Hi guys, just a quick note about the internet censorship issue. I know it's
a bit off-topic, but I thought some of you might find this useful. I'm sure
you're all as busy as me, so you might find it handy to copy parts or all of
the email that I wrote to my local federal mp. I'm under no delusions about
its quality, but I thought it might save some people some time. I'm from
the Dobell electorate (so if you plan to send one to Michael Lee, don't use
mine).
Anyway, if you find it useful, good luck. If not, that's even better, 'cos
it means that it'll be better than mine, and that can only be a good thing.
Sorry to keep you all. Here 'tis...
My name is Glenn Murray. I am part of your consituency (I live at Shelly
Beach). I know you're a busy man, so I'll make this short. I am very
concerned with the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992
in regards to Internet content censorship.
I have a number of concerns, but I am most concerned with the threat that
this bill poses to free access to desirable material by responsible adults.
By their own admission, the amendments seek to "restrict access to certain
Internet content that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult". I
would also like to know who is making the decision that R and X rated
materials are offensive to the "reasonable adults" in our society, and on
what basis they have made their decision. The explanatory notes
accompanying the amendments declare, that "The proposed regulatory framework
contained in the Bill strikes a balance between the needs and interests of
the industry and wider community concerns in relation to material that is
illegal or highly offensive, or may be harmful to children." What evidence
do they cite to suppor their argument regarding "wider community concerns"?
>From all accounts, the majority of evidence points to the fact that most of
the community is not concerned by such "offensive" material. To the
contrary, they are concerned with the dictatorial way in which this decision
is being made. (I refer to the studies cited in the Democrats report.) Why
are these senators imposing their will on the community... the community
they are supposed to service and answer to? Hopefully the members of the
House of Reps will be more responsible and remember their duties to their
constituents!
I would also like to know what constitutes a "reasonable adult". "Adult" is
defined, but "reasonable adult" is not.
I have left a message at your Canberra office, and would very much
appreciate a call before the bill goes before the House of Reps, so that we
may discuss these issues.
Glenn Murray
Technical Writer
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
