input from the populace, and an independently nominated authority making decisions on what constitutes content offensive enough to be blacklisted. The blacklist will apparently block access to child pornography, no argument there, good work all round. However, in theory there is nothing that could stop the ACMA blocking anything the government authority doesn't fancy.
Last November, Conroy is quoted as saying the blacklist would filter child-porn sites as well as "other unwanted content". Yeah, that's where the issue comes in. Right there. You inadvertently summed it up well, Senator Conroy. The authority's list is totally secret, and you have been quoted as saying that this filter will block "other unwanted content".
Define that, if you could, because that sounds a little like well crafted Doublespeak to me. I have a feeling that the "other unwanted content" may in fact be "other content that is unwanted by the current government".
Again, I want to stress that I can understand parents wanting to keep their kids safe, and I can understand the need to keep the dreaded child porn off as many screens as possible, but its difficult to believe that Conroy has a complete grasp of the magnitude of what he is doing.
I quote the man himself...."If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree". And the Australian Christian Lobby is right behind it too, says managing director Jim Wallace "The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access".

Yeah, guys, you're not really getting it. We're with you on the child porn bit, but a government filter of the internet, which is hailed as the last true bastion of free speech, is a dangerous line to tread. I mean, China's internet technically has the same filter, they're just a little more liberal with the term "other unwanted content".

I'm probably overreacting, but you get the point. You have to watch what's happening. Most people don't really understand the fact that Bush didn't technically have to leave the presidency. He could have stayed on, 'cos in 2008 congress had passed a law which states that as long as the US is in a state of emergency, the president can stay on for as long as he wants. And with the current economic issues, the ongoing issues in Iraq, as well as beef with Iran and North Korea, Bush could easily have declared a state of emergency and hung around. There would have been a civil war, which would have been interesting to say the least.

Anyways, stay vigilant cyber pals, and keep the internet free from filters. In fact, everyone should download some porn tonight, as a fuck you to Senator Conroy. Besides, it's hard to argue with a man who believes that "If you're opposed to the department's cyber-safety plan, you are opposed to the protection of children".
Just for that cheap shot Conroy, here's 40 Glocc with the unrated version of "Finer Things". Definately *NSFW*, definately bumpin'.
Peace.