With the
apparent news that the cleanfeed filter may have been delivered a large knock-back from Telstra, I have never felt so much respect for Australia's largest telecommunications company. I have always been weary of
Telstra. Back in the early 1990s, when they were the only choice for telecommunications in Australia, I was unimpressed at their service. I remember once I called up asking for my home phone (at my parents house) to be changed from pulse dialing to tone dialing, and it took a fortnight to complete. These days, phones are all tone dialing, so this is no longer an issue.
On the other side of service (at the time), my father engaged
Optus for a second line in the house.
Optus were on site 2 days later to install the line - even though I suspect it was a re-sold
Telstra line. With choice, came a better level of service. I have been a long time
Optus customer. I have always had a mobile phone with
Optus, and have chosen
Optus for the majority of my
ISP services. This may change. Well done to
Telstra.
Optus's stand on the
cleanfeed Internet filter is that they will trial it in small doses, and allow customers to opt-out of it. I would have
preferred for them to just opt-out of supporting the government's solution altogether.
I am now appalled to read of another news item. An
Australian judge has ruled that naked cartoon characters constitute as child pornography. Seriously! His
argument is that this type of imagery is going to fuel the need in people to see the real thing. How is this supposedly sensible person's perception of reality warped so much? I've approached this decision with an open mind. What are the child
protection laws supposed to protect? From my reasoning, we have anti-child
pornography laws to protect children from being exploited in an industry that they have no understanding of, and to protect both physical and mental well-being of those children who may not be able to make the correct and informed decisions that leads them into those situations. In the making of a cartoon (which I will admit is somewhat tasteless), no one was harmed. I fully support these laws, and anyone who wants to support this through exchange or manufacture of this product should be persecuted by the law. The judge has now made a decision (at least in New South Wales) that suggests that the common person that sees something in cartoon form will want to see it in real life form. This leads me to think, maybe I need to exploit the possibly huge untapped market of giving a shotgun to a
rabbit, and getting him to team up with a
duck, and shoot a
short balding man - and then filming it all. May sound crazy, but the judge that made the ruling thinks there may be a link.
