Satire yumminess in response to Australia’s Crime and Terrorism Act and the newest one Content Act. (my post) :

A Special Message from the Department of Internets

CANBERRA, Australia (doi) — Today, the Federal Government is introducing legislation to help protect your family from The Internets.

Every day, over two hundred thousand Australian children are exposed to harmful Internet beams. At school, at the library, even in your own home, Internets transmit OFLC-unclassified thoughts and ideas directly into your children’s brains.

In order to stem the foul tide of e-terror, the Department of Internets has published a catalog of approved e-web locations. Effective immediately, all Internet tubes will be fitted with a special filter that will prevent non-approved material from clogging up your Interpipes.

Do you love your children? Senator Stephen Conroy does; and he’s thinking about them.

A lot.

The Department of Internets

from @leslienassar (Twitter) ? BTW is that “site” above banned because it would have the keywords ‘pussy, bad behaviour, snuggle, fancy’ etc?

Anyone seen any other satire sites?

From wikipedia:

For The Children (politics)

The phrase “for the children“, or similar phrases such as “think of the children,” is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

Logical fallacy

“For the children” suffers from the logical fallacies of appeal to emotion and irrelevant conclusion. This argument can simply appeal to the listener’s emotion by connecting an argument to innocent children that many people feel an instinctual need to protect. Using such an argument may not even be related to the topic. For example, a politician could claim that a policy to ban oil drilling would protect the children, even if the oil drilling was in the ocean. In this example, the politician is appealing to others’ emotional desire to protect children. However, any impact it would have on children would be indirect, so “protecting the children” with this policy is rather irrelevant. It also can contain an abdication of responsibility of “think of the children, so I don’t have to”.

[edit] Examples

• Actual wording of 2006 ballot initiative, Cook County, Illinois: “For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?” [1]
• Rod Serling: “For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn.”^{[citation needed]}
• “Won’t someone think of the children?”, a critical essay from USA Today.[2]
• The phrase “Won’t somebody please think of the children?” is a running gag on The Simpsons, most often spoken by the character Helen Lovejoy, the minister‘s wife.
• “…We are fighting for freedom for our children every bit as much as in any war we’ve ever been in.” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) [3]
• The anti-Bush satire site WhiteHouse.org includes a poster graphic, made in the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, featuring the slogan “Mark Foley 2006: Think Of The Children.”

I am passionate about protecting children online, but not that keen on tokenism or a lack of understanding about the real issues.

Edit: From @leslienassar on Twitter re: Department of Internets:

leslienassar @SilkCharm: they’ll never find the author; he’s not just devilishly handsome, he’s smart as a whip and stealthy, ninja-like even.

So I guess I was wrong – Leslie Nassar is not the author. Heh.

Technorati Tags: Communications Legislation Amendment, Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content, acma, federal police, Department of Internets, filter, ISP, censorship. Australia