1984: Your guide to statehood
Thoughtcrime 101
Under what I can presume to only be some obscure anti-terrorism law (isn't that what all the "interesting" laws are today?), Victoria Police want to ban messages being posted on internet blogs about accused firebug Brendan Sokaluk. Under what law exactly I would like to know.
Now, the police wanting to block the blogs, the police's lawyers wanting to block the blogs, and the police's lawyers actually being able to block the blogs are three separate things.
I am sure that the police want to be able to do on the spot searches, and require you to give them your papers when asked. Also, free doughnuts would be expected from all store selling them. I'm sure in their minds "you have nothing to hide if you have done nothing wrong" is just fine. A Police State sounds like Utopia to them I am sure.
Now, the lawyers may find some obscure law to justify this banning of these blogs, perhaps something like the Anti-Terrorism act of 2005 (because this is obviously terrorism). While I understand that the guy at the center of this whole thing is just accused, not convicted, is this really something we, as bloggers, are ready to loose our non-constitutionally-guaranteed concept of free speech over? All this information that is flying around about this person was already in the public domain - his girlfriend of facebook, pictures off his myspace, his address out of god knows where (whitepages anyone?). The information is out there already, all these evil bloggers have done is put it all in one place.
OK, so the police want to block it (no surprise there), the lawyers have said yes (correct bribes fees were paid), now how the hell are they going to do it.
Enter The Clean Feed Filter
Under the Government's Clean Feed Filter - "unwanted" material would be filtered at the whim of a non-elected bureaucrat in some government department in Canberra. This list of course would not be public, so there is no public oversight what so ever. All that needs to happen is a plebe in the department adds it to the mighty blacklist, this list is updated and disseminated to all ISPs in the country (by force if necessary I imagine) and thats it. Your blog is gone - removed from Google and blocked from direct access - never to be seen again. Blocked under the guise of protecting children and child porn. No doubt there will be an attractive banner placed where your site used to be - like this. This is my greatest fear of the Clean Feed Filter - once it is in place, we will never get rid of it - like so many restrictive and ridiculous "anti terrorism" laws.
This is a tough one. I can see both sides, to an extent (hear me out before you slam me/get Fosnez's blog blocked).
ReplyDeleteOne on side, the side I feel much more sympathy for, there's the intense need to ensure that this guy feels as much, if not more, pain than the victims themselves have felt. He caused immeasurable pain through loss of life, loss of home, and general destruction (and that's just the fire he started, not even getting onto the child porn issue).
However, I can also see the other side. What happens if this guy doesn't get a fair, unbiased trial? He could potentially go free. I can't stand the thought of this guy, or anyone else connected to the fires, going free on a technicality because someone saw fit to publish things on their blog (not denying their right to freedom of speech and all that).
Ultimately I don't know which is the right way to go about this. Do we block people from voicing their opinions in whatever medium they choose, thus bringing on a censored state and too much government control over our lives, or do we work hard to ensure that our legal system can continue in its designated fashion and trust in the processes that are put in place to allow this?
Did he do it? He still hasn't been convicted 3 months plus after the fact. Porn, ahuh, anyone (especially police seeing as they have a good collection of their own) could plant something as small and simple as an SD card for example and there you go - instant rock spider. I guess we'll have to wait for him to be pressured into a guilty plea and forgo the right to a trial before he can be formerly convicted of the allegations. Why else would it be taking so long? Still gathering evidence and witnesses says it's not an airtight case. I wish they'd hurry. The public needs a scape goat. It seems a person can be held indefinitely on suspicion. Not a very comfortable notion.
ReplyDeleteOf course if it is him and he is convicted, I trust he'll never be released, although understandably there are a few if not many hoping for his early release. What a mongrel of a thing to be charged with.
ReplyDeleteYou can't shut people up, we they have so much to say.
ReplyDelete