[Linux-aus] Things not to post to planet linux australia
lloy0076 at adam.com.au
Thu Mar 26 16:52:10 EST 2009
Look, it seems that there are still robberies and murders. In fact,
didn't the Nazis and Hitler try to commit genocide despite that being
such an obvious moral thing or law NOT to do?
Rather than debating this here, would the protagonists PLEASE respond
with legal advice as to why Linux Australia's lawyers are giving
incorrect legal advice.
I am absolutely certain that the existence of sites depicting illegal or
questionable activity has NOTHING TO DO with Linux Australia's charter
excepting that LA obviously should endeavour not to endorse them.
Matthew Lye wrote:
> Russell is quite right on this. You can ask someone not to post links
> to the list, but you cannot ask someone not to post links that are on
> a list that we are not supposed to look at. Effectively a request to
> not post something the 'might' be on a list you cant see can be safely
> ignored. That being said If someone posts child pornography links I
> will help them on their way to jail myself.
> The only way anyone could arrange for people not to post links (or
> comments) on the entirety of the list would be to implement the list,
> or list what people cannot post, effectively violating the list anyway.
> Kinda a redundant idea all round... after all the first rule of
> blacklist is you cannot talk about blacklist.
> You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision,
> determination, and and endless supply of expendable labor.
> <No tree's were harmed during this transmission. However, a great
> number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Russell Stuart
> <russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au <mailto:russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au>>
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 15:33 +1100, Andy White wrote:
> > It's generally considered bad form to put your ISP at risk
> > unnecessarily.
> > You say that LA should show some more spine on this issue - why?
> Because it is simply not possibly to comply with the law as it is
> written. The list is a government secret. You are not supposed
> to know
> whether whether a site is blacklisted or not. For example, did
> you know
> the ACMA has taken to blacklist sites that have the Hansen photos?
> So it is not possible to avoid putting your ISP at risk. Or LA at
> So now you are apparently arguing LA should censor discussion of a set
> of laws that put LA at risk of unknowing transgressing them.
> Just to make it absolutely obvious: I would like to post the
> Hansen link
> that ACMA has banned. I can't. You can't check it out for
> yourself and
> avoid similar images. Perhaps it already has been blogged about by
> someone on planet when it was a hot topic. Perhaps the banned
> link has
> already been posted to planet. Tell me, how are you going to find out
> if planet.linux.org.au <http://planet.linux.org.au> is _already_
> at risk.
> Frankly Andy, avoiding discussions like this seems downright
> Come to that, attempting to thought police any topic people are trying
> to reason about and understand important issues is downright
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au <mailto:linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au>
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linux-aus