Australia: social networks and ACMA acts satire

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…

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.

RestrictedEvery 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 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: , , , , , , , .

Similar Posts


  1. I really am yet to be convinced of the problem of the new policy/law. they seem no different to the laws we have in place now (for TV/Radio/Paper/Magazines) just being applied to a new medium. I think linking them to taking down people that disagree with the government is just fear mongering and haven’t people been complaining about the Government Fear Mongering when it comes to Terrorism?

    As I yell most Saturdays during winter at AFL Umpires: “Be Consistent!”

    My main worry is that it will effect the speed of the internet. Not worries about them taking down kiddy sites or asking me to prove that I am 18 if (I said if) I want to go to a porn site!


  2. my issue is transparency mainly – a 1000 or so sites is fine, but lets ban Iran? And yes it used to happen ( I remember sites in Libya being blocked at the DNS level in the ’90s for no *good* reason)

    I complain about fear mongering re: terrorism.

    Do you really want Big Brother site banned because of a bit of out-of-focus turkey slapping – I mean, it’s hardly kiddie porn, now is it? Ban it for poor taste yes *laughs* and yep the BB incident is the “Background” to the Content Act.

  3. It is a basic position of liberal democracy that law (or regulation) ought not be imposed which addresses the same issues as existing statute. These regulations do, however, extend censorship in Australia.

    There is, firstly, no clarity or transparency on what will be considered “other inappropriate material” on the one hand nor how the imprecise definition of “commercial MA15+” material identity requirements will be imposed or policed, especially with regard to borderline commercial sites and sites of public interest which may deal with material and issues which could, if classified, carry a MA rating. Not to mention the onus of gaining classification for all published material. Can you imagine a commercial news web site having to gain classification on every story published?

    Oh, and R18+ is a classification which does not just cover porn.

    If classification is self-selected we still have the issue of opt-in or opt-out. As Laurel states it is completely inconsistent to have an opt-out regimen for potential sources of terrorist knowledge and an opt-in for R18+ (and commercial MA15+) classified material.

    In the end the filters will be ineffective. ISP filtering will always be ineffective because encrypted anonymizers can be used as offshore proxies. The regulation is, therefore, mere political window dressing and causes inconvenience without providing any ‘protection’.

    Parents who do not know what their children are doing online should look much closer to home for a solution.

    And one last thing (there is always one last thing). People have been ‘complaining about the Government Fear Mongering (sic) when it comes to Terrorism(sic)’. Many civil liberties, human rights and press freedom organisations make significant representations on exactly these issues.

Comments are closed.