Tag: peter black

Posted on

So what is Stilgherrian, exactly?

Photograph of Stilgherrian poking out his tongue, courtesy of Miss WiredI’ve been taking time out across the Easter weekend to ponder my future. As part of that, I’ve started collecting other people’s impressions of me.

There’s three key issues. One, I need to simplify the massive range of media projects I’m doing or have dreamed up, and cut them back to what’s actually possible to achieve. Two, I have to find the right balance between income-generating media projects, purely playful or “public service” media projects which don’t earn money, and perhaps still a few geek-related things which do pay well. Three, how to reach this state of nirvana without pissing off clients or screwing up my cashflows.

Tricky, eh?

Anyway, more on that anon.

Thanks to that Internet thing, I’ve found a few curious descriptions of me already. Can you provide any others?

Continue reading “So what is Stilgherrian, exactly?”

Posted on

So Conroy’s Rabbit-Proof Firewall is dead… or is it?

Crikey logo

[This article was first published in Crikey on Monday 2 March. Nothing’s changed since then.]

The villain gets thrown off the cliff. He bounces off the rocks into the river and his limp, bleeding form is flushed downstream. Hurrah! But just as our heroes down their first celebratory drinks, the door bursts open and the villain is back — soaking wet and angrier than ever…

“The Government’s plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has effectively been scuttled,” wrote Asher Moses last Thursday when independent Senator Nick Xenophon withdrew support for the Rudd government’s internet “filtering” plans. Opponents of Senator Conroy’s scheme popped open the virtual champagne and started sending congratulatory messages to anti-censorship lobbyists.

But as blogger Kieran Salsone’s headline put it, “Twitterati blow load over Xenophon: Lobbyists still without cigarette”. Despite Senator Xenophon’s announcement, nothing has actually changed and Senator Conroy has yet to comment.

True, any legislation would need support in the Senate from the Coalition or all seven minor party and independent senators. With the Coalition expressing grave reservations and calling the proposal insulting, and with the Greens and now Xenophon opposed too, any legislation would be blocked.

Blocked, that is, unless someone changes their mind.

Continue reading “So Conroy’s Rabbit-Proof Firewall is dead… or is it?”

Posted on

Last year’s Politics & Technology Forum

I forgot to mention that you can get a taste of what to expect at this year’s Politics & Technology Forum by watching the videos of last year’s.

Thanks to Microsoft’s Nick Hodge, you can view videos of Matt Bai’s keynote address, Panel 1 on Blogging, social networks, political movements and the media with Annabel Crabb, Peter Black and Mark Textor, and Panel 2 on Politics 2.0: information technology and the future of political campaigning with Joe Hockey, Senator Andrew Bartlett, Senator Kate Lundy and Antony Green.

Posted on

So Conroy’s Internet filter won’t block political speech, eh?

Crikey logo

Another week, another hole appearing in the Rudd government’s plans for pervasive Internet censorship. I’m in Crikey today with a piece headlined So Conroy’s Internet filter won’t block political speech, eh?

It begins:

“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,” intoned Senator Stephen Conroy on Tuesday.

Yet the very next day, ACMA added a page from what’s arguably a political website to its secret blacklist of Internet nasties.

The page is part of an anti-abortion website which claims to include “everything schools, government, and abortion clinics are afraid to tell or show you”. Yes, photos of dismembered fetuses designed to scare women out of having an abortion. Before you click through, be warned: it is confronting. Here’s the blacklisted page.

The piece goes on to argue that while you may or may not agree with the political stance or tactics of the anti-abortionists, they’re within their rights to express their political views, and express them strongly. The article isn’t behind the paywall, so read on…

The article also quotes Peter Black, who lectures in Internet law at QUT and blogs at Freedom to Differ. The full text of his commentary is over the jump.

Continue reading “So Conroy’s Internet filter won’t block political speech, eh?”