Of Mandatory Censorship & Fines For Hyperlinks

Thanks to Daniel Haggard for bringing this to my attention.  Hopefully I can do the same for someone wandering through.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has stated that it will issue fines for those who link to pages that are on its blacklist and can otherwise compel site owners and operators to remove pages and content, even without the planned mandatory censorship legislation in place.

While I may be in America, I see this as something that can have an effect outside of Australia, with other countries and governments using this a precedent to exert control over the internet and what goes on it.  As it stands, some places in the world do not have the amount of access many of us have and what the ACMA is currently doing (or trying to do) could very well make it so that the gap closes.

Read More:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html

Did You Remember To Turn Off The Lights Last Night?

Yesterday evening was “Earth Hour”, where people around the world turned off their lights for the hour, all for the effort of fighting global warming.  Sure, it should be an around the clock thing, but it’s the idea after all, getting as many people as you can to chip in, including entire cities who turned out the lights (or as much as they could safely do).  Our local high school also joined in early, turning out the lights for an hour during afternoon classes on Friday.

If you remembered, great.  If not, it’s not the end of the world.  While some people may flaunt how far ahead they are in such matters (seriously, dig around and you will find the eco-egos), you are not a bad person because you left something on last night or sometimes leave a light on when you leave the apartment or house.

Now, all I have to wonder is whether Rush Limbaugh was spewing forth his usual charm or actually did put up Christmas lights and a tree to “celebrate” Earth Hour.

PSA’s on your DVD’s

A couple days ago, I read about anti-smoking PSA’s being added to some upcoming DVD’s.

Now, even though I do smoke, I will agree that it’s a bad habit.  However, it does not make one a bad person.  That’s not really the point, though.  I have a problem with commercials being added to DVD’s, sometimes unskippable.  Adding PSA’s to the mix as well doesn’t sit very well with me.

One argument for why the anti-smoking PSA’s are being added is because people are seen smoking in movies and that it glamourizes the habit.  Um… no.  Things have changed a lot over the decades.  Smoking isn’t something that’s portrayed as a high class, glamourous thing to do.  Not anymore.  Quite frankly, some people smoke.  Some don’t.  Pretending otherwise is futile.

Yeah, smoking is a bad habit and it’s better to not start.  But to use scare tactics, like showing dissected lungs or a man in a wheelchair with tubes in his nose (which is what’s being added to a handful of DVD’s soon), is something I find questionable. 

What’s next?  Something about drinking alcohol?  Unprotected sex?  Software piracy?  Downloading MP3’s illegally?  Animal rights?  Environment?

Sure, some groups may jump at the chance to spread their message (I’d think Truth and PETA would be at the top of the list), but is this really the way to go?  Is this what we can expect on our movies and TV shows in the future when we pop them into the DVD player or computer?

As it is, the MPAA classification system already mentions some stuff you might see in a movie (a relatively recent addition), a practice I believe was used by the ESRB in its own ratings system first.  It covers stuff like language, drug use, alcohol use, nudity, gore, violence and more.  You know, the sort of stuff some people might take offense to or want to keep their kids from seeing.  I’m surprised the RIAA hasn’t done the same, going beyond the explicit lyrics sticker (or graphic on the front and/or back cover) that some albums get.