DIGC Field Notes Journal

Evidence proving that pro-annorexia and euthanasia materials should be available for access if one choses to.

- blocking subject will not deter those who have a desire for the subject – a desire to learn and accumulate knowledge and an informed opinion

Quote:  ”Other forms of speech may well be truly offensive but the only way a society can deal with them is by being exposed to them and combating them.”

-          Free speech-people deserve the right to decide
The government plans to require ID thus being able to track and hold accountable for the users of the internet. This is in direct opposition to freedom of speech, which requires anonymity and being able to express opinions and views without being scared that it will be held against you.

Quote: “True freedom of speech requires anonymity in some cases to protect the author, the governments who have introduced ID requirements for Internet use also deny many basic rights to their citizens. The Internet allows citizens to criticise their government and distribute news and information without reprisal from the state, such a system clearly could not survive with ID requirements”

-         creates public debate-ability to discuss and find info

-          if user generated content sites like YouTube, which are unrelated in general to the blacklisted topics, refused classification content uploaded , would the specific URL be removed, or the entire site? if the entire site is blocked, this takes away the freedom and the right choice and introduces the issue- where is the line?

-           Euthanasia – Who categorises if it is negative or positive

The Government in censoring all information and data related to Euthanasia have undoubtedly placed it in the same category as terrorism, murder, and other heinous violent acts. Why? Philip Nitschke the “first doctor in the world to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection under Australia’s short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (find). This pro Eustanasia doctor said, “it seems we demand humans to live with indignity, pain and anguish whereas we are kinder to our pets when their suffering becomes too much. It simply is not logical or mature. Trouble is, we have had too many centuries of religious claptrap”

The Government in placing this ‘filtter’ on the internet is making a mockery of the Australian public and also its education system, in assuming that one cannot read, interpret and decide on what they are searching for, but mearly reading and believing everything that is written. For example, they believe that one would read an article about Euthanasia or about annorexia and think that it is meant litterally and true and act upon this information by euthanasing someone or thinking that annorexia is good this distorting their perception of truth and logic.