Kudos to Kelvin Thompson, federal Labor MP, for having the courage to stand up to the “eternal growth” fools who currently dictate economic and development policies in the western world and point out that excessive population growth is the root cause of most of our serious problems.

It is time for governments and policy makers around the world to come to their senses and take steps to stabilise the world’s population,” he said. “It needs to happen in every country, including here in Australia – especially here in dry, arid Australia.

This probably qualifies Mr Thompson as a member of the ‘green fascists’ that The Australian is always banging on about.

However, as this article suggests, as is also the case with most Google services there are hidden catches which most users should, but probably won’t, be aware of.  I’ve written about EULAs before, and the Chrome EULA is a cracker.  The main issue is this clause:

7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see http://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

To understand what this clause is saying, we need to understand what “Services” and “Content” are in this agreement. Services are defined in clause 1.1 to include:

Google’s products, software, services and web sites

So Services would include Google’s web search, Picasa, Google Maps, and the Chrome browser itself.

Content is defined in clause 7.1 as follows:

all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services

Content would arguably include any websites or images you access via Google search, and anything at all that you access using Chrome as your browser.

Let’s assume, as seems to be the case, that the purpose of the majority of Google’s “Services” is to provide access to information in the form of “Content”.  The sting of clause 7.3 is in the following: Google “reserves the right … to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.“  This is an extremely broad clause, and legitimises any number of actions Google might elect (at its discretion) to take with respect to “Content”.  In particular:

• “pre-screen” suggests that Content may be subjected to certain criteria before it is provided;
• “review” suggests that Content may be scrutinised after it has been accessed by a user;
• “flag” is one of the more disturbing words used, and is clearly not limited to flagging particular issues to the user – it could also quite reasonably be said to include flagging certain content to Google or to the authorities;
• “modify” suggests that Content may be manipulated from its original state (without the user necessarily being aware of that fact) before being provided to the user;
• “refuse” suggests that Content may simply not be provided in some circumstances; and
• “remove” indicates a degree of intervention in Content which has already been accessed.

On a generous reading of the intention behind this clause, it might be concluded that Google wishes to protect itself from lawsuits in circumstances where it, for example, does not transmit viruses or other malicious software to users, or where it automatically provides optional content filtering against porn and the like (e.g. “moderate safesearch”, which is turned on by default in Google Image Search).

However, a generous reading of intention does not limit the rights that you confer on Google when you agree to the EULA.  If you use Chrome as your web browser, then based on the clear terms of the agreement, you have agreed that Google has the right to:

• monitor what you are or have been looking at on the web and store that information (’review’ or ‘pre-screen’);
• transparently alter websites or other information you access using Chrome so that you are in fact viewing a modified version without knowing it (’modify’);
• report you to the authorities if you access specific content, identified solely according to Google’s own policies or arrangements with said authorities (’flag’);
• make it appear that websites or other information is unavailable when in fact it is being filtered (’refuse’); and
• delete information from your web browser (e.g. cookies, bookmarks, history) or arguably even from your computer (content downloaded via Chrome) at its discretion (’remove’).

So, to put the foregoing in the form of tangible (but purely hypothetical) examples, by agreeing to the EULA you have agreed that if Google wanted to, and so long as you are using Chrome, it could:

• prevent you from accessing information about euthanasia or abortions;
• prevent you from accessing the websites of specific political or social organisations;
• report you to the police if you access particular kinds of pornography;
• report you to anti-terrorism authorities if you are doing research into islamic terrorism;
• silently modify statistical or factual data on a website you are accessing;
• silently doctor photographs or maps;
• prevent you from accessing websites critical of Google (like this one, I suppose!);
• store everything you look at and mine it for commercial or personal data at a later date; or
• delete bookmarks of websites of Google’s competitors from your browser .

I am happy to admit that Google probably won’t do any of those things, at least in the West.  It would be commercially foolish at best.  But Google already has a track record of cooperating with nasty totalitarian governments in censoring the Internet.  So it should at least be assumed that Google might do some or all of the above.  It is also known that Google stores and mines all of your email sent or received via Gmail (don’t email me from Gmail addresses, god damn you) for its own commercial purposes, as well as storing it in random places where it may be subject to warrants or government spying.

There’s a simple solution, of course: don’t use Google Chrome.  When you have the choice of using a web browser which definitely won’t do any of the above, it would be insane to use one which exposes you to even a slight possibility of any of those things occurring.  Ideally, therefore, you should use Firefox or even Internet Explorer in preference to Chrome.

If you care about your privacy and having unfettered access to information, I would suggest that steering clear of Gmail, Google Web Albums and any other service where you actually upload or download data using Google products is a good idea.  If you use Firefox, you may also like to use the excellent CustomizeGoogle plugin to control how much information about you Google is actually collecting.

Until Google learns to totally respect its users freedom to access and use third party information anyway they see fit and without corporate oversight, they do not deserve your business, even with respect to their “free” browser.

In essence, it can be said that:

• no superior or appellate court has expressly accepted the existence of a tort of invasion of privacy in Australia;
• it is nevertheless at least arguable that such a tort exists, and claims based on a freestanding tort have already met with some success in inferior courts; and
• if such a tort does exist, its elements insofar as they may be discerned appear to be:
  • that there be an intentional or (perhaps) reckless act by a defendant;
  • that the defendant in some way interferes with matters which would ordinarily be regarded as “private” to the plaintiff (although an enumeration of those matters is not at all simple);
  • that the effect of the conduct, or the conduct itself, be such that a reasonable person would consider it highly offensive (or, alternatively, that the conduct be “serious”); and
  • (possibly) that the plaintiff has suffered harm (including mental harm) as a result.

The High Court’s ‘Invitation’

In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 the High Court invited speculation about whether a specific tort of invasion of privacy was emerging in Australia.  At present, the great weight of authority suggests that there is no such tort – in principle, if the observation, recording or publication of things said or done in private is not caught by defamation, breach of confidence, or legislation such as section 5 of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (Cth).

In Lenah Game Meats Chief Justice Gleeson felt that breach of confidence was sufficient to control the publication of film of private matters obtained by the use of hidden cameras (at [39]):

If the activities filmed were private, then the law of breach of confidence is adequate to cover the case. I would regard images and sounds of private activities, recorded by the methods employed in the present case, as confidential. There would be an obligation of confidence upon the persons who obtained them, and upon those into whose possession they came, if they knew, or ought to have known, the manner in which they were obtained.

In Lenah Game Meats the Chief Justice observed that there is a danger in establishing a “right” to privacy in a country like Australia where we lack any positive right to free speech, and that there is great difficulty in drawing a line between what it “private” and what is not (at [42]):

There is no bright line which can be drawn between what is private and what is not. Use of the term “public” is often a convenient method of contrast, but there is a large area in between what is necessarily public and what is necessarily private. An activity is not private simply because it is not done in public. It does not suffice to make an act private that, because it occurs on private property, it has such measure of protection from the public gaze as the characteristics of the property, the nature of the activity, the locality, and the disposition of the property owner combine to afford. Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as private; as may certain kinds of activity, which a reasonable person, applying contemporary standards of morals and behaviour, would understand to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private.

The “practical test” suggested by his Honour appears to be an element of the proposed tort of privacy, that is, whether the disclosure of observation in question would be “highly offensive” to a reasonable person.

Justices Gummow and Hayne made much more encouraging noises with respect to the development of a tort of invasion of privacy insofar as it would be actionable by a natural person (rather than a corporation) (at [132]):

Whatever development may take place in that field will be to the benefit of natural, not artificial, persons. It may be that development is best achieved by looking across the range of already established legal and equitable wrongs. On the other hand, in some respects these may be seen as representing species of a genus, being a principle protecting the interests of the individual in leading, to some reasonable extent, a secluded and private life, in the words of the Restatement, “free from the prying eyes, ears and publications of others.” Nothing said in these reasons should be understood as foreclosing any such debate or as indicating any particular outcome.

Justices Callinan and Kirby also appeared to countenance the possibility that a private tort exists.  More recently, in Batistatos v  Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256 Callinan J remarked on the effect of Lenah Game Meats on the development of a tort of privacy, suggesting that the case had not positively established any new cause of action (although again leaving that possibility open) (at [216]):

I took the view in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd that the time was ripe for the consideration at least of the recognition by the law of a cause of action for invasion of privacy. In view of the fact that my opinion was only a dissenting one, it is difficult to see how an advocate in New South Wales could seek to bring this matter before the courts now even though the law is moving in that direction in the United Kingdom

The Limited Scope of Breach of Confidence

It must be doubted whether the law of breach of confidence can adequately protect what is normally regarded as “privacy”.  Breach of confidence is founded in equity, and relies on the following elements before an action may be brought:

• there must be specific information identified which is said to be subject to an obligation of confidence;
• the information must not be common or public knowledge;
• the information must be received in circumstances which import an ‘obligation of confidence’; and
• there must be actual or threatened ‘misuse’ of the information without consent.

(see Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 17 IPR 545).

The equitable nature of the action also potentially limits the remedies which is provides: “[t]he plaintiff comes to equity to vindicate his right to observance of the obligation, not necessarily to recover loss or to restrain infliction of apprehended loss”, as Gummow J explained in Smith Kline & French Laboratories.  In other words, equity will more readily restrain a breach of an obligation than it will provide damages as a result of such a breach.

It can be seen that breach of confidence may not be sufficient to protect a private litigant from everything which might be called an ‘invasion of privacy’: the action may be too narrow and focused on specific obligations arising out of a relationship,and the remedies available may be weak by common law standards (although see the discussion of Giller, below).

Subsequent Consideration

Other cases have since considered whether there is, indeed, a tort of privacy in Australia.

In Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA the Victorian Court of Appeal appeared to the possibility of a claim based on a specific tort of privacy, and instead considered that a claim founded on breach of confidence provided an adequate remedy.  In that case a husband had threatened to publish to third parties a video recording of sexual activity between himself and his wife.

By restricting the plaintiff to breach of confidence, the Court of Appeal was forced to grapple with significant questions of the scope of equitable compensation for purely mental harm:

No Australian authority was cited at trial or on appeal to support the proposition that, in the context now under discussion, equitable compensation or equitable damages [...] can be awarded for mental distress alone. It was submitted at trial, however, and reiterated in this Court, that English authorities support the view that a monetary remedy is available for distress occasioned by breach of the equitable obligation of confidence.

Ashley JA felt that the case fell within the principles set out in Lenah Game Meats:

In the present case, a claim founded in breach of confidence was, as I have concluded, available to the appellant. It conferred upon her an entitlement to equitable compensation. This case, like Lenah, is therefore one in which it is unnecessary to consider whether a generalised tort of invasion of privacy should be recognised. It is also an instance of the way in which the law has otherwise developed to address a particular situation. That may provide a good reason why, if a tort of invasion of privacy did come to be recognised, it would not extend to a case of the present kind.

Ultimately, the Court appeared to favour the expansion of the remedies available in respect of a breach of confidence over any specific tort of privacy (per Neave JA at [423]):

Equitable remedies such as injunctions are available to prevent publication of confidential material because of its private nature. It is unnecessary in such applications to show that, if unrestrained, the breach of confidence will cause financial loss or psychiatric injury. By parity of reasoning there should be no barrier to the making of an order for equitable compensation to compensate a claimant for the embarrassment or distress she has suffered as the result of a breach of an equitable duty of confidence which has already occurred.

Neave JA indicated (at [423]-[424]) that this conclusion should follow, if for no other reason than that “to refuse would indicate that something was wrong with the law.”

In Kalaba v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] FCA 763 Heerey J also felt that the law had not developed to a point where it could validly be said that there was a freestanding tort of invasion of privacy: at [6].

In contrast to the foregoing, in Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151 the District Court of Queensland held that there is a tort of privacy, and upheld the plaintiff’s claim on that basis.  The elements of the tort were said by Senior Judge Skoien to be:

(a) a willed act by the defendant,

(b) which intrudes upon the privacy or seclusion of the plaintiff,

(c) in a manner which would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities,

(d) and which causes the plaintiff detriment in the form of mental psychological or emotional harm or distress or which prevents or hinders the plaintiff from doing an act which she is lawfully entitled to do.

It can be seen that element (c) above picks up on Gleeson CJ’s test as to the distinction between an act which is “private” and that which is not.  Element (d) addresses the difficulties grappled with by the Victorian Court of Appeal with respect to the remedies available for breach of confidence.

In Doe v ABC [2007] VCC 281, Judge Hampel found that there was an actionable tort of invasion of privacy in Australia.  Her Honour was of the view that the tort had already been established, even if it had not yet been applied:

If the mere fact that a court has not yet applied the developing jurisprudence to the facts of a particular case operates as a bar to its recognition, the capacity of the common law to develop new causes of action, or to adapt existing ones to contemporary values or circumstances is stultified. Lenah Game Meats, and the UK cases … in particular those decided since Lenah Game Meats, demonstrate a rapidly growing trend towards recognition of privacy as a right in itself deserving of protection.

Judge Hampel found the defendant liable both for a breach of the tort of invasion of privacy and breach of confidence.  Rather than enumerating the elements of the tort, she chose to explain the conclusion that the defendant was liable thus (at [163]-[164]):

The wrong that was done here was the publication of personal information, in circumstances where there was no public interest in publishing it, and where there was a prohibition on its publication. In publishing the information, the defendants failed to exercise the care which could be reasonably required of them to protect the plaintiff’s privacy and comply with the prohibition on publication imposed by s.4(1A). This, coupled with the absence of public interest, the clearly private nature of the information, and the prohibition on publication, all point to the publication being unjustified. In my view, a formulation of unjustified, rather than wilful, in these circumstances provides a fair balance between freedom of speech and the protection of privacy. For the reasons I have already canvassed when considering breach of confidence, the information is personal or confidential information which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation would remain private, and clearly private. Its disclosure was plainly something which an individual was entitled to decide for herself.

I find therefore the defendants breached the plaintiff’s privacy by the unjustified publication of personal information, and are liable in damages as a result.

This explanation clearly invites the conclusion that there may be a defence of “public interest” or, more broadly, justification, available to a defendant to a claim based on invasion of privacy.

The ALRC’s Recommendation for a Statutory Cause of Action

The Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008 recommended that a statutory cause of action be established to protect personal privacy from serious invasion.  The ALRC appeared to emphasise that any invasion should be “serious” before it becomes actionable.  In summary, the Commission recommended that:

Federal legislation should provide for a statutory cause of action for a serious invasion of privacy. The Act should contain a non-exhaustive list of the types of invasion that fall within the cause of action. For example, a serious invasion of privacy may occur where:

(a) there has been an interference with an individual’s home or family life;

(b) an individual has been subjected to unauthorised surveillance;

(c) an individual’s correspondence or private written, oral or electronic communication has been interfered with, misused or disclosed; or

(d) sensitive facts relating to an individual’s private life have been disclosed.

In addition, the Commission recommended that a plaintiff be required to show that:

(a) there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

(b) the act or conduct complained of is highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities

before a claim can succeed.

Specifically:

CTFM leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah said he would spearhead an effort to provide every assistance to devastated communities, although he was not surprised by the bush fires due to a dream he had last October relating to consequences of the abortion laws passed in Victoria.

He said these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb. Besides providing material assistance, CTFM will commence a seven day prayer and fasting campaign for the nation of Australia tomorrow Wednesday the 11th February.

And further, Danny tells us that he had God on the Heaven hotline during some kind of peyote-type dream:

In my dream I saw fire everywhere with flames burning very high and uncontrollably. With this I woke up from my dream with the interpretation as the following words came to me in a flash from the Spirit of God.

That His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.

If there is a God, one suspects that Danny’s dream is more to do with his final destination than the bushfires. If I ran an organisation called “Catch the Fire” I’d probably have the tact to keep quiet at this point, too.

It was tempting to ignore this completely to avoid publicising in any slight way the sick views of these people. But in the end garbage like this should be dragged out into the light so that they are shown for what they are, cynical opportunists who are prepared to use a terrible event (which should unite the community) to divisively push their hateful message of intolerance. I can only hope that with the dramatic fall of the Bush regime and the tangible shift back towards rationality as the central tenet of Western society, we will see this get the reaction it deserves from our leaders and from the community generally – disgust at irrational and bigoted nonsense, not ‘tolerance’ of ‘religious views’.

Catch the Fire may be a familiar name. That’s because they are the same fundamentalists who received a personalised message from John Howard when he was frantically selling himself to every right wing group of wackos who might conceivably vote for him. Nice work John, you really did the office of PM proud. This is the same Danny Nalliah from Catch the Fire who has previously run as a candidate for Family First, the lunatic fringe party who now seem to be pushing the Government into a mandatory Internet filter via Senator Fielding’s crucial Senate vote.

Old Danny has given us his number, so feel free to use it to tell him what you think:

Danny Nalliah is available for interview on 03 9794 8211 Media contact: Jason Golden on 0404 952 768

Disclaimer: these are my views, and my views only.

Update: here is an ABC Blog on the same topic.  Interestingly, it points to this, which is Danny’s initial “warning” about the fires.  What is deeply disturbing about this blog is that some of the comments posted seems to subtly suggest that if Victoria needs to be punished, maybe the Lord’s followers are going to have to be the ones to inflict that punishment.  For example, “Trevor” says:

Fire will indeed come but not for the reason you have said.

and

Become a father to the fatherless and a friend to the alien. says the Lord. Yes do this and I will save you. I will save you and not as an urchin from a house fire. When you see the fire I start you will smell your clothes and they will be fresh.

Update 2: More on the hilarious antics of Pastor Nalliah and his “magic hands”.

Update 3: Catch the Fire are, of course, Sarah Palin fans, and recount the following, er, ‘prophecy’ to us:

It was at this moment Sarah Palin reached out for me to help her up, and as I was assisting her to stand, I was now face-to-face with her, and God said, “Open up your mouth and I will fill it.”

His crime?  Trying to better the lot of Thais by conducting open dialogue (by way of academic writing) about the flaws in the Thai political system.

As you know, I have been summonsed to Pathumwan police station for questioning at 10.00 am on Tuesday 20th January 2009. I have been accused of Lese Majeste. The charge arises from my book “A Coup for the Rich”, published in 2007. Those found guilty of Lese Majeste face a heavy prison sentence.

1. The Lese Majeste Law in Thailand does not allow the for the proper functioning of a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy, since it restricts freedom of speech and expression and does not allow for public accountability and transparency of the institution of the Monarchy. The Thai population are encouraged to believe that we live under an “ancient system of Monarchy”, a cross between a Sakdina, Absolute and Constitutional Monarchy system.

2. The use of the Lese Majeste Law in Thailand is an attempt to prevent any discussion about one of the most important institutions. It attempts to prevent critical thought and encourage a system of “learning by rote” among the population. For example, once the Monarch has given his blessing to the “Sufficiency Economy”, we are all supposed to accept it and praise it without question. Luckily, this type of brain-washing does not work very well in Thai society, for a society which cannot openly discuss economic and political policies will remain backward and under-developed.

[read the rest here]

This is disgraceful: a Melbourne man, Harry Nicolaides, has been jailed in Thailand for three years for insulting the Thai royal family in a novel he has apparently written.  The conviction is a result of Thailand’s anachronistic “lese majeste” laws, which make insulting the royals an offence punishable by 3-15 years prison.  As this website shows, lese majeste appears to be a tool of choice for the current Thai regime for suppressing dissent and anything else they don’t like. The BBC helpfully gives us the current law:

Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 to 15 years.

It seems like a fairly straightforward case of a backwards country applying antiquated laws to impose a harsh penalty for something which would not raise an eyebrow in any modern and progressive society.  Pen UK has taken up the cause.  Harry himself says:

This is an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ experience. I really believe that I am going to wake up and all of you will be gone. [...] I would like to apologize. This can’t be real. It feels like a bad dream. I respect the king of Thailand. I was aware there were obscure laws (about the monarchy) but I didn’t think they would apply to me.

However, there’s something a little odd about it.  Specifically, that the book in question doesn’t seem to be available anywhere [Edit: ok, it's here, online, but it doesn't seem to be available for purchase anywhere, and seems to be self-published].  It appears that Harry himself has done a bit of self-promoting: here, and here, for instance, wherein his novel is described as:

a trenchant commentary on the political and social life of contemporary Thailand. It is an uncompromising assault on the patrician values of the monarchy, the insidious infiltration of religious missionaries in the education system and the intimate relationship between American foreign policy and Thailand’s battle against Muslim insurrections in the south.

Furthermore, Harry seems to be somethign of a self-styled gonzo journalist – see for example this.  Misinformation and taking advantage of foreign cultural mores seem to be ‘educational’ techniques in his eyes.

Further digging turns up this blog.  Some posts there seem to be suggesting that Nicolaides may have intentionally brought his book to the attention of Thai authorities as a kind of publicity stunt (or perhaps political protest?).  Foreigners have been sentenced and then pardoned in Thailand for this very “crime” before.  Is the whole thing simply a case of appallingly bad timing, given the current upheaval in Thailand, combined with appallingly bad judgment?  I personally know nothing about Nicolaides – is it conceivable that a struggling author with a gonzo bent might tip off the Thai authorities in an ill-conceived attempt to get arrested, convicted, pardoned (or otherwise diplomatically rescued), and then take advantage of the resulting publicity?

Yet more digging shows pre-arrest discussions of Harry’s novel and the likelihood that it would get him into trouble if published in Thailand: here, and here.  For example, from the first link, on 15 June 2005 it was remarked that:

With comments on royalty like that I presume it isnt being printed in Thailand ???

to which a source allegedly in contact with Harry says:

He told me the book may be little controversial, but yes, it is being printed in Thailand.

The second link also allegedly gives us a taste of Harry’s writing, which is, er, interesting (again, please note that I cannot be 100% sure that this is his writing, as the relevant Thai websites have rapidly removed anything relating to him [Edit: see update at the end, it's real]):

June is a bargirl who works in Patong’s Soi Eric. I met her at her bar and have seen her several times over the last month…

June could have walked out of the pages of Nabocov’s salacious and controversial book “Lolita”. She was young, playful and sexually alluring. She aroused prurient thoughts of the illicit defilement of a minor.

She was petite and graceful in proportions, fleet of movement and radiated the innocent charms of a 12 year old girl.

The night of unbridled sexual passion between June and me was as cataclysmic as a tropical storm. Torrid thrusts and tussles of sweaty lovemaking ended in almost complete physical exhaustion. Breathless and sated we embraced. I wiped June’s forehead of perspiration while the small beads of sweat that formed on her upper lip belied a salty hunger for more. Her appetite for sexual fulfillment was insatiable.

The second link also suggests that Harry had plenty of critics in the expat community in Thailand – some of the discussion is downright vitriolic, and there is talk of tipping off his employer as to the anti-royal flavour of his new novel.

In the end it doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t matter if he is a good writer or not, it doesn’t matter what kind of guy he is, it doesn’t even matter whether he deliberately or recklessly got himself into this mess.  What matters at the moment is that a man is in prison for nothing more than exercising free speech and making a poor choice of travel destination, and at the moment he seems to be getting less help from our government than a certain group of convicted drug traffickers in Indonesia.

So please, consider doing what you can to bring attention to his cause – and if you’re Australian, it might (yet again) be time for an email to your local MP or Senator to try to provoke some significant government action.

Update: Wayback machine to the rescue, here are some examples of Harry’s writing:

• Love Under the Tamarind Tree
• Western Union Love (warning: descriptions of torrid and seedy tropical sex within)

Update 2: Thanks to Robert Merkel at Larvartus Prodeo for the link.

And it’s the best form of discrimination too – the kind by private citizens and businesses against other private citizens, so that we can all agree that they are “free” to refuse to accept business from anyone they want in the wonderful “free” market.  Of course if they did that because a person was, say, Catholic, they’d be hauled over the coals for weeks, Inquisition-style.

“The Opposition firmly believes that adult supervision, supported by optional user-end filters, effective law enforcement and education should be front and centre of any efforts to keep children safe online,” he said.

“In relation to criminal conduct online, our nation’s law enforcement bodies must be adequately resourced to monitor and investigate unlawful activity.

“There is no technical substitute for appropriate adult supervision when it comes to keeping our children safe online and most parents and teachers take that responsibility very seriously and any suggestions to the contrary are patronising and offensive,” Senator Minchin said.

“Labor’s plan to implement a mandatory Internet filter at ISP level has been roundly attacked with valid concerns raised about its likely effectiveness, the adverse impact it would have on Internet speeds and performance and also the precise nature of the content the Government plans to filter.

“The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has further fuelled concerns with his talk of filtering not only illegal content, but also unwanted and inappropriate content. This policy proposal is also causing Australia embarrassment internationally, with comparisons to the world’s most repressive regimes,” Senator Minchin said.

Wow… when they talk this way the Liberals don’t even sound like a spineless bunch of socially conservative, economically radical spin merchants.  Maybe they should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the UK Conservatives, who have apparently figured out that:

1. part of true conservatism is minimising the role of government in all respects, not just in terms of controlling huge corporations as they pillage society for everything it’s got; and

2. people quite like it when politicians take principled and rational positions and stick to them.

Left: prohibited Internet content.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Meanwhile this is a nice update on Senator Conroy’s ongoing campaign to deny that he is doing exactly what he is doing, whilst also accusing anyone who disagrees with him (i.e. most people) of “wanting to have access to child porn”.

* Actually the laws are already in place and the technical system appears to have been chosen, so this is really only a policy fight, not a legal one (until someone challenges it, which might not work under our woefully rights-free Constitution).