ED added to Australian blacklist, google AU censors

[rtil]

encyclopedia dramatica's article on aboriginals has been added to Australian Communications & Media Authority's (ACMA's) blacklist, and google australia is censoring ED's article in their search results as well (while simultaneously threatening to pull out of china in defiance of their censorship laws).

the australian government is also threatening legal action against the owner of ED, and he can never set foot on australian soil for the time being or will be most likely put under arrest. according to him, he has family there.

http://www.blog.encyclopediadramatica.com/?p=84

despite what you may think of ED, i think that its existence and this event is important. like wikileaks, they are not afraid to excercise freedom of speech and refuse to cave in to unecessary censorship and threats. ACMA's actions have demonstrated some of the frightening things going on in this world, most obviously the extent that this australian internet filter is a stranglehold on personal freedoms under the guise of "protecting children." according to wikipedia:

Approximately half of the sites on the list were not related to child pornography, and included online gambling sites, YouTube pages, gay, straight, and fetish pornography sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions, Christian sites, and even the websites of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist.

the same thing that is going on in communist china is happening in the "democracy" of australia. and for those of who don't know, this internet filter - if implemented - will be mandatory for all australians.

imagine if the FCC tried to regulate american internet and decide what you could and couldn't see.

[DrRumack]

thats fucking horrible

if i were australian i would be in the streets picketing right now

[cr0m]

in other news ssaf's http://drewpickles.com has been banned since 2008

[Mew_User]

[Gerkinman]

Old news is old, they will probably end up banning I have frequent fantasies of a Dugtrio thrusting all of it's phallic bodies into my deepest cavities, sending me into a state of infinite, indescribable pleasure. If I could not have a Dugtrio, a Diglett would suffice as well. and Youtube as a whole and everything else like that, the shits so easy to get around even the dumb kids they are trying to protect can get around it with ease, i just dont see the point.

[cr0m]

I have frequent fantasies of a Dugtrio thrusting all of it's phallic bodies into my deepest cavities, sending me into a state of infinite, indescribable pleasure. If I could not have a Dugtrio, a Diglett would suffice as well.

wow u are one sick fucker u know that ill never see u the same

[MarcK]

Old news is old

I didn't know you were a gay, wow what a pleasantry.

[Kött]

So they have only blacklisted this one article due racism? Or what exactly was their reason? There's so much racism on the internet... this is just ridiculous nit-picking.
I knew a thousand better reasons to censor or put legal action against ED (and these reasons in fact are what make me like the site so much), and this is more than just a pathetic excuse of censorship. This totally subverts the freedom of speech and using the site owner as the scapegoat (as someone who isn't even directly responsible for the content, especially not for the content of a parody wiki for extreme internet cultures), threatening him with legal actions and forbidding him to even visit their cuntry just shows how conservative and dumb these people are...
I despeartely wait for the day when my generation will make the politics

[rtil]

Old news is old

march 15th?

[cr0m]

Old news is old

march 15th?

dude thats like 5 days ago welcome to the internet shits lightning fast if u didnt know ur not with it grandpa

[retrosmash]

wow

i dont even like or frequent ED one bit but that's fucking ridiculous

WITH A CAPITAL R

[trent bortknob]

i hate ED and in all honesty i wish it were banned in more places but at the same time i realize that the control of what we can see is [retty bad

we shouldnt have what is possible to be viewed controlled, we shou;d just ban actions that we wouldnt want people to see

for example: seeing a child nude should not be pleasurable but SHOULD be ok by itself. for example i saw a film called baraka and they have scenes of african tribes where the children are nude etc

the thing that should be controlled is when kids are hurt and abused. if that didnt happen then there would be no child pornography. now of course obviously that\\\'s impossible but still

the point is that the problem stems from the actions and not what is possible to be seen. child porn is illegal and it SHOULD be, but we should be spending more time finding the people who create it than trying to protect people from it

[emanhattan]

While I do agree that banning sites in some places goes agaisnt freedom of speech, I can see why are they trying to ban the site in question.

most ED articles are just inflamatory and/or offensive and personally I wouldnt care if they dont let me read it

[rtil]

While I do agree that banning sites in some places goes agaisnt freedom of speech, I can see why are they trying to ban the site in question.

most ED articles are just inflamatory and/or offensive and personally I wouldnt care if they dont let me read it

so you\\\'re in favor of government-sponsored censorship, aka a couple of old men get to decide what you can and can\\\'t see?

what if it affected the sites you browse? how would you feel then?

i hate ED and in all honesty i wish it were banned in more places but at the same time i realize that the control of what we can see is [retty bad

we shouldnt have what is possible to be viewed controlled, we shou;d just ban actions that we wouldnt want people to see

for example: seeing a child nude should not be pleasurable but SHOULD be ok by itself. for example i saw a film called baraka and they have scenes of african tribes where the children are nude etc

the thing that should be controlled is when kids are hurt and abused. if that didnt happen then there would be no child pornography. now of course obviously that\\\'s impossible but still

the point is that the problem stems from the actions and not what is possible to be seen. child porn is illegal and it SHOULD be, but we should be spending more time finding the people who create it than trying to protect people from it

it is possible - it\\\'s called responsible parenting. parents need to be responsible for their kids internet usage and what they see online. the government cannot take the place of the parent, and when they do, this is what happens

[Flash]

hey remember when some conservative faggots tried to ban sexual rock and roll music from existence

[emanhattan]

No, i dont agree, but I can see why they did it with ED or at least that article in particular. I think making publications that are racist and potentially offensive towards an ethnic group and using the "freedom of speech" argument to defend them is out of place. Wether it is serious or just a joke.

Still i guess that doesnt mean they have the right to ban it. I mean technically the correct thing should be for anyone to be able to browse these websites if they want.

The only sites that I dont approve are child porn/rape/openly malicious sites.

[RobHalford]

hey remember when some conservative faggots tried to ban sexual rock and roll music from existence

Well then burzum and co came around and started burning churches and killing each other. Now Nergal of Behemoth is facing jail time for burning bibles.

[Mew_User]

I love ED.

[redmongoose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

[anigen]

ed gives me viruses despite me having my firewalls up and my internet protection avast running help