Australia Wants to Regulate Internet Streaming 257
Paul writes "After an incident that occurred on a popular television show's internet stream, the Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I vote for The Greens.
what you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll regulate that too, damnit!
(in jest, however - sadly, it appears that's probably what they'll propose if previous internet related legislation is anything to go by).
Re:Cry baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? She had a penis shoved in her face, complained about it, only wanted an apology, didn't press charges, and then other people want streaming video to be regulated. How does this make her a "crazy bitch" who "didn't get her way" and is "sucking her thumb and stamping her feet"? I'd say she's dealt with those idiots in a appropriate way. Pity you seem to have stooped to their level.
Broadcast license (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't have a broadcast license you should be able to do whatever you want with your webcam. Television has a lot of power. Setting up a webcam in my kitchen isn't going to draw hundreds of thousands of viewers, but when a TV station comes along and does it, with all the promotion and hoo-ha that goes with it, then people will watch it. Their web broadcast should be covered by the same standards as their TV broadcasts.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a TV show and there is a lot of bullshit and manipulation through the way it is broadcast. However, these people do live their lives in there and form relationships that are probably stronger than one can imagine watching 10 minute blurbs of footage each day.
The politicians are just proving that it is not the TV show, but rather themselves who deserve the title Big Brother!
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a big difference between internet and TV.
At least in the US, the reasoning goes that the government is entitled to regulate the content of TV broadcasts because the airwaves belong to the public. The amount of spectrum available for broadcasting is limited, and since the people are allowing private entities to use that limited resource, they (through their representatives) have the right to decide how it may be used. Cable TV doesn't use public resources, so it can't be censored except under the same laws that could be used to censor books or magazines (obscenity, copyright, national security, etc.).
The internet works differently. As we all know, it's a series of TUBES, and those tubes belong to private entities. Furthermore, unlike broadcasts, which are pushed invisibly from a transmitter through the air in your home (and which are passing through your body right this second!), internet streams are delivered only to those who request them. Whether or not you have to pay for the stream is irrelevant; either way, it isn't forcing itself upon anyone. It's like comparing a mass mailing to a box of pamphlets which you can take if you're interested: it'd be silly to complain about the content of the pamphlet when you made the decision to seek it out.
Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight, because there's no evidence whatsoever that children need to be "protected" from content like this. It's an argument based on gut feelings rather than fact.
Re:For those who are confused, its a turkey slap (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the issue? The girl knew what she was getting into when she climbed into the bed. She did not seem particularly surprised or offended by the events. I do not know what type of parties the majority of slashdotters attend but this seems like harmless banter. Now, if she objected or expressed discomfort with what was happening, the situation might be different, but these are consenting adults.
As to government restrictions on internet broadcasts, let them try. There will always be a way for the truly dedicated to find the information they are looking for.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets ban stuff because christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is and believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them! Next some other group will want something else taken off because they also believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them!
Yes, its smut, but if you don't like it, don't watch it and let the networks decide when the lack of ad revenue doesn't justify another reality tv iteration.
SBS should really rush the two South Park Cartoon Wars episodes on air...
What really should have happened (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cry baby (Score:3, Insightful)
From the transcript, she was quite aware that it was very likely she was going to be "turkey slapped" and made no fuss for them to stop - she shut her eyes and went along with it (laughing at the time).
Certainly a far cry from what certain people are portraying - that she was physically restrained and assaulted against her will.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an assisine comment. There's a world of difference between a sensible, substainable economy, and one that consumes all resources as fast as possible for the biggest short-term profits. The Greens argue for a sustainable economy. There's no sane person left on the planet who claims that our current resource usage is sustainable. It's just that mainstream political parties have no interest in doing anything about it.
It was hardly a meltdown. He let of some steam, that's for sure. If I were him, I would have felt the same way. Labor castritates his policies and threw the election to the Liberals so they could continue to play to the conservative factions ( inside and out ) Latham would have actually been a leader, whereas Howard is simply following the US ruling class all the way to hell. But on the topic of meltdowns, I seem to remember a certain prominent Liberal politician attempting suicide ( and failing ). Now that was a meltdown. Latham was just venting.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the defense that capitalists always turn to, yes. But the simply fact is that businesses will only ever pay workers as little as they can possibly get away with. When the economy is going strongly, they take all the profits - wages do not rise - and they certainly won't rise now with Work Choices ( Business Choices ). But when the economy is going badly, businesses us this as an excuse to decimate wages and sack workers, while they still take profits
The most telling of statistics is the distibution of wealth. 1% of the population own 99% of the wealth. It's about time some serious redistribution happened, along with some serious discussion about how things got so out of whack to start with. Your bleeding heart story about how the royal economy is working in my best interest doesn't help the average worker who has been taking home less in real wages each year since Howard was voted in, while paying more in rent, interest, food costs, GST, petrol, etc, etc. The economy is working in someone's interests, that's for sure. But not mine, and not most people's.
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention all the rape victims that get tricked into believing they really did deserve it, after all they were leading him on and wearing such a short skirt..
Then theres also plenty of statutory laws, which while you or I may disagree with them, they're still illegal.
Slashdot & Moral ambiguity (Score:1, Insightful)
You guys get up in arms about the perceived injustice within the U.S, terrorism and Microsoft. Yet in the last week we've had slashdotters say child porn is ok (check out the amount of comments on the last article that were modded insightful that said child porn was ok) and now you guys are defending holding a chick down and having a dick wacked in her face which at the time was against her consent.
If the dick was U.S. property and she was an Iraqi you guys would be up in arms.
Does anyone else see the idiocy here or is it just me?
Why let logic hold you back? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wherever you've got that idea from, it's WRONG! The whole idea of having a system of laws to govern your country, is that it should be possible to know in advance about what is legal or not. Ideally these laws should also to some degree be the same that the majority of people think is "right".
If a crime has been committed anytime some "victim" claims to have become a "victim of a crime", it would be pretty hard for pretty much anyone not to commit crimes. Instead we have specific laws against things such as: removing a persons freedom, battering, violence, assault, rape, etc...
Now, in this case, since the incident was broadcasted across the Internet, and the police say they lack evidence, it pretty much means that what they saw on the video was not sufficient evidence of a crime, for them to consider it worth pursuing. While I haven't seen the video, the narration of the girl seems pretty believable. At least to anyone who's ever been drunk at a teenage party. The boys acted in bad taste and bad manners, but not illegally. That is, unless the boys had continued the treatment after the girl had made it pretty clear that it was no longer funny.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, the commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK are not that democratic on paper compared with the US. I mean England still has a queen and a monarchy. However, it seems that their participants although by no means angels play a pretty fair game. For example, here in canada the queen of England still has authority on us on paper but she acts in good faith and pretty much never meddles in our affairs. We also have a senate with members apointed for life.
Whereas in the US, you have a very strong democratic constitution with all kinds of checks and balance to make it the most democratic, fair, decentralised, representative of "We the people" etc. , yet you get suspicious electronic voting, swiftboating, signing statements, medias with questionable influences and tight integration of corporative interests in the political process so that in practice, because of the lower level of integrity in american politics, it seems the most crooked and manipulative crooks who are willing to play in the gray areas of constitutionality end up being the leaders.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
They know precisely what an 'off' button is...and they want to make damn sure yours gets pushed when they want it pushed.
rj