Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorm34tb0und
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2010
     (7673.21)
    Does this mean that there is an official Itty Bitty Titty Committee in Australia?
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2010 edited
     (7673.22)


    Jocko says...

    "Oy! The first rule of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee is: Don't talk about the Itty Bitty Titty Committee! Or I'll beat you to death with a sockful of Energizer batteries! Like this pack I'm holding!"
    •  
      CommentAuthorstsparky
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2010
     (7673.23)
    Andre's pitch black comic nailed this. I've not heard of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee since High School. Sure it wasn't new then either.
  1.  (7673.24)
    Governmental attempts at information control continue in Australia

    The Australian government, with the support of ultraconservative religious groups, is still going ahead with plans to censor the internet at the national level.
    •  
      CommentAuthorglukkake
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
     (7673.25)
    I feel that there should be protest where men shouldn't be allowed to shave their pubic hair because it makes them look underaged in the penis.

    ...or I guess fight against censorship, etc etc.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickDonald
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2010 edited
     (7673.26)
    I guess the official Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a new one on me, but I be they'd find support here: www.sexparty.org.au/

    That, boys and girls is the website of The Australian Sex Party. That's right, we have one of those and it's a propper party and everything. Only one problem: how can it be The Australian Sex Party when ther are quite clearly several Australians, me for one, who didn't get an invite?

    I waded through this shit storm at the time and can unequivocally state three things:

    1 - It was, as I say, a shit storm. None of the articles that kicked it off had any actual substantiating references, bandying about words like "many" and "some" in place of research [so I ended up doing it] and the word "abhorrent" didn't originate with the government, despite them being quoted as having said it first.

    2 - The original report from the Australian Sex Party was about the banning of films showing female ejaculation -"a normal orgasmic sexual response in many women, with censors branding it as “abhorrent” [their quotation marks, not mine]" And, allegedly, in the past had banned ONE specific publication stating the model's breast size as A factor [note the singular?]. It was a brain deficient, functionally retarded, blogger who dropped the big P into the mix. That's right: pedophilia. [I mean you, Ms Naughty! Wherever you are, I'm sure your knee's jerking in outrage, you fucking muppet!]

    3 - There are published studies all over the place that conclude something like 70% of Australian women are wearing their bras one size too small, so odds are the whole shit-fight was probably completely unnecessary because 70% of the A-cups are probably B-cups and it's statistically unlikely that the remaining 30% would encompasses any of the models in question, so we've all wasted our time. Yay.

    This is one link that'll back me up: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/11/1120934188721.html?from=top5

    @Exploder
    Also, this would not be necessary if all Australians weren't pee drinking child fuckers

    Sadly, we are. Every last one of us wee-guzzling, infant-fans.
    •  
      CommentAuthorzomgmouse
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2010 edited
     (7673.27)
    What worries me more than porn being blocked (it takes a lot for something to worry me more, but yes, "other means" &c) is that they're going to be filtering out sites that involve discussion of "illegal stuff". Euthanasia. Abortion. Drugs. Graffiti. Satire's on the line. Anything controversial. Anything they fucking well like. Here you go, lookit kitteh! Go on back to the television. Stop thinking, ra ra ra ra, we provide the news... with interpretive dance. Fuck this.
    I don't want to seem like the conspiracy-shouter (or maybe I do) but two facts bother me: firstly, the filter itself, and secondly, that nobody pays attention. Absolutely no space is given to this issue anywhere, so there's nobody who knows anything. Even those who do focus on the porn. Which is how they want it, the slimy arses. Goddamn me, I'm in a Spider Jerusalem mood. Fuck you all.
    • CommentAuthorDC
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2010
     (7673.28)
  2.  (7673.29)
    That would make things really slow if they search every laptop and phone for porn.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJaredRules
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2010
     (7673.30)
    I wonder what percentage of computers in the world are totally porn-free?
    • CommentAuthorVerissimus
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010
     (7673.31)
    Where is this coming from? is it some extremist Christian group which is pushing for this kind of censorship, or is it something which is supported by a large part of the population?
    • CommentAuthorTwist
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010
     (7673.32)
    A large percentage of the voting population would like to know what the fuck our government is doing...
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaladine
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2010
     (7673.33)
    If the government asked, I'd gladly give them a copy of my best porn. They wouldn't have to search for it.
  3.  (7673.34)
    "I wonder what percentage of computers in the world are totally porn-free? "

    I'm going to say three. not three percent, but three computers.
  4.  (7673.35)
    @William Joseph Dunn
    - Yeh, and I own those three!
    Hahaha.
  5.  (7673.36)
    Even scarier Big Brother shit is going down in Australia. Fuck this, it's time to emigrate.

    "The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.

    Political opponents and other critics of the scheme have described the draft policy as "alarming" and accused the government of going "on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get". One ISP executive has described the plan as "a nanny state gone totally insane".
    "

    "Some commentators have said the copyright lobby would inevitably try to use the scheme to hunt down and prosecute illegal file sharers, but Sabiene Heindl, head of the music industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, said: "We have no present intention to do that.""
    • CommentAuthorJiveKitty
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2010
     (7673.37)
    "present intention" being important words.

    Ahh, Kevin Rudd, you're a piece of shit and the world would be better without you. The purpose of government is not to control every aspect of the lives of the people within its borders. It is to facilitate and improve aspects of their lives by doing that which would not otherwise arise outside government infrastructure on a significant enough level. I wish politicians would understand that.
  6.  (7673.38)
    The scariest thing is that there's no public outrage about this crap.
    • CommentAuthorJiveKitty
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2010
     (7673.39)
    Outrage requires too much effort. Sit back and have another beer. The government is a monolith. Little people can't do anything about it.

    Well, that's the theory anyway. It was borne out to a degree in the UK, with the Lib-Dems failing to get enough support to viably be able to go with Labour, for example, which meant they weren't really the spoilers predicted. Of course, with the system rigged as it is, it's not all that surprising. Even in New Zealand, with MMP, we've clung to the staid old parties thus far, and there's a disappointing lack of political accountability -- as embodied by the recent credit card scandal (Ministers using the Ministerial Credit Cards inappropriately): sanctions have been minimal, and despite being a pig in the trough one particular MP who's done nothing useful in his fucking career and who seems to have that Ruddesque desire to regulate, tax and control anything he doesn't like is still odds on to become mayor of a major city at present.

    I think the people who do care are just incredibly disillusioned. Look at the choices you've got in Australia, if that's where you are: Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd. It's nearly always the lesser of two evils. There doesn't tend to be a lot of integrity, character or ability going. People just figure they're going to be fucked regardless. The glimmer of hope here is that it's hard to implement such a policy, and techies are going to be working out how to dismantle it from word-go, and they'll probably have inside help to do it.

    Of course, the irony is that if the people worked up enough outrage, the plan would be stymied -- for now. Rudd would either put it on the backburner and wait until after the election (if he wins), or he'd be sneaky about implementing it very quietly, ostensibly with changed provisions, or even under a different name as a different policy. There's already that tenuous link to terrorism. I can see it being put in an anti-terror bill. I can even see certain events occurring due to a more relaxed attitude to terrorism, then a new anti-terror bill with harsh measures being drafted. Maybe that's the paranoia. I'm not saying they'd set out for such events to occur, just that policies might be put in place which increase the likelihood. Rudd, at his heart, is a political animal whose only goal is power, but I'm not sure he's that much of an animal and his party probably wouldn't allow it. His actions over the past few months reek of fear, desperation and pure vindictiveness though.
  7.  (7673.40)
    The government continues to pass terrifying new laws, and nobody here seems to give a shit.