@freemo Even if someone writes something, chances are they won't bother to (really) read it, and it's buried somewhere where hardly anyone will see it.
If you're wondering why I haven't mentioned age verification (I'm talking about online content here), I don't think that is in scope for this particular consultation, there is one coming up later this year where that might come up. This pertains more to ratings.
For a recap from 2023, Julie wanted it but the Communications Minister overruled her (as there were many privacy concerns around that, and likely, other ones too). #auspol #anime #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression
It's usually something really strange and stupid, not what you'd expect the reason for banning it to be.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2055410/The_Kindeman_Remedy/ Australia appears to have* banned a (deliberately provocative game) where you play as an evil doctor.
* https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
No one buys apologia that only the government can censor people. It has always been a dishonest deflection from real discussions pertaining to free expression.
There are two contexts where this can come up. A theoretical context where it is being referenced in an abstract manner. This happens around about 1% of the time.
Or 99% of the time, it is to distract from a controversial moderation decision by refusing to discuss that, because it just so happens to align with the views of whoever is invoking the argument.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent Interesting piece.
Join us for a walk past a number of Boston landmarks on Saturday, May 4, 18:35, at #LibrePlanet 2024: https://libreplanet.org/2024/other-activities/
@glynmoody Typically, the argument brought up for Japan is that censorship violates Article 19 / 21 of the Constitution (it contains a right to free expression).
However, neither the law or this right is limitless. For instance, if someone deliberately makes non-consensual porn of someone (ahem, not an imaginary character), that would be prohibited conduct, from what I've seen. There's more I could say but I'll keep it short for conciseness.
If they're doing that, maybe it's a Western spammer, as someone from there who I know would put it. It's also a bit suspicious, the Brits are hard to trust, they have a bad track record. It is also quite a dubious intervention. Of course, it's not implausible the authorities there tipped the Brits off about it.
If someone wants more American competition to YouTube though, a good start might be to repeal the DMCA and to implement stronger intermediary liability protections whenever copyright is involved. That is one of the biggest obstacles.
@SirTapTap
https://qoto.org/@olives/112263721995146390
Dear Most Majestic Holy Knight Sir Tap Tap, if you happen to know any Australians, could you please point them towards this government consultation on censorship?
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.