Talk:ISP Filtering

From Wikimedia Australia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

From the Mailing List;

I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two, I reckon....

No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see here) for example. Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see here for full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague 'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)

I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't be.

Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2 restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this time....

ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;

"In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, consideration is being given to exempt high traffic sites from having their material included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet protocol (IP) addresses in Australia." ( from here - bolding mine )

It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it? (whether our content does or not, is a different matter!) - Privatemusings 04:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As the WMF would never agree to take down stuff to satisfy a national government at the other side of the world (just as it won't for China, Iran, etc), I doubt we would qualify under that condition... "RC content" is a broad general categorisation defined in chronically subjective terms under the Code and as I understand includes even discussion of euthanasia, which is strictly illegal here. Thanks to a 2005 law, any discussion of suicide online is also forbidden. (That last one has caused considerable issues at a forum I moderate.) The question is also to what extent the Code could be amended - and as it is not a constitutional provision, any government can at any time amend it provided they have upper house support. Orderinchaos 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Also - how much of this stuff would be legal on evening TV? I see stuff on there every day that would "offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". Hell, the "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence" is probably violated by all those murder shows, some of which are detailed and explicit. The former provision sounds straight out of the 1950s and would have serious implications for gay or transgender youth (or even adults!) attempting to access material as their situation and the information surrounding would undoubtedly be "offensive... [to] the standards of morality, decency and propriety" for many people. I suggest reading this 1989 law from the WA parliament (particularly the preamble) to get an idea for how these provisions could well be interpreted by a conservative (read: Liberal) government in office. Orderinchaos 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

official chapter position question

I wonder what the best way to determine any 'official chapter position' would be? - if we're going to refer to the lack of one, might be good to indicate (or chat through) how we would go about creating such a position :-) Privatemusings 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Has to be resolved by the committee. There is precedent for this - look at the Phorm optout resolution in Resolutions. Orderinchaos 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)