Draconian Australian law could target slash fans (among many, many others)
Nele — Tue, 01/19/2010 - 10:10
A new Australian law could impose penalties on anyone who views slash fic or other (fan) media that feature fictional minors in a sexual situation. This isn't throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it's also throwing out the bath, the parents, the dog, and a couple of people who were just walking past the house.
James Welker pointed me to the original notice linked above. Dru Pagliassotti worries about the law's impact on scholarship in Australia. An Austrialian government consultation paper has details on the proposed internet 'filter'. The protest website No Clean Feed explains how to take action, and indicates that the law will not only target anything that is deemed child pornography:
<br style="font-style: italic;" />The category of material that has been 'refused classification' includes websites about euthanasia, controversial movies such as 'Ken Park' and 'Baise-moi', and many games that are designed for people over16 years of age.
If you don't live in Australia, you can sign a petition or donate to No Clean Feed.
As an aussie
Anonymous — Tue, 01/19/2010 - 23:24Hi, I was linked to this page by a friend.<br /><br />Thanks for the concern, everyone. A filter on the Australian internet would be bad, but as an Australian, with real news scorces (which, in my humble opinion, Crikey is NOT), this website is exaggerating the situation.<br /><br />As most protest sites do.<br /><br />1. Even if the Labor Goverment commits political suicide by pushinig this filter through, tests and trial runs have already proved it nearly useless.<br /><br />2. Australia is still aware of the differences between fiction and reality as well as the difference between text and images. Slash fiction is still in more danger from copyright then anti-child porn laws.
(Just copy-pasting my LJ
Nele — Wed, 01/20/2010 - 12:49(Just copy-pasting my LJ reply for posterity)
Hi! I'm not an Australian, obviously -thank you for stopping by and putting things into perspective a bit.<br /><br />The reason this kind of news gets me so riled up right away is that it seems as if anywhere in the world, dodgy legislation related to internet censorship and also copyright can often pass with very little resistance, because there's an appalling lack of awareness about these issues among the people being legislated. These are topics that most people virtually never read or hear about in the papers or on TV. I spend a lot of time reading and talking about censorship and copyright on the net, but as soon as I mention it to friends or family, everyone goes "Bzuh?". Part of the reason copyright law could go completely insane in the late 20th century is that most people just had no idea what copyright was really about. (Note: I'm speaking about the situation in Belgium, where I live. Not sure how different or similar Australia is on this.)<br /><br />Anyway, I'm afraid that particularly when it's a topic about which there's very little public awareness, you could get pretty much anything past people if the cause is lofty and the opposition can't or doesn't make a solid case. That's why this kind of legal nonsense scares me. Fighting child porn is certainly pretty lofty -who'd ever be against that?