Conroy supports Clinton's anti-censorship speech

hypocrite – noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

So if Conroy supports clintons anti censorship, then why the hell is conroy planning to censor our internet?.

Hey Ralph (!), Tom Broad, Tony and Asmodai, here's a definition for your thoughts on this topic:

Intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

Now the moment Mr Conroy censors political sites and dissent, then he would be a hypocrite, although that term does not readily lend itself to policy decisions which are time and framer specific. As you well know (and fail to acknowledge), Google is being blocked for political reasons. All countries have some form of censorship, but not all use well established norms of society to extirpate political opposition as China has done.

I could turn your argument against you: why don't you advocate the free trade and collection of child pornography, bestiality, snuff movies, torture and rape and the like? If you don't, why aren't you then the hypocrites?

Race hate speech? Why not? You all for that?

As far as I know, there is no censorship of your puerile opinions. You are well down the slippery slope my friends.

There may be some sound reasons against internet filtering, but the juvenile, faux, dishonest, self serving arguments dished up by spoilt geek brats like you guys really takes the cake.

Skipper, where does one start tearing apart such an idiotic rant?

First, I'll start with the most asinine part of your post calling others hypocrites for not supporting child pornography etc. There is a huge difference between supporting the freedom to express an opinion and supporting that opinion. I am sure the people you are attacking vehemently disagree with your opinion, but would not support a filter that would remove it. That is not hypocracy - it is called consistency. Those opposed to internet censorship are fully aware that the flipside is that objectionable material will be accessible. It is a question of the lesser of two evils.

Second, it is well documented that the objectionable material you describe is not transmitted via mechanisms that the filter will impact. The filter will filter the web. This impacts web sites that someone must either host or pay someone else to host and will be available to be viewed by the public. They can be traced by the authorities today. Unless the pedophiles want to get caught, they will use other means. Where someone is dopey enough to post it on a web site, it is removed today. The mechanism works between authorities internationally.

Ralph's second definition of hypocrite is pertinent. Clinton made a speech decrying internet censorship. Conroy claimed support while simultaneously planning to introduce just such as system. Regardless of his intentions, honourable or otherwise, Conroy is displaying textbook hypocracy.

Skippy = Senator Conroy?

You're a hypocrite Conroy.

' you should also seek consistency, at least in spelling. Hypocricy is not spelt hypocracy.'

Hey, skip, try 'hypocrisy'.

I'd pick the rest of your posts to pieces, but I seriously can't be bothered.

You'll NEVER get the point, anyway.

And yes, Conjob IS a hypocrite.

Brownie points to Max T...

LOL

hey skipper, practice what you preach

Skipper, I'll ignore your cheap personal jabs and go straight to the gaping hole in your message.

"well sorry, there are lots of them being caught already. What other means? Carrier pigeons, perchance?"

Yes, some are getting caught. They are being caught with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of photos on their PC. This is not easy to achieve one at a time off a web site. They don't need carrier pigeons either. If you had bothered to do some basic research before demonstrating your ignorance, you would know that peer to peer networks are a prime mode of transport for this sort of volume. This traffic is not touched by Conroy's filter. Even Stephen Conroy himself has acknowledged this. So, the whole argument about stopping pedophiles has fallen in a heap.

Does the use of peer to peer networks mean that pedophiles wont get caught? As you have shown, no they wont. If you had followed the AFACT vs iiNet case, you'd have seen a second instance of this.

Will the existence of the internet filter reduce access to the material? No. Unless the authorities have the material removed as they do today, it will be no more or less available with the filter. If somehow, the filter does impact access to it either by including peer to peer (and I'm not going to go into all of the reasons this is a bad idea) or because some idiot has put it on an ordinary web site, then there is another tool that is available that will bypass the filter. If you Google "Anonymous proxy", the first ten items will give you one Wikipedia definition of it and nine items representing companies offering the service. This will not only bypass the filter, but hide the identities of those accessing the material. The nett result will be a reduction in arrests of pedophiles that no doubt will be hailed as proof of the success of the filter by those who know no better, but will really represent the increased difficulty in catching them in the first place because of the filter. This plus the diversion of resources that would be better spent on law enforcement is why many claim that the filter will assist the pedophiles, not hinder them.

Even Conroy knows about anonymous proxies now. You should be aware that Conroy's line today is that the filter will just stop ordinary people like you and me "accidentally" going to these web sites. If you want to parrot him, you need to keep up with his latest spiel.

Censorship has been around for a long time. I never said it wasn't. It is just that no censorship mechanism has ever been suggested that is so ineffective, so prone to error, and so prone to abuse before. We have already seen the abuse element with the leaked list showing sites containing material on abortion and euthanasia. Dentistry was also included, although this may be more an example of it being prone to error :-)