ladyfoxxx | Oh wonderful. They're going to "protect us" from Fandom.

Skip to Main Content

Entry tags:

blather,
rant

Oh wonderful. They're going to "protect us" from Fandom.

Not sure if you're aware but the darling Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been bandying about the idea of filtering the internet in Australia for a while now. And it actually looks like it might even happen.

I, like every other free-thinking individual out there, am completely against is - I don't want my internet filtered, I know how to keep away from material I don't want to see and I never have children in my home who could use my internet and see something untoward.

I must admit it never occurred to me that the filter would affect slash. Until I read this article: Australia Set to Introduce Internet Filter that Could Block Access to Thousands of Anime, Comics, Gaming (ACG) and Slash Fan Sites by Mark McLelland of the University of Wollongong

If you can't be bothered reading the whole article, here are the headlines.

What is this filter thing?
In December 2009 the Australian government announced that it would be proceeding with legislation to introduce an ISP-level internet filter aimed at blocking access to material that would be 'refused classification' (RC) under the National Classification Scheme.

What are they going to filter?
In Australia child pornography legislation applies equally to 'fictional or imaginary characters', even in instances when such characters 'depart[..] from a realistic representation'. Given the ubiquity of such representations on both ACG and slash fan sites, it is easy for fans to stumble across material that would put them at the risk of prosecution.

The bottom line?
If the filter proposal becomes law, it could shut down Australian fans' engagement with broad and well-established international fandoms.

THIS MAKES ME VERY, VERY ANGRY.

You DO NOT come between me and my goddamn slash. YOU DO NOT.

Oh and you know what else is fun about the filter?
- They're putting the onus on the ISP's to administer it, so the internet, which is already pretty pricy in our sprawling nation, is gonna get more expensive, and SLOWER.
- It's not even going to protect children from everything harmful, because they're not going to filter X rated pornography, it's just gonna give parents a false sense of security
- The Banned Sites list will NOT be public. WTF?

WHAT THE FUCK PARENTS? MONTIOR YOUR DAMN CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET AND DON'T MAKE IT GOVERNMENT'S PROBLEM. THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD AT THIS KIND OF SHIT. THEY WILL GO BIG BROTHER ON YOU.

I'm not going to preach any more about this but if you are interested to learn more and/or do something click below.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OH COME ON! Jesus.... Fandom? Really? Take the boy kissing and leave the porn?

Oh hell, I may get annoyed at the 50% of my country who is all christian and uptight, but if this was going down over here, that's the people who would cock their shot guns and threaten to make the governent 'squeal like a pig' ...

THERE ARE BETTER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT , PEOPLE-IN-POWER!

God dammit!

I KNOWWWWW..... Don't take away my boys kissing! It's like the Great LiveJournal StrikeThrough of 2007 but without the reinstating everything after. Noooo.....

Don't be making the internets slower!!

Apparently it's mainly like the underage-ness of like Harry Potter fics and the incest (Wincest, Waycest etc) that would draw the legislation to fandom, because that stuff is refused classification. Who knew, eh?

DON'T MAKE ME WRITE A LETTER YOU BASTARDS!

POTTER FANS! Grrrr...

I won't even lie, I had to look up refused classification because that concept is like... Unknown here. I am wicked shocked that even exists...

And while I dislike incest, COME ON, 2 CONSENTING ADULTS... Sure it's wicked gross but it's not the devil.

Yes! Potter fans! Those little weasleys. (See what I did there?)

And you know, while I've never posted any Waycest or whatnot, there are references to it scattered all over this LJ and plenty of links and attachments to comms/friend etc that do. So it's quite possible, in the letter of the law, that it would be illegal for me to access my own LJ from Australia. But not from here in the UK. Or anywhere else.

SO WEIRD.

Fucking stupid humans...

Everytime I think oh this shit the bit from 'knocked up' plays in my head, where a little girl and her aunt out driving and the little girl just out of the blue goes 'I googled murder' and the aunt spazzed but the little girl is chill because she still has no idea.

Nothing will stop a kid from finding stuff out, from google or school or aunts or mom and dad.

My nephew who is 4 has toldme things that would get him banned on Aussie interwebs... He doesn't know what they mean, but it happens.

I remember when my baby cousin was ttiny he got 'gay' and 'sex' mixed up from watching tv...

Kid: people were being gay on tv!
Aunt: like, where two girls hugging?
Kid: no! A boy and a lady were in bed kinda wrestling...
Aunt: .... That's not gay honey...

10-year-old me: *dying of laughter*

So what I am saying is kids are dumb and less innocent then we give them credit for.

They will always google murder

/rant

It's true. My friend's little girl is only just barely reading and she hopped on the internet and somehow managed to find her way to Hannah Montana on youtube (she's a bit obsessed). So if they want to find something, they will.

Imma LOL at your baby cousin. HAHAHA. SO cute.

They've already started doing that in the U.S. That's why there are no news groups on any ISPs any more. Because they were used by some people for child pornography, they decided they had to be banned for EVERYONE.

So, talking about airplanes? Gone. Books? Gone. Cooking? Gone. All newsgroups are gone unless they are actually hosted by a website.

'Such material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act'.

Does that mean that they will be banning books and movies that tell/show too much violence or terrorist acts? There is a law of unintended consequences here if they do pass that law.

And they keep talking about other 'controls' for the internet here, too. My gosh. I'm an adult. Let me choose for myself what I don't want to see.

But because some people can't control their kids, they are looking at doing it for us. There is something wrong when the government does that. :/
I do understand your anger. Good luck. I hope you Aussies can succeed in keeping your internet open.

You'd think we were all living in China or something...

But because some people can't control their kids, they are looking at doing it for us. There is something wrong when the government does that. :/

And the stupidity of it all is, they're not actually blocking enough that you could just sit little Jonny in front of the computer and let him run wild, because there will still be plenty of stuff accessible that is not appropriate for him! So you would still need to monitor or NetNanny anyway, so what's the point?

I agree, if you let the government start filtering, how do you control what they're filtering out? It gives me the heebs.

I really hope we can throw this thing off. It's not so much the content we'd lose as the actual act of filtering. We don't have a 1st Amendment in Australia so technically we don't have a right to free speech. Weird, right?

Thanks for sharing.

I am not impressed.

If LJ gets edgy before anything gets passed I guess there's AO3...

but still, wow.

I'm glad I'm in the UK, we're still pretty blase about stuff like that :/

What is this A03 of which you speak?

It's kind of mindblowing. I still can't believe it's gotten as far as it has. I am fairly lucky in that I can sorta check things from here in the UK before I venture back home, test the waters so-to-speak, but still. WTF? How?

http://archiveofourown.org/

If you would like an invite, I'm sure I can give you one. I'm kinda in the process of moving my stuff over there in drips and drabbles...so to speak.

Looks like a bloody good idea to me!

Wait, I want to clarify, are they intending to ban all sites with slash or just the slash that includes character minors? This sounds similar to a ruling in the UK, I just want to get the details right.

No, not all slash sites - the stuff that is borderline is depictions of underage sex (eg. Harry Potter) and incest (eg. Supernatural). But the article's writer draws parallels between the way that they will choose which sites to filter (based on complaints to ACMA) and how the great LJ Strikethrough of 2007 was complaints-based also and a whole whack of sites went down based on keywords and ham-fisted criteria. It's very possible the same thing will happeni in Australia, but we wont get the re-instatement after.

Please don't take anything I say as gospel, but my interpretation of the article is that it is a very real possibility that large chunks of fandom will get cut off from Australia through this legislation. Obviously, we wont know for sure until it's put in place.

Even the possibility angers me though. The whole idea of filtering the internet gets me shaking with violent rage.

Honestly, I'm a bit wary of the way these rumours tend to snowball into this towering rage without anything happening yet. Like the Strikethrough incident, the number of people who have their fics complained about seems to be very low.

I'm all for awareness and being politically active and involved in any legislative acts. AND I'm in general not a fan of filtering the Internet either, at least on such a grand scale. Parents are ok to set up safety filters for kids but I am also leery of governments setting up what essentially amounts to "good taste" filters.

I don't think these kinds of proposed laws are meant to be about slash fic at all, I think they are meant to cover when actual pedophiles verbally document their terrible acts and make it easier for the law to arrest them. I think incest and underage fics are just unfortunate in that they have a superficial similiarity, in that they meet those legal definitions. Intent is very important but also difficult to prove either way, again from a legal standpoint.

You are right in that the laws are not targeting slash, but the looseness of the terminology in the legislation means that some slash sites could end up getting banned through the 'superficial similarity' of which you speak. Half the problem is that the government isn't actually going to employ researchers to find/check the sites to ban, it's going to rely solely on complaints-based reporting which we've seen in the past can be used by conservative right-wing groups to advance their own agendas.

I'm in no way saying that this is a definitive outcome. But I am angry about it. I am angry that we've been put in a position where this may happen. Even if the filter doesn't end up affecting my slash, it's still a filter, it's still the government immposing it's values (however well intentioned) on the nation. And that is the first step down a very slippery slope.

I got directed here through a VERY circuitous route and wanted to throw my solidarity behind your righteous fury. I'm also going to link to your post - I hope you don't mind. You sum everything up very succinctly and I wouldn't want to replicate it.

I guess petitions with signatures from non-nationals won't really help much, but if there's anything that us folks over the water can do to help, gimme a heads-up and I'll do what I can to publicise.

Damn you, government! *shakes fist*

Oh goodness, your first impression of me is going to be my righteous fury! *tries to look meek*

I am a wee bit stunned you want to link to me, but I am so behind this message the more people who see it the better really.

As for the signatures - I think every little bit helps.

Thanks for joining your voice to the cries of fury!

I like your righteous fury. It suits you :)

Credit where it's due, you wrote something that made me want to act. I wanted to acknowledge that rather than just lift it and post it. Your post deserves the traffic. I don't have that many people who read my journal that I'm aware of, but I hope they come by and read what you have to say.

Fight the power \m/

p.s. a friend tells me that 4chan have already been protesting by way of Denial of Service attacks on the Australian government webservers. Their client is made of gold-plated fandom win. Look! (http://i26.tinypic.com/dre9t0.jpg) :D

That is easily the coolest thing I have seen all day. Gold plated fandom win indeed. FTW!

Such bullshit.
Freedom of speach, hello?
:/
xo

Oh don't even get me started about how we don't have a freedom of speech amendment in the Australian constitution. Because we don't. That's how they can do this. *sigh*

Thanks for being on board.

urgh so yesterday at college there was a whole lecture on how the pmrc back in the 80's tried to get certain music banned because 'the kids might be disturbed by the content', and we had this huge debate and i got seriously pissed off at the fact that it would have meant that adults wouldn't get a choice in what they could and couldn't listen to because parents didn't want to take it upon themselves to monitor what their kids were listening to and just passed it off onto the government as their problem. (in the end they lost and the government just stuck parental advisory stickers on everything.)

and then today i read this, and eventhough it won't affect me in any way (hopefully), it pissed me off all over again because it's like exactly the same thing! and yeah okay, there are a lot of dodgy things on the internet that kids shouldn’t see, but parents can block those sites from home. schools are supposed to block sites with content that is inappropriate for minors (when i was in school they had bans on myspace, facebook and youtube as well; i don't know how it is in australia but they are pretty strict about that in britain, there are blocks on like everything in schools) so i don't understand how kids could access such content if the parents were doing their job properly. i don't think an adult's choice over what they can and cannot view should be made for them just because some children might accidently find their way onto it.

also my argument is, if the kids wanna find it, they will. even if they have a filter on the internet they will always find a way around it. nevermind the fact that nowadays sex is literally everywhere.

as for taking away the slash, i think it's ridiculous. i mean you don't get images with it. it's not like porn in that sense. it's just words, and in my experience if a child doesn't understand a word they tend to skip it or ask an adult, not go online and google it or whatever; besides i'm pretty sure i knew what sex was when i was like 7 and i didn't need the internet to find that out.
anyway back to the whole slash thing, lets just say hypothetically, i was an australian and this filter was in place right now okay, and i decided to read a fic about two 17 years olds 'getting it on' and i got caught, from what i've read i gather that i would probably be prosecuted for possession of child pornography, when 2 weeks ago i was still 17 and would be deemed a minor. does that mean that 2 weeks ago it would have been okay for me to be reading that? or could i still have been prosecuted?

for me the whole thing has too many grey areas and would be a completely ridiculous thing to pass, and i swear if the british government ever tried to install anything like this on us i would be straight down to london hammering on gordon brown's front door and telling him where he could stick it.

/rant.

sorry about that, i just read that and like, my brain exploded. i think i'm too opinionated for my own good sometimes. :(

I can completely understand where you're coming from. Every time I think about this stupid internet filter I feel like my brain is going to explode.

It's a good comparison you draw with the Parental Advisory thing. I mean, the filter isn't designed to protect children (because if it was it would filter out all inappropriate content, which would include legal sites like porn etc. which they can't filter) so if it isn't for children then what is it for? To stop adults accessing kiddie porn materials? Well they're smart enough to find other ways to get what they're looking for.

So at the end of the day parents need to monitor their children anyway, because the filter is only going to stop them seeing illegal and Refused Classification items and not legally available inappropriate stuff.

And you're right, if kids wanna find stuff they'll find it. A gaping hole in the filter is that you'll still be able to get whatever you want via programs like bitorrent. Kids know how to use bitorrent, or whatever the next equivalent peer to peer sharing software will be. So they've already lost that fight.

lets just say hypothetically, i was an australian and this filter was in place right now okay, and i decided to read a fic about two 17 years olds 'getting it on' and i got caught
The age of consent in Australia is 16, so I would imagine that you'd have to younger than that, but yes - the article says Australian fans of ACG and slash who routinely access sites that may contain or link to representations of under-age characters in sexual or violent scenarios run the risk of arrest, prosecution and entry into the sex-offenders' list.

That is really, really frightening.

So when does the book burning start? If the Australian government needs any other ideas how to squash civil rights, I'm sure they can draw inspiration from all over the place...but they might need the internet for the research.

I'm not feeling so shabby about being a Yank today.

Want to hear something really frightening?

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. (Referencing here (http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm))

Told you it was scary.

WHEN DID AUSTRALIA BECOME VENEZUELA/CUBA?????

I have kids (7 and 5) and I want to keep them innocent for as long as I can. I know that in order to do so, I have to monitor everything they watch/read/listen. It's a 24/7 job, but it was MY decision to have kids, so it's MY responsibility to raise them.

This reminds me of the whole Adam Lambert's AMA's ~scandal. People were clutching their pearls because it was national TV and kids were watching. I couldn't believe it, I was like "well if your kids are awake at 11 pm then you're not doing a good job as a parent to begin with, asshole".

I honestly hope this law doesn't get passed, it won't solve anything. I hope they're able to realize that.

I was like "well if your kids are awake at 11 pm then you're not doing a good job as a parent to begin with, asshole".

That's what Adam said, too. I kind of wanted to kiss him for saying it. And thank YOU for saying what you did; I have too many friends who believe the opposite, which throws me into rage. Because, really?

I have kids (7 and 5) and I want to keep them innocent for as long as I can. I know that in order to do so, I have to monitor everything they watch/read/listen. It's a 24/7 job, but it was MY decision to have kids, so it's MY responsibility to raise them.

See? Exactly! Good parenting! I mean you don't have to stand over their shoulder but there are so many software programs already available that give you complete control over what your children can see, which are designed to protect children (where the filter can only filter out illegal/RC content). And it's not hard to check web history to make sure it's working. The internet does not a babysitter make.

I'm with you doll, I really hope it doesn't go ahead, but I've been hoping for so long and they just keep taking more steps and making more announcements like it's inevitable.

MONTIOR YOUR DAMN CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET AND DON'T MAKE IT GOVERNMENT'S PROBLEM

Are they trying to be American? Because I always felt that the censorship of the American television (consider Janet Jackson's Nipple Gate) is solely due to the inability of American parents (in general or maybe the select few who should've had reproduced in the first place) to actually, you know, parent their children.

I remember, relatedly, a few years ago when we got a question on our ballot whether to allow supermarkets to have wine/beer licenses (you know, like in every other developed nation where you can buy wine to go with dinner at the supermarket instead of a liquor store) and someone I knew was opposed because underage teenagers work at supermarkets and the license would give them easier access to the alcohol. Which... what? Firstly, this is happening all over the world and in other states; clearly, it doesn't affect teenagers that much. Secondly, they are teenagers - if they want booze, they WILL access it. Thirdly, why should stores police teenagers' access to alcohol, instead of, oh, their parents?

This 'clean feed' pisses me off beyond belief. Personally, I find heterosexual displays of affection to be gross, disgusting, and nothing I should be seeing - but who'll be protecting my interests? I can see THAT on the internet but not slash? But I can see gay porn, apparently. That's a relief.

The liquor store thing is a perfect example. It's the lack of accountability that drives me up the wall. I hate the idea of everyone pointing at the government and saying "you gotta protect me". Protect your damn self. This filter is not going to stop folks who want to access child-porn materials from accessing child-porn materials. They will find other ways (like torrents which the filter cant filter, so it's already useless), they have in all likelihood started creating new ways of distributing materials as soon as they got a whiff of the filter.

And it wont protect children from all inappropriate content because so much of it is legal.

So who is the filter supposed to protect? What is the point of this ridulous enterprise?

Gah. /rant

Thanks for weighing in, my love.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only