http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cpsia1.pdf

Dated 8th. January 2009 the ALA states:

“If the CPSIA is applied to books and paper-based materials, as indicated by the Commission’s General Counsel, public, school and museum libraries will have to either remove all their books or ban all children under 12 from visiting. This cannot be what the Congress intended”

(signed)

Emily Sheketoff
Executive Director of the American Library Association’s Washington Office

(there’s an abundance of videos and on-line newspaper articles on this subject if anyone wishes to do a google on the subject)

So far the problem of radiation from computer displays hasn’t entered into the “somebody think of the children” debate even though it has been subject to inquiry in some European countries.

I have been told that I am in danger due to my continued exposure to electromagnetic radiation (and clutter) especially as my computer(s) are located in my main bedroom. The second “bedroom” is now officially an office.

I amended a web page on the interesting suburb of Werrington to reflect my conerns at this interesting observation.

The Werrington website (reflecting Werrington as seen in 2002 – it doesn’t change very much)

http://users.tpg.com.au/adsln4rh/werrington/

was amended on 5th. October 2005 when I added the words (electromagnetic radiation and clutter excepted!)

It’s far too late now

Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

Blocking political content would indeed be unconstitutional, as the High Court has ruled. However there’s a lot of things that are not “political” that the government might wish to stop but which aren’t covered by the classification legislation — and I’ve previously outlined the potential risk to free speech.

The entire project is being done backwards.

Conroy is saying, effectively, “Let’s build the Big Secret Automatic Censorship Machine, see how it goes, and then ‘down the track’ we’ll have a discussion about what we’ll use it for.”

No, Minister. Let’s have the conversation first! Let’s have some clear rules about what the government is allowed to do. Then, and only then, do you start building secret machines to implement it.

Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

Then, on the very next day, xFOADx on Whirlpool posts this:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1123716&p=35#r685

Here’s an anti-abortion site. Political content. Distasteful? Yes. But undeniably political.

On ACMA’s Prohibited Content list.

Ball’s in your court, Senator.

[Stilgherrian notes: This comment was originally posted on 21 January, but for some reason was marked as spam. I only discovered it on 3 February and approved it then.]

However “community standards” are enshrined in existing legislation: that which already defines what’s rated G, PG, M, MA, MA15+, R, X or RC. While you or I may or may not agree with how those classifications work, they are the classifications. If anyone reckons they’re wrong, then it’s a matter of convincing a government that it’s time to review them. Good luck on that!

Extact from an ABC report (also available in 3 audio formats)

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2470406.htm

(content described by the author as “perverted porn” but seemingly popular in large print editions for those who have trouble reading due to age or other disabilities )

JAN RICHARDS: We believe that people should be able to read what they want to read with a degree of privacy. However the issue of children
accessing inappropriate material is a very real one and we all have systems in place whereby we would stop a child from taking something
that was inappropriate, but at the same time we think that there is a very important role for parents to play.

NICOLE BUTLER: The vice president of ALIA says it’s unlikely that all of the libraries holding Mr Kevin’s novels will pull them from the shelves.

JAN RICHARDS: Now it depends on how they feel it fits in with their own community.

ASHLEY HALL: The vice president of the Australian Library and Information Association, Jan Richards ending Nicole Butler’s report.

==============

http://www.alia.org.au/governance/elections/2008/board/vp/candidates.html#dw

Statement of professional concerns

Libraries across Australia are being faced with a suite of issues. Political, social and technological changes offer us a myriad of challenges, but also opportunities. It is a time for us to work together as one industry to address these through policy direction, education and professional development for the benefit of our members and the communities we serve. If we are to achieve this and retain our relevance we need to speak with one voice, and to do this we need to work in concert with other library organisations.

Jan Richards

Their efforts ended up getting that issue “banned” in Thailand. In quotes, because the fear of committing lèse-majesté is so strong that nothing needed to be done officially — the distributors simply chose not to sell the magazine.

@Daniel O’Connor: I’ve checked, and the text on this page matches that in the PDF file provided by Conroy’s office. Normally the draft version is marked “check against delivery” in case the speaker makes off-the-cuff remarks, and a cross-checked version is sent without that label. This PDF did not have the label.

However at some point today I’ll cross-check against the videos uploaded by Neerav.

3 Part Video: Senator Stephen Conroy – Information Online 2009
http://bit.ly/MjX1
http://bit.ly/3D719g
http://bit.ly/mDaq

“… there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content”.

“… I mean we know this thing isn’t even going to work, so you can hardly call it blocking political speech if it doesn’t block anything it is supposed to now, can you.”

Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

Seems that Conroy equates freedom of speech with political speech. He has said this before and continues to say it. I doubt that he even understands what “freedom of speech” means.

Political speech is (partly) protected by our constitution an as such he is not allowed to stop political speech and I suspect that is why he is equating freedom with political. This way he can keep a straight face while “lying” about what will happen to free speech about issues that is not child friendly.

Did anyone notice how he is trying to limit what we can see/read online to publishing laws, rather than what we can legally view, read and THINK.