.... “Operation Titstorm”, part of an assault targeting a range of government servers.... launched by hackers aligned with an internet protest group known as Anonymous.... Although the Australian government knew about the planned assault last Friday, it was powerless to prevent it. Along with the cyber-offensive there were threatening phone calls, made anonymously to high-ranking civil servants. Senior staff in the Parliamentary Services department also had their emails spammed “in spectacular ways”....
The federal government plans to introduce a mandatory filtering system by early 2011 that would block a list of banned websites... The system would make Australia one of the world’s most rigorous internet regulators.... some pornographic films are being rejected by censors because they feature women with small breasts who could be confused with under-age girls. Anonymous said in an email: “No government should have the right to refuse its citizens access to information solely because they perceive it to be ‘unwanted’. The Australian government will learn that one does not mess with our porn.”
Polls have found that the Australian public strongly supports the planned restrictions.
The flyer through which Anonymous published the event states "emails/faxes should focus on small-breasted porn, cartoon porn, and female ejaculation, the 3 types banned so far" - even if you buy the implied assumption that 'small breasted porn's women's only attraction lies in their resemblence to children,' this does not explain why female ejaculation is on the list.... never mind that such opinions are only culturally valid and thus are a flimsy basis indeed for the social stigma and possible jailtime that comes with prosecution for engaging in an activity that is no doubt far, far more ubiquitous than any results of government approved 'polls' could indicate. Even were I to trust (let's say, for the sake of argument) that these polls were actually precise, that is, sound of method and untweaked of result, I would still doubt their accuracy. What were the actual questions? With a sample dempraphic drawn heavily from the middle of the road and slightly to the right, I find it hard to believe that they asked specifically about female ejaculation.
Even if they did - and I would bet a bit of gold that is not the case - would people have answered truthfully? It is quite telling that they always start with something like this, get their foot in the door. No 'honest citizen' would protest - not if the years of corporate media brainwashing had taken. Soon they will be attempting to control and censor in other areas, either with little likelihood of protest, little publicity, or both. Then - wapishta! - then moving in for the prize, to political control. To the contraband, be it drugs or downloads. Lucrative political control.
Perhaps the Australian public is somehow immune to the epidemic mental illness crippling most Americans today; perhaps my outrage is naîve. Of course I am speaking about communitty aquired Counterargument Resistant Confundatio Iurisprudentiae (CRCI): the persistent lack of distinction between what is actually a moral good and what is merely not prohibited by law.
Actually, in the list of websites leaked when the censorship was first proposed, the merely political was already evident. They lost no time.
To my fellow Agents of Internet Freedom in Australia I say: Good luck.