Spork Boards

Loonie Legislators and that Wacky Webernet Thingo

John Willoughby's Avatar Picture John Willoughby – December 31, 2007 10:13PM Reply Quote
The topic that just keeps on giving.

tliet – December 08, 2008 09:51PM Reply Quote
It's actually too bad, I wished the government had forced the ISPs into submission and broken the internets down under. That will teach them and the general public about the absolute stupidity that's running governments these days.

I really don't know what's happening with legislators these days, in my own country they've managed to prohibit 180 different species of mushrooms, many of which will just grow in nature. All, because some Frenchman slaughtered his dog a few years back and the current minister of health saw it as a good way to prevent such acts. Too bad that the Frenchman was just a psychotic and didn't take mushrooms. The first drugs pushers are already heard on the streets; "psst; magic mushrooms." Whereas they could easily be bought over the counter along with documentation and guidelines how to consume them.

And then there's this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/08/2441023.htm?section=justin

Words fail me.

ARL (Moderator) – December 09, 2008 12:54AM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
You beat me to it, tliet.

The recent Bill Henson case has unleased a shriek of hysteria about "saving the children".

The simpsons case shows how ridiculous its gotten.

I'll see if I can dig it up but there was another story about a guy who uploaded a video of a small child being swung around to a site similar to Youtube. He uploaded it because he thought it was humerous. The video is still on YouTube I believe. I haven't seen it but apparently at the end the baby giggles and seems apparently unharmed. The baby is fully clothed throughout.

The authorities raided his house and have charged him with possessing child "pornography". No other "offending material" has been found but the police are busy destroying this guys life.

Like any parent I've got lots of photos of my new-born daughter, in some of which she is (shock, gasp!) butt naked due to the fact she's only two minutes old. There's no way I'm putting any photos online in case some twerp decides I'm a pedophile.

ARL (Moderator) – December 09, 2008 12:56AM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!

Simon – December 10, 2008 04:07PM Reply Quote
I know how you feel tony. I have numerous emails from my sisters with photos of my nephews. In some of them they are naked. It concerns me that I could end up being accused of owning child pornography.

ARL (Moderator) – December 10, 2008 08:30PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Yeah, I know it sounds like I'm being a little dramatic, but the whole "gray area" nature of the situation at the moment really worries me.

Dr Phred (Moderator) – December 11, 2008 08:23AM Reply Quote
owned by the mothership.
That's the most effective way they've found to take away our freedoms. Protect the children. And fight the terrorists. Nobody wants to fall on the wrong side of those. So they don't speak up when they cut another freedom in either name.
Neil Gaimen wrote this recently about another austrailian case where they gave the Simpsons human rights...
Quote
If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible.


More here

ARL (Moderator) – December 15, 2008 04:27PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Interesting Read.

ARL (Moderator) – December 15, 2008 05:01PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!

El Jeffe – December 15, 2008 05:15PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Why not?
Cheaper govt. Heck do it via twitted.

tliet – December 15, 2008 07:09PM Reply Quote
Indeed, why not? If it makes it easier to track people down... It's their own choice to post half their private life for anyone to see.

John Willoughby – December 15, 2008 08:53PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
So if I have a social networking site, regardless of how often I check it, or whether I use it at all, I am responsible for any legal documents poster there? Nice.

I say this as somebody who has recently had both Facebook and Myspace pages started with my e-mail address by idiots.

This spork account was also created with my e-mail address by an idiot, but THAT idiot was me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2008 08:54PM by John Willoughby.

tliet – December 16, 2008 02:11AM Reply Quote
True, must have been asleep when I wrote that. There's no way to verify someone's identity, although some people are just asking for trouble with them posting all sorts of highly personal information for anyone to see.

El Jeffe – December 16, 2008 03:01AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
That is my point as well.

ARL (Moderator) – December 16, 2008 02:01PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
I don't check my Facebook profile in months quite often.

It wouldn't be nice to find out I'd been served a writ for something trivial/silly/concocted and already been charged for contempt for not turning up to court.


El Jeffe – December 17, 2008 11:19AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
and the sugar-cola's 18% but none for diet....

ARL (Moderator) – December 17, 2008 07:36PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/babyswinging-video-uploader-fronts-court/2008/12/18/1229189776629.html

I hope this guy wins. Otherwise I'm never going to forward/upload or link anything again in case it can be construed as well, just about anything.

Simon – December 18, 2008 09:03PM Reply Quote
On facebook you are able to change your privacy settings so that only people who you approve as friends can see of post anything on your profile. Currently all those settings are off by default, which I think is an oversight by FB.

ddt – December 19, 2008 05:18AM Reply Quote
you can also search for and block individuals, so your profile and any references to you (including being tagged in a photo) will not appear to them. good for exes.

ddt

ARL (Moderator) – December 19, 2008 03:03PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
I really hate Facebook.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login