111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, from this year you also need a VPN, because all your traffic is logged. I'm looking forward to Comrade "Shared Society" May to force a proper Great Firewall any day now.
The porn blocking is the first step towards that. First they came for the porn...
Much, much more frightening than website blocking in Australia is this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/telco-industry-pushes-... Our esteemed government told us universal metadata collection was for fighting terrorism. Then, over the Christmas period when the public is disconnected from politics, a sham enquiry was held to open up metadata to civil courts (i.e. for copyright, divorce cases etc). Needs a bit mo…
It's certainly worse than not having it but it's nothing like NSA level snooping.
Much, much more frightening than website blocking in Australia is this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/telco-industry-pushes-... Our esteemed government told us universal metadata collection was for fighting terrorism. Then, over the Christmas period when the public is disconnected from politics, a sham enquiry was held to open up metadata to civil courts (i.e. for copyright, divorce cases etc). Needs a bit mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no "illegal websites", only some illegal activity on legal websites. Just like there's some illegal activity on legal roadways, but we don't block the roads do we?
Roads are used for a legal purpose by >99% of their users, and even though you could upload Creative Commons content to The Pirate Bay, most of it is illegally shared software/entertainment. The same they would not block Telegram nation-wide just because some users are using it to upload movies to public gruops (yes, it happens) because most of the users just use it to talk to their friends.
I prefer to think of it as "conveniently shared". Here in Australia we have a problem with lack of convenience around legal avenues of digital entertainment, so there's not exactly an equivalent legal alternative to something as easy as downloading. It's a fragmented mess of services if you choose to play by the rules.
Regional restrictions, lock-in contracts, and free-to-air "rights" to particular programs exclusively means every platform plays a tug-of-war with viewers, trying to get their subscription dollar or eyeballs on advertising.
People will find the path of least resistance when the commercial interests around them close in with deals and promotions and hype we can't possible keep up with or remain in tune with. So we turn to the internet.
Not everyone is "illegal" all the time. I buy blu-rays of shows I really liked that I previously downloaded. Exposure to content otherwise never discovered has a value we are not seeing factored in to these arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, how shameful. Aus/Can/NZ routinely top quality-of-life measures along with the nordic countries. Libertarianism is codified selfishness, and it's not conducive to healthy societies.
With regard to libertarian capitalism, I agree with your selfishness analysis. I wasn't referring to that, though, I was more referring to certain rights and freedoms guaranteed for example by the US constitution, and the lack of them in the countries I mentioned. Please see my reply to wycx.
Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist. Nevermind also that the other Anglo nations have never had anything like "Free Speech Zones". Or that their police follow Peelian principles, and don't routinely send SWAT teams into people's homes. When it comes to civil liberties, Peelian police are far more preferable than US police.
It doesn't really matter what the constitution says - what matters is how it's applied. Freedom of Speech is the big one in the US constitution and it's great. But Australians have a strong social expectation of freedom of speech (have a look at the Andrew Bolt court case, for example), and freedom of political speech is legally protected. Don't get misled by the blocking of ThePirateBay into thinking Australia is some sort of Orwellian 1984.
And, holy fuck, the US also has a history of censorship, despite that constitutional amendment. Stuff that would fly in the UK has been blocked in the US on obscenity grounds (see Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words", for example). And let's not forget the birthplace of the DMCA, which is just another form of blocking places like ThePirateBay (of which there is no US analogue). Or the National Security Letters, that have HNers crapping on about the pros and cons of warrant canaries.
In short, the 'constitutional protections' don't play out much differently in practice. They're a good thing to have, but free speech in the US is a lot more complex than that first amendment would lead you to believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only a guess, but I think it means "the government knows what is best for its citizens".
Yes, I do believe in this. I strongly abhor the influence that the Australian government has on its citizens live; it cannot be denied that it enables a great body of people to live, and get along, but it must be understood that it was not without some truly human costs. Governments must be weighed by the integrity of their impact on the species; not just the sovereign, individual, citizens they have/have-not yet div…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With regard to libertarian capitalism, I agree with your selfishness analysis. I wasn't referring to that, though, I was more referring to certain rights and freedoms guaranteed for example by the US constitution, and the lack of them in the countries I mentioned. Please see my reply to wycx.
You can be for civil rights without being a libertarian. It's a weird US style of view that only libertarians are for civil rights. Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist. Nevermind also…
There is no legal obstacle to an atheist holding any political office in the US (federal, state or local). Now, in many of those cases, it can be a political obstacle – many people won't vote for an open atheist – but there is no legal barrier. Attempts to restrict political offices on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) are clear violations of the First Amendment.
By contrast, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK: Roman Catholics are legally barred from holding the office of head of state (King/Queen). Suppose, hypothetically, Prince Charles wanted to convert to Catholicism–then by doing so he'd automatically cut himself out of the line of succession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be for civil rights without being a libertarian. It's a weird US style of view that only libertarians are for civil rights. Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist. Nevermind also…
> Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist There is no legal obstacle to an atheist holding any political office in the US (federal, state or local). Now, in many of those cases, it can be…
That it's a first-amendment violation doesn't change the fact that atheists aren't allowed - until the laws are successfully challenged and voided (not exactly a trivial task), they're still valid. Just like any other form of censorship.
You're also wrong about the head of state thing. The head of state in the UK has to be Church of England, because the head of state there is also the head of the church. The dominion countries don't care, as they don't have an official state religion.
Note also that the Queen doesn't actually do anything in Australia at all (or Canada or New Zealand). The Governor-General performs Lizzie's political duties in Australia, and there's no requirement to be C of E for that office. The current G-G in Aus is Sir Peter Cosgrove, who is a practising Roman Catholic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting, isn't it, that you've panned the other Anglo nations because of what amounts to a relatively small amount of censorship of literature, but don't pan the US, where there are a number of significant political offices you cannot legally hold if you're an atheist There is no legal obstacle to an atheist holding any political office in the US (federal, state or local). Now, in many of those cases, it can be…
So, here are seven US states where it's illegal for an atheist to be governor: https://thehumanist.com/news/national/unelectable-atheists-u... That it's a first-amendment violation doesn't change the fact that atheists aren't allowed - until the laws are successfully challenged and voided (not exactly a trivial task), they're still valid. Just like any other form of censorship. You're also wrong about the head of sta…
Unconstitutional laws aren't "still valid" until "successfully challenged and voided". The real question is are these laws enforced? If you file to run for political office in one of these states, and you indicate while doing so that you are an atheist, do the election officials accept your filing and (assuming you meet all the other requirements) put you on the ballot? If a law is clearly unconstitutional, executive officials usually will decline to enforce it–they have an independent legal obligation to obey the constitution, and they want to avoid wasting taxpayers' money fighting lawsuits they know they have no reasonable prospect of winning; but then no court gets to declare it unconstitutional either, since no one has standing to sue–such laws are dead letters that can nonetheless remain on the books for decades, since repealing unenforced unconstitutional laws is rarely a legislative priority, and some legislators will insist on keeping them on the books as a way of making some sort of political statement.
> You're also wrong about the head of state thing. The head of state in the UK has to be Church of England, because the head of state there is also the head of the church.
I'm not wrong about the head of state thing. Section 2 of the Act of Settlement 1701 explicitly bans Roman Catholics from inheriting the throne–"all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established". It doesn't impose such a ban on any other Christian denomination or religion. If Prince Charles converted to Greek Orthodoxy, he'd still be eligible to become King. Section 3 says the King or Queen must "join in communion with the Church of England"–but if, hypothetically, a Greek Orthodox King Charles III was happy to take communion in the Church of England even while remaining a member of the Orthodox Church, he'd meet that requirement. Furthermore, if he refused to do so, he would be breaking the law, but he wouldn't thereby cease to be King–section 3 is toothless because unlike section 2 it doesn't provide any negative consequences for its violation.
> The dominion countries don't care, as they don't have an official state religion.
But the Act of Settlement 1701 is part of the law of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, which is why all three countries had to pass laws in order to change it (in order to remove the ban on the monarch marrying a Roman Catholic under the 2011 Perth Agreement.) It may well be true that politically speaking they "don't care", but it is a part of their law as much as it is part of UK law, so legally enshrined discrimination against Catholics still exists under Australian, Canadian and New Zealand law, and will continue to do so as long as the relevant provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 remain in force (or unless one or more of them become Republics).
> Note also that the Queen doesn't actually do anything in Australia at all (or Canada or New Zealand).
I agree the Queen is very close to powerless in Australia in practice. But that doesn't change the fact that she is legally Australia's head of state–the Governor-General is not head of state, just the head of state's representative. I said that current Australian law bans Roman Catholics (but not members of any other religions or denominations) from being the head of state of Australia, and nothing you've said disproves that.
