--- Danny Yee <danny@anatomy.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> In every other media -- books, films, magazines, computer games,
> videos -- classification decisions are publically available
> (through the OFLC database). And there's a good reason for that --
> if censorship is carried out secretly, no one has any way to know
> whether it is being abused or not. (Even people who don't object
> to censorship on principle often have concerns about its extent and
> possible ramifications, in my opinion.)
>
> The possibility of secret and unaccountable censorship is clearly
> "of public importance".
>
> Danny.
AND
--- felipe rodriquez <felipe@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> David,
> One fine reason to want access to this information is
> accountability. The
> government could censor anything it likes (e.g. political opponents
> or
> activism), if it cannot be held accountable.
I agree there must be safeguards, but is it really the best way to
make publicly available a list of URLs to the public? After all, some
of this will no doubt, if they are outside Australia, still contain
content such as child pornography. I hardly think that it's advisable
to provide an online "street directory" of child pornography.
And the OFLC database doesn't contain the contact details of the
"publisher" as does the publication of the URL for a web page. It's
not just paedophiles either, the growing vigilante groups would
surely use information such as this to target people.
There must be another way to keep the ABA accountable without making
public the information.
David
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:06 EST