- Has the probability of inadvertent exposure to Refused Classification material by adults been quantified? If not, is this probability judged to be: low, moderate or high?
- Have the consequences of inadvertent exposure to Refused Classification material by adults been measured? Are these thought to be minor, major or serious?
- Has the quantity of potentially Refused Classification material in existence on the Internet been estimated in either absolute or relative terms?
- Does the Government have an estimate or measure of the percentage of potentially Refused Classification material on the Internet that is currently Refused Classification? What is that estimate?
- Does the Government have a coverage goal for the Refused Classification list in terms of the percentage of potentially Refused Classification material that is actually refused classification? What is that goal?
- Is the Government concerned that in exempting X-18+ material from the specifications of the mandatory filter that it may be implicitly condoning the consumption of X-18+ rated materials by Australian adults?
- Does the Government believe it is acceptable for Australian adults who encounter X-18+ or potentially Refused Classification material on the Internet to treat such material as not Refused Classification until such time as ACMA makes a definitive decision otherwise?
- Does the Government believe that Australian adults who encounter such X-18+ or potentially Refused Classification material should use their own judgment to decide for themselves whether they should remain exposed to such material?
- If the Government does believe that all Australian adults should retain for themselves the responsibility of deciding what material is, and is not, acceptable to view, why is the mandatory filter required?
- What political benefit does the ALP gain by successfully sheparding enabling legislation for the mandatory ISP-level filter through both houses of parliament?
If you would like to share a reference to this page, please use: http://tinyurl.com/gr8wallofkrudd-10q
4 comments:
...And a couple more, which writers should insist are answered by Rudd, not fobbed off to Conroy:
Labor's 2007 pre-election policy on filtering specified that it would be mandatory that ISPs offer a 'clean feed' to households with children. The party's policy has since morphed into a mandatory filter that has no opt-out for households without children.
Mr Rudd, as leader of the Labor Party, kindly answer the following:
* When did the ALP's filtering policy change to become mandatory for all Australian internet users?
* Why was the policy changed?
* Who authorised the policy change?
* Given the present 'mandatory for all users' policy is markedly different to the 'opt-out' policy presented to voters prior to the election, do you believe Labor have a mandate to enact the 'mandatory for all users' version?
11. Why was the report on the trials released only after consultation with the Australian Christian Lobby?
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/conroy-must-explain-why-christian-lobby-gets-net-filtering-trial-update-greens
When did the ALP's filtering policy change to become mandatory for all Australian internet users?
Very valuable idea
Post a Comment