Search results

you wish

the internet filter has relevence to 'internet censorship'. its two ways of sayng the same thing. read what i wrote underneath the links and actually comment on the vids.

YouTube - Tony Abbott on Conroy's Internet Censorship Plan YouTube - Tony Abbott joins Q&A YouTube - Tony Abbott on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage YouTube - Bill Henson photos double standard Says Tony Abbott tony abbott exposed. here are some sources. i particularly like the question for...

consider the following fact most australians are for "a filter" (just not the one steven conroy is proposing)

there is a bipartisan agreement ie. both parties have these intentions scuba quick - he said the 'i' word! :o

both parties (labor and liberal) agree that there are child porn websites from overseas that people here can access - and they both agree that it should be stopped. im not saying the proposed filter will work - im saying the concept is good. and dont give me that 'intentions' crap because...

no. why? because i have a shread of self-moral.

thats why i dont back the policy.

it is censorship (in a sense) but not the bad censorship your talking about. im not backing it (because i havent seen the details) but i think it aims to get rid of overseas websites with child porn in them ect. i was answering the question "since when have govts been able to censor...

its basically the same thing, because what he said was based on what wikipedia says.

a general overview is sometimes not good enough. in that case wikipedia is NOT the way to go.

not all lectures (again you liberals try to make huge assumptions) - just those that rely on wikipedia

censorship has happened many times before eg. during war. this isnt censorship - everyone is blowing this out of proportion and it probaly wont even get passed in the senate anyways.

lol just losing the election would be good enough for me - but you have a right to dream :P

its common knowledge - for the academic it is not considered reliable. FACT. why? because ANYONE can edit it. my point is proven - thats how its done.

you just gave an example of "completely pointless statements that don't prove anything" (refer to bolded).

then who reviews the house of review? ect. ect.

i wonder why your employer thinks that.

thats scuba for you.

lol always finding ways to show up scuba..... its not easy since he takes his word to be law.