Australia: mandatory censorship of internet for all citizens.

[KaiserSoze]

The Australian govenment has announced they will begin to censor the internet for all their citizens.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

Nothing like Big Brother telling you what is good and not good for you. I didn't think Australia was communist but now it joins China in the censorship of the internet.

Feel bad for you mates. :(

[Water12356]

Well its good and bad, sure they get rid of the horrible stuff, but some of the stuff that has no reason to be censored might get wacked. Sorry aussies. :(

[Mr.Fibbles]

Well, blocking "illegal" material isn't bad. It is when that "illegal" material becomes things that aren't actually illegal you have a problem.

[avatar_58]

While it makes perfect sense for them to want to police illegal activity (although this is like killing a fly with a rocket launcher) I don't get it. Blocking websites will not stop illegal activity. I mean users can still rely on P2P sharing which will not even be affected by this.

China is using this for a helluva lot more than illegal activity too. Blocking legit websites because it's 'unfavourable' isn't right, especially under the guise of protecting the public.

[Waiter]

I think this is actually something worth a global discussion, and if that is what Australia now starts I welcome it.

Every country should have their right to form rules about what is legal or not, especially if this is done in an open and democratic way. Different countries will then have different ideas and rules about certain stuff - why and since when should the internet stand above that? The problem with for ex. China isn't the censoring of the internet, but their very definitions and ways of deciding what is "legal" and "illegal" material. Even in countries with freedom of speech you have a freedom with responsibility. On the net there are ways to get around almost any kind of responsibility and publicize more or less anything globally without anyone having to take responsibility for material that might harm other people.

I don't principally like the idea of censoring the net, but I also don't like the idea of an almighty internet standing above national and international laws.

[Dave-ros]

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.
So why not go after the providers of this material? :doh:

I'm also concerned about "adult content" being screened out -- is this like Australia censoring the blood from Duke?

(Incidentally, Waiter, it's not Austria -- I hope no-one's going to bring Nazis into this, or Godwin's Law will be proven again :p)

[Denz]

This will make the ones who used to do illegal activities hide deeper.

[Ramen4ever]

does this mean that the Australian government is funded by the adult video industry? It seems to me like they just want people to pay for adult videos instead of watching them online for free.

[KaiserSoze]

I wonder how many laws are on the books in Australia that they could use to prosecute these "criminals" they're after instead of censoring the internet for everyone?

Limiting one's freedoms for the sake of "getting the bad guy" is only giving the "bad guy" the victory in the end.

[Dave-ros]

Hopefully this'll go the same way as the proposed Canadian law that would have made it illegal to unlock a mobile phone or watch a DVD in Linux ;)

[Sang]

Limiting one's freedoms for the sake of "getting the bad guy" is only giving the "bad guy" the victory in the end.

In this case, this "freedom" would consist of going to the "bad guy"'s site, something that "good guys" like you and me probably wouldn't do anyway. So by that definition, our "freedom" isn't exactly damaged because we weren't using it to begin with. Those people that would utilise this "freedom" though would be other "bad guys" visiting the site of this "bad guy".

Sooo while I wouldn't say "everybody wins", I would say "nobody loses" except the "bad guys".

Well that's all fine and dandy but now comes the hard task of determining which is bad and which is good. But hey, I'm pretty sure they won't censor sites that have blood or porn (with adults, of course).

[Waiter]

(Incidentally, Waiter, it's not Austria -- I hope no-one's going to bring Nazis into this, or Godwin's Law will be proven again :p)

:doh: Sorry dammit, just a slip of brains and fingers. :o


Anyhoo,

This will make the ones who used to do illegal activities hide deeper.

Well, blocking people from watching illegal content is not done to get to the person who publiced it but to cut off and to an extent protect their audience.


Limiting one's freedoms for the sake of "getting the bad guy" is only giving the "bad guy" the victory in the end.

I agree on one hand, but on the other hand I don't see that locking the door at night is a victory for the burglars. Firewalls may be a victory to the gits who try to mess with your computer but I wouldn't recommend not using one. I suppose the question is if you consider it a freedom of be able to chose wether to use one or not.


I know I sound like the devil's attorney, but it is a difficult question. I really would like to say that they should leave this up to each individual and develop better ways of nailing the people who publice illegal material, but the problem is that there are so many ways to get around national laws when you can use any lawless country in the world as your platform.

Also - the laws about these things are very different in different countries. Just take the difference between the US and most european countries. European countries are generally more open to nudity and more closed to blood&gore than the US. Does the internet give us the right to impose our different views on eachother?

[NutWrench]

Sounds like a lucrative opportunity for porn smugglers! :D

Seriously, this sucks. The only thing censorship leaves in its wake is ignorance.
Can't you boot these guys out of office or something?

[Ramen4ever]

:doh: Sorry dammit, just a slip of brains and fingers. :o


Anyhoo,



Well, blocking people from watching illegal content is not done to get to the person who publiced it but to cut off and to an extent protect their audience.




I agree on one hand, but on the other hand I don't see that locking the door at night is a victory for the burglars. Firewalls may be a victory to the gits who try to mess with your computer but I wouldn't recommend not using one. I suppose the question is if you consider it a freedom of be able to chose wether to use one or not.


I know I sound like the devil's attorney, but it is a difficult question. I really would like to say that they should leave this up to each individual and develop better ways of nailing the people who publice illegal material, but the problem is that there are so many ways to get around national laws when you can use any lawless country in the world as your platform.

Also - the laws about these things are very different in different countries. Just take the difference between the US and most european countries. European countries are generally more open to nudity and more closed to blood&gore than the US. Does the internet give us the right to impose our different views on eachother?

It's not a difficult question at all. This is infringing on peoples freedoms. Not because of what they say they want to censor but because of what they will censor. This won't just be a censoring of adult content and kid p0rn0.
Anything that is considered "sensitive" information will be censored just as the Tibetan riots were censored in China.

Which suddenly turns from protecting one from offensive content to determining what a person can and cannot know. Besides its not like this will prevent people from watching adult material. And if doesn't then it's useless in the first place.

[Ironside]

This reminds me, here in Australia it is illegal to have a independent record of a court case. So if you tried to record the proceedings in your court case with a tape recorder then you face the possibility of getting beat up by the cops. And if your not rich over here then the cops look down on you. They target the poor big time over here. The police are not in the business of helping but rather charging people. And you will NEVER hear on the news "Police shot and wounded a suspect". Instead you will hear, "Police shot and killed a suspect."

[Destructor]

Besides its not like this will prevent people from watching adult material. And if doesn't then it's useless in the first place.

Well, at least it prevents main access. Like, for example, a 12 year old kid going into Google images, turning off the filter, and keying in 'sex' and then, well, seeing sex. But yeah, it's only a band-aid solution, but at least it saves Australian parents getting up off their arses and buying Net Nanny or whatever. As long as they don't start censoring political issues I'm all for it. Just because Australia is getting one step closer to China doesn't mean it will become China.

[Phait]

First they shit in ice cream (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_icecream;_ylt=Atfh2ZM9xl6NVsgOZ KFVWjvtiBIF), now this?

[Klaus Kinski]

Given the possibilty of abuse by the government for these censorship tools I must say...

burn all books! It'll make the evil go away!

Do they really think this will stop criminals from anything?

[Destructor]

Do they really think this will stop criminals from anything?

This isn't to stop criminals. It's to stop us Australians from seeing boobies and to bring us one step closer to becoming a Christian state. :p

[Superczar]

Or one step closer to being Mad Max.

[Mr.Fibbles]

So why not go after the providers of this material? :doh:

Maybe because the providers are not in Australia? The providers of warez often are not in countries where it is illegal. Online casinos take advantage of this stuff also by being hosted out of the US (off the coast usually).

Providers will find a way to get it to the consumers but you can't stop the provider who isn't in your country.

[Rider]

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Wow, so that's not even just illegal content... it's about controversial content as well?

That's a scary thought... the government banning things from the internet it deems 'controversial'... "This website does not agree with our policy, therefore it is controversial and cannot be visited from our country any longer".:insomnia:

--

In this case, this "freedom" would consist of going to the "bad guy"'s site, something that "good guys" like you and me probably wouldn't do anyway. So by that definition, our "freedom" isn't exactly damaged because we weren't using it to begin with.

Whoa... slow down there... the freedom bit is that you choose whether you want to go to the bad guy's website or not.

[Delicieuxz]

Well, blocking "illegal" material isn't bad. It is when that "illegal" material becomes things that aren't actually illegal you have a problem.

How about when illegal things are things that ought not to be illegal? There is no good to internet censorship. Whether people like what's out there or not, the internet is not supposed to belong to or be governed by any group, and no one should be arbitrating what other people have the potential to come in contact with.

The internet is not a governments jurisdiction. If you need someone to baby-sit your thoughts, then the problem is to be amended within yourself, and what a government does to the internet isn't going to fix you.

[Ironside]

You guys dont get Australia wrong or anything. The Australian gov. is still very kind to its people. We have outstanding medical care or medicare compared to the US which is a very good thing. Announced just last month family's will receive 1,000 bucks per child on Dec 8 as a lump sum payment plus 1,400 coupled payment. Things like this reminds everyone why Australia's nickname is the lucky country.

As far as blocking porn and sex?
Australia is covered in pics of boobs. There is sex on TV during the day here. People magazine in Australia is a boob mag and it is the coffee table mag of the country. There is way more exposure to sex in Australia then there is in America or other countries. People talk about sex more openly here and it is just the norm. I think the leaders of the western world see the benefits the Chinese gov have and were just being inched into that direction.

[Steve]

You guys dont get Australia wrong or anything. The Australian gov. is still very kind to its people. We have outstanding medical care or medicare compared to the US which is a very good thing. Announced just last month family's will receive 1,000 bucks per child on Dec 8 as a lump sum payment plus 1,400 coupled payment. Things like this reminds everyone why Australia's nickname is the lucky country.

As far as blocking porn and sex?
Australia is covered in pics of boobs. There is sex on TV during the day here. People magazine in Australia is a boob mag and it is the coffee table mag of the country. There is way more exposure to sex in Australia then there is in America or other countries. People talk about sex more openly here and it is just the norm. I think the leaders of the western world see the benefits the Chinese gov have and were just being inched into that direction.

What this man said. Seriously. The Aussie gov. is excellent to its people. As for blocking sites... I'm fine with it IF the sites are illegal. If they start blocking gaming sites or your run of the mill porn site "just because" some fat prick in a big chair doesn't like boobs then there will be a problem.

[Delicieuxz]

If they make gaming sites with heavy violence illegal, then it will be ok for them to block it, because it's illegal, eh? "Illegal" is not a synonym of "bad." A government can make dissent illegal. China's censorship includes blocking all sites that criticize their government. Is that ok, as long as those sites are illegal?

On a similar not, Autralia forced Bethesda to remove certain drug references, including an animation of administration, from Fallout 3 before they would let the game be sold in the country. Is that cool? I don't think so. While they're at it, why not censor images of bullets hitting people in movies?

That the Aussie gov't is overall shoddy is not a point here (I know, it's actually pretty good), but this particular decision is poor.

[Ironside]

I wont be surprised if were the first in a series of western governments to censor the net.

[Nessus]

And now that they have taken that power for themselves whats to stop them from slowly adding to the list of what should be censored? Nothing. They'll probably start chipping away at what comes into the country little by little over the course of years.

[KaiserSoze]

How about when illegal things are things that ought not to be illegal? There is no good to internet censorship. Whether people like what's out there or not, the internet is not supposed to belong to or be governed by any group, and no one should be arbitrating what other people have the potential to come in contact with.

The internet is not a governments jurisdiction. If you need someone to baby-sit your thoughts, then the problem is to be amended within yourself, and what a government does to the internet isn't going to fix you.

Excellent post.

[thefly]

Back to the BBS days!

[alexgk]

Wow, this sucks...

[Waiter]

How about when illegal things are things that ought not to be illegal?

Well, this is the real problem, only it has nothing to do with censoring the internet. The problem with China isn't that they're censoring the net on illegal stuff but the very decision of what is considered illegal. This goes for all media and communications, not only the internet. It's their laws that are a violation to freedom of speech and basic human rights, not the fact that they block the internet itself.

If the laws are wrong it's a democratic issue that's not solved by allowing the internet to be lawless.

There is no good to internet censorship. Whether people like what's out there or not, the internet is not supposed to belong to or be governed by any group, and no one should be arbitrating what other people have the potential to come in contact with.
The internet is not a governments jurisdiction.

Says who? Every civilized country in the world has laws that limits the freedom of speech and press to some extent, wether it's for abusive, dangerous, copyrighted or other illegal material. These laws apply to all media, wether written, spoken or filmed. Why should the internet be a lawless zone? The laws are already there for a reason and they do already include the internet, the problem is to reinforce those laws when the servers are in countries with different laws or none at all.

I'm not for censoring at all, but I don't see why the internet should not abide by the same national and international laws as any other media.

[LarsBM]

Wait, do they only remove illegal stuff or all the fap material too? :o

[Waiter]

Well, that's the question in this case. If you read Ironside's posts, I can't see why they would block something on the net that is not blocked anywhere else. The talk about "controversial material" is quite worrying though. If they would block stuff like that that's not illegal, then they have a problem very different to what I'm discussing. That would be crippling the freedom of speech and in my view an intolerable abuse of basic rights.

[Rider]

How about when illegal things are things that ought not to be illegal? There is no good to internet censorship. Whether people like what's out there or not, the internet is not supposed to belong to or be governed by any group, and no one should be arbitrating what other people have the potential to come in contact with.

The internet is not a governments jurisdiction. If you need someone to baby-sit your thoughts, then the problem is to be amended within yourself, and what a government does to the internet isn't going to fix you.

I'd like to second that this is a great post :)

[LeadBullet]

Personally, things like this to me are among the first qualifications to being considered a third world country.

[Ramen4ever]

Personally, things like this to me are among the first qualifications to being considered a third world country.

I disagree.. at least with the word "third world country" There are countries that are considered... at least by western definition to be third world. Yet they have almost complete freedom over their actions.

Imo this qualifies more as a group dictatorship. Or a step towards communism. Where other's decide what is and isn't good for you and the country. Which is a load of crap imo.

[Dave-ros]

If child pr0n is illegal all over the world, then the world ought to be working together to destroy its websites and arrest its makers, not using it as an excuse to impose Internet censorship... mind you, I wonder where anime schoolgirls would fit in to all that, plus I hear that in Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Norway) a picture of an adult woman surrounded by childish trappings (e.g. teddy bears) would qualify as child pr0n :o

[A.K.]

pronography

:D I would've lol'd, had this news not been so grim & serious (business).

[Grande 3:16]

First they shit in ice cream (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_icecream;_ylt=Atfh2ZM9xl6NVsgOZ KFVWjvtiBIF), now this?I'm curious as to how she knows what it tastes like. :mryuck:

[Waiter]

Imo this qualifies more as a group dictatorship. Or a step towards communism. Where other's decide what is and isn't good for you and the country. Which is a load of crap imo.

That's not communism. It's called a representative democracy.

Are you against all national and international laws and common rules in general?

[Jeff]

I thought the internet was about free exchange of information regardless of the country? I guess for some people high up it seems to be about power, greed, and control. The more control you have, the more you want.

[Ramen4ever]

That's not communism. It's called a representative democracy.

Are you against all national and international laws and common rules in general?

Laws and rules: A system developed by people to control and use others.

Why would I want to respect laws and rules. When you can cheat, cheat.

[Sang]

Looks like we've got a few anarchists on the board here.

[Ramen4ever]

Looks like we've got a few anarchists on the board here.

It's not anarchists at all. I'm simply saying that the people who are at the top don't follow the rules and laws anyway. They make loopholes. Why bother following the rules when they exist only to keep you below the people who don't follow the rules quite as clearly. Like I said, when you can cheat. Cheat.

Anyway, I'm curious to know if this internet censorship will only effect those with cable and dial up. Will this censor satellite connections as well?

[Klaus Kinski]

I guess this censorship is done via ISP, so all australian ISPs would follow those rules. If your provider was from another country, it would probably not work.
However, still a frightning, crappy and expensive idea. I can't even begin to imagine the lawsuits.

[Towelie2k4]

This scheme just seems... impractical and difficult to implement. And also something I thought I'd never see here in Australia.

I think I'll wait on judgement until I find out exactly what is being censored. If it's just blocking illegal stuff like child porn, I don't really see a problem. Mind you, when comes the point where they start censoring on the chance something could be use illegally, regardless of it actually doing anything illegal or not. The recent blocking of newsgroups comes to mind, taking out thousands of legitimate groups in order to remove a few illegal ones.

[Tetsuro]

I'm against censorship on the basis that the only person who should be allowed to decide what is actually bad for me and what is not is...me!

Blocking illegal material like child porn is fine, but when they censor simulated violence...

[A.K.]

The trouble with CP is that it's not advertised & distributed proudly on websites. So it's a bit like marching intop a country to take out their weapons of mass destruction - you gotta block (=attack) the entire site (=country) just to see if it's there. And if it isn't... keep on "block"ing it just in case. And if you see another website (=country) that you don't like.... yeah. Blame the WMDs!

[shiranui]

Anyone want to buy an Australian passport? I'll throw in my citizenship too. I have no desire to go back there, and these days I travel on my British passport exclusively.

And waiter, I disgree completely with your opinions on internet freedom.

[Waiter]

And waiter, I disgree completely with your opinions on internet freedom.

No objections. As long as you understand what I mean you have every right to have a different opinion.

[ixfd64]

Australia is becoming a nanny state. For example, it recently banned the import of laser pointers that are more powerful than 1 mW just because a few idiots were misusing them.

[Crosma]

Australia is becoming a nanny state. For example, it recently banned the import of laser pointers that are more powerful than 1 mW just because a few idiots were misusing them.
They were pointing them at cockpits, making it difficult for the pilots to see. It's quite normal to ban weapons in western countries.

As for this, there's always SSL and proxies, which will at least make it more difficult for them. The Australian government has a hard-on for banning media. It's not even legal to sell hardcore DVDs in shops any more.

Oh well, the anarchic Net was never going to last.

[Klaus Kinski]

Wait a sexo... second. So Australia tries to get rid off of pornography in general?

[Pansa]

I'm curious as to how she knows what it tastes like. :mryuck:

so your assumtion is, if you havent actualy eaten shit, you cant make out if someone put shit in your food?

i dont think thats a valid thesis ^^

[Klaus Kinski]

Maybe she smelled it?
"Can you smell what The Rock is cooking?" :)

[Destructor]

The Australian government has a hard-on for banning media. It's not even legal to sell hardcore DVDs in shops any more.


WTF? :confused:

[Grande 3:16]

so your assumtion is, if you havent actualy eaten shit, you cant make out if someone put shit in your food?

i dont think thats a valid thesis ^^If I ate something and it tasted real bad I'd probably assume the food had gone off, and not automatically think someone had put doodie in it. And I'd have no idea what it would taste like anyway.

For her to instantly recognize the taste sounds like she's been in that territory before. :mryuck:

[Phait]

You can't smell poo?

[Crosma]

WTF? :confused:

Well, they imposed a ban in New South Wales a few months ago. As for the other states, I couldn't possibly comment.

It's quite common for games to be banned/censored too. The Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt games, for example. Australia's pretty strict (stupid) when it comes to this stuff.

[Hellbound]

It's quite common for games to be banned/censored too. The Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt games, for example. Australia's pretty strict (stupid) when it comes to this stuff.

Yeah, same goes with Germany. Because of their goddamn restrictions, we have to make gay version of Necrovision (for Germany and Australia), without gibs, dismemberment, without blood and with fast disappearing corpses. It's stupid IMO, because it's obvious that anyone out there would rather download any game than waste his money on castrated one.

The funny thing is (as I heard) that for example in Fallout 3 they cut off the quest of blowing up Megaton for castrated versions and we had to throw out the scene, where you can gas two guys in a room.

That's idiotic.

And censoring ethernet is like stealing freedom.

[Dave-ros]

Agreed, I couldn't live in Germany -- not because I'm English (!!!) but due to censorship like this, plus obviously all Nazi symbology from games like Wolfenstein 3D. Never thought I'd consider Britain to censor less than other countries, but we've come a long way since The Texas Chain Saw Massacre got banned by James Ferman of the BBFC, after he accidentally admitted that censorship exists to stop working-class people seeing anything stimulating :o

Incidentally, I think the Japanese version of Fallout 3 is edited for obvious reasons, including the "Fat Man" weapon. I wonder what they do about Stewie Griffin in Family Guy? :p

[Hellbound]

Incidentally, I think the Japanese version of Fallout 3 is edited for obvious reasons, including the "Fat Man" weapon.

But that's the thing I don't understand too. It's the same as banning nazi symbols in germany. That's history. Humanity learned a lot because of these events and there's no need to deny them.

It's like banning swastika or nuclear mushroom in historical books.

[Dave-ros]

Some might object, finding it "too soon" after the event. On the other hand, some might say "never is too soon", which isn't helpful. I know, these things happened and we shouldn't pretend they didn't, but there's a practical issue where your customers may object and damage your sales :(

[Crosma]

Never thought I'd consider Britain to censor less than other countriesBritain's got nothing on most countries when it comes to censorship. People call it the nanny state, but Britain makes many of the games that other countries censor.

Censorship and banning of obscene materials are less prevalent everywhere. This time a hundred years ago you'd be hard-pressed to buy anything with a picture of a breast on it and that was only because the establishment didn't want you to. Now you can't buy anything without a breast on it. It's almost tiresome.

[ZaphodB]

Most censorship never makes any sense. I can understand censoring some things, but the things I feel should be censored probably wouldn't all be the same things you thing should be censored (by you I man anyone who reads this post, nobody specific). Germany has the swastika banned because they probably don't want it thrown in their face as a reminder of the holocaust their country had caused. I know it's not the German people today who did this (most of the people involved are dead, but not all). Every country has censorship of some sort, and over half of it is stupid. That's my 2 cents worth.
TPWHNOIWGON

[Crosma]

Germany has the swastika banned because they probably don't want it thrown in their face as a reminder of the holocaust their country had caused.
It was far more cynical than that. It was banned because there was a genuine fear that it would be re-appropriated as the symbol of German nationalism, and that Nazism would have a resurgence. I.e. they thought that it might happen again.

[ZaphodB]

It was far more cynical than that. It was banned because there was a genuine fear that it would be re-appropriated as the symbol of German nationalism, and that Nazism would have a resurgence. I.e. they thought that it might happen again.

Considering the Neo-Nazi movement in the US, can you blame them? There will always be hate-mongers, but that's off topic.

[Destructor]

Well, they imposed a ban in New South Wales a few months ago. As for the other states, I couldn't possibly comment.

Ah okay. It was just that I live in Victoria and had a look in a porno shop not long ago. :o

[Klaus Kinski]

That banning of swastikas in games in germany has nothing to do with gaming specifically. In germany it's illegal to sell Nazi memorabilia and to put their symbols on display. If you were for example on a demonstration and carried a banned with a swastika or SS runes (or similar stuff) on it, you could be arrested and charged for it. These laws do make sense as they make it much easier for the government to fight Nazi propaganda and making profit with it.
Usually nobody cares about Nati symbols in media. Nobody here would dare to even suggest censoring these symbols in Schindler's List or omit them from History books. Even in pure entertainment this is ok to display these. You would have to search for quite a long time to find anybody silly enough to censor or ban the Indiana Jones movies because of that. However, the gaming industry in germany is afraid of using these symbols here because they are basically a backdoor solution to banning games. Nobody important cares about them. They have no strong lobby here, unlike the movie industry.
Wolfenstein 3D (one of the very few games that is actually banned here) was banned only because of the Nazi symbols used. It is my firm opinion that the real trouble lies in the violence though. It was simply easier to get a court to ban the game because of the swastikas and Hitler pictures than the blood.
This lead to the fear of suffering the same fate by german publishers, hence the censorship. It is not and can not be forced by the german government unless they would like to try to ban all media including these symbols. This would include Indiana Jones as well as Schindler's List or Der Untergang. Not going to happen. No politician would commit such career suicide. The movie industry would acceopt that as much asd the public wouldn't. It would violate the german constitution.
With games it is easier though. Nobody dares to stand up for them. How could you defend one of these dreaded murder simulators (that's how the public likes to view games like Call of Duty) against censorship of Nazi symbolism? It's too costly and too potentially damaging for the public image (imagine the tabloid headlines) for ny publisher to do that.
These games are censored here in that way because nobody has the balls and/or cash to defend them. That's all.

As someone who suffered from the german censorship and its stupidity for years I must say that today's british rating system is the best I had to deal with yet. The BBFC does a great job at giving meaningful ratings and providing clear guidelines IMO. It doesn't appear to be as arbitrary as the german system which dobn't have any guidelines at all. The USK (which rates games) let HL2 and Episode 1 pass uncensored but Episode 2 is censored. The FSK gave Sleepy Hollow at first a 12 (!) rating but wanted cuts for John Rambo for a 18 rating. The MPAA hates everything that includes sex (Showgirls NC 17? I get it, tits are more dangerous than murder and mutilation) and Australia even refuses to acknowledge that games could be meant to play for adults. Really, I like the BBFC today. I don't always like their decisions but at least they follow a logic and allow me, as an adult, to make my own choice what appropiate for me.

[Klaus Kinski]

Germany has the swastika banned because they probably don't want it thrown in their face as a reminder of the holocaust their country had caused. I know it's not the German people today who did this (most of the people involved are dead, but not all).
I honestly don't know any other country that dealt with its uncomfortable parts of history so intensely as germany does. You can't grow up here and don't know about the holocaust unless you're a Nazi yourself (one of those weird holocaust deniers) or very, very badly educated. I've been twice to Buchenwald with my school. Believe me, even in my youthly stupidity, I wasn't left unimpressed by what happened there. And I've been a giant, emotionally cold dickhead as a teenager. We love to remind ourselves of that, it's nearly masochistic. And I think it's good. The USA are in desperate need of such a culture of remembrance. And they are certainly not the only country. We all have skeletons in our closets.

[Dave-ros]

The BBFC have only really been competent for the past few years, since James Ferman left -- he was the single reason The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned over here for so many years, and there was a lot of fuss over Carmageddon (and the sequel) as well, which got released with zombies instead of people, only for the BBFC to say they shouldn't have cleared it at all, regardless of rating! But in the 21st century it's been a lot more sensible ;)

Also, not all games are rated under the BBFC here -- there's also the European PEGI system, though that's not so familiar here, and doesn't have the same impact as the famous 15 or 18 in a red circle that you'd see on films ;)

[ZaphodB]

The USA are in desperate need of such a culture of remembrance. And they are certainly not the only country. We all have skeletons in our closets.

Oh we have some things we are similarly reminded of (like the civil way fought between the north and south slavery vs anti slavery). There are many places that re-enact the civil war, the underground railroad (the way slaves escaped from the slavey south to the free north), tours of what happened where in the Civil Rights Movement (like where Dr. King got shot), all kinds of things. The thing is we have had so much that we can't focus on just one thing. But I do agree that every country has skeletons in their closet.

[Dave-ros]

Just heard that two big Aussie telcoms have pulled out of the Great Firewall of Oz -- can anyone confirm this? Apparently it followed the furore of the IWF censoring the Internet in Britain (specifically a Wikipedia article about the album Virgin Killer -- I won't post a link as the image may offend some!), which they've now relented on (since as a side effect, no-one using the affected ISPs in Britain could edit Wikipedia anonymously) ;)

[Ironside]

I haven't noticed any changes to the net. Well I have noticed pages take longer to load, could this have something to do with the censorship?

EDIT
My family received $9,500 this morning from the Australian government as part of the economic bail out package. If Rudd keeps this up I know for sure he will be reelected next term. A very big one of these :D

[Pansa]

Just heard that two big Aussie telcoms have pulled out of the Great Firewall of Oz -- can anyone confirm this? Apparently it followed the furore of the IWF censoring the Internet in Britain (specifically a Wikipedia article about the album Virgin Killer -- I won't post a link as the image may offend some!), which they've now relented on (since as a side effect, no-one using the affected ISPs in Britain could edit Wikipedia anonymously) ;)

jeah that cover hits the fan quite a bit late..

i personly find something like that ridicilous.
whats next? banning the entry on the marqui de sade?
i could understand this trouble for a new cover, i could understand it for rereleased media, but cencoring an "encyclopedia" for showing the past?
create a disclaimer that creating this would be concidered an offence if done today, but was accepted back then.. and let history be history.. pls...

its as ridicilous as the "cencored" copy of goethes Faust all my classmates got, because the part with the witches had prose with quite some steamy analogy in it.. (they cencored the german word for "hole" which in context described "trees" [well one with 2 nice apples , and a split one with a giant (cencored)hole(/cencored) ]
its idiotic...

[Dave-ros]

How old are your classmates? It'd be one thing to censor it if you were, well, too young for that kind of filth... though really, if you were that young, they probably wouldn't be giving you Faust in the first place! I was 15 when we did The Merchant of Venice, and that wasn't censored... and I was 14 when my teacher got us to read the opening of Romeo & Juliet, with the classic line "I am a pretty piece of flesh", f'nar f'nar! :p

(For those who don't know, it means the character can, er, keep it up in the bedroom :censored:)

[Pansa]

How old are your classmates? It'd be one thing to censor it if you were, well, too young for that kind of filth... though really, if you were that young, they probably wouldn't be giving you Faust in the first place! I was 15 when we did The Merchant of Venice, and that wasn't censored... and I was 14 when my teacher got us to read the opening of Romeo & Juliet, with the classic line "I am a pretty piece of flesh", f'nar f'nar! :p

(For those who don't know, it means the character can, er, keep it up in the bedroom :censored:)
must have been between 16 and 17 iirc ...

my point was more about the fact that there is ONLY the inuendo part. so in my opinion you either already know, in which case you get it.. or you dont, in which you dont..

the cencory there made absolutly no sense to me.

but back to the cover of that scorpionsalbum. i just cant understand why they would make a fuss about it now..
this whole child porn stuff has gone way to far..

whats next. arresting parrents who have old photos from the beach?

dont get me wrong kiddiporn IS bad, and i understand that there will always be discussion about the fuzzy edges of that definition, but cencoring the web because you think that its retroactivly ok to cencor something that fringes on that (or fringes on not being that, depending on your point of view)?

[IwantMORE]

The aussies are doing it all wrong. Looks like the UK has had a national firewall that no knew about, no one seems to know how long it's been running for and has probably blocked quite a bit of stuff without most people knowing.

Obviously after the silly Wiki incident everyone know knows about the UK firewall and the problems it can have with IP indentification.

[Travis]

i can't see this idea ever going ahead successfully.

[Mister_Anderson]

First they shit in ice cream (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_icecream;_ylt=Atfh2ZM9xl6NVsgOZ KFVWjvtiBIF), now this?

It could have been worse.

We could have had Bush since 2000. Then the whole population would have been eating shit.

[Crosma]

Looks like the UK has had a national firewall that no knew about, no one seems to know how long it's been running for and has probably blocked quite a bit of stuff without most people knowing.
The difference is that the UK scheme is voluntary. New Labour's policy is that all possible schemes should be voluntary, but difficult to opt out of. Like biometric passports and the eventual ID cards (you won't have to have one, but won't be able to use a lot of government services without one).

There are still ISPs in the UK (a minority) that offer the web entirely uncensored. The big players, however, (BT, Virgin, etc.) only provide the censored service.

So, you see, it's not the government's fault if you have a censored service. It's your ISP who you should be complaining to.

Additionally, the British mandate is to block material that is criminally illegal (for example, copyright infringing material does not count) to view. Like various forms of pornography. The Australians are planning on banning lots of perfectly legal stuff (like pro-anorexia sites).

It may seem ominous, but the British scheme is there to protect people from viewing stuff accidentally that could wind them up in gaol. Yet, it's still theoretically optional for people who don't want that protection.

[Klaus Kinski]

Yeah, you go to your ISP and ask them to unlock all the "filth". Seriously, how many people are going to do this? You must be aware of the possibilty that people get funny ideas about your motivation.
Some thing may be voluntary but they're still forced upon you because nobody can/will stand up to it with positive results.

[Crosma]

Yeah, you go to your ISP and ask them to unlock all the "filth".Most ISPs don't have an opt-out themselves. So, you should just switch to an ISP that isn't part of the scheme. Vote with your wallet, as they say. Sorted.

[Klaus Kinski]

That'll only work as long as as there are options to vote for.