The Filtering Bluff Revisited

A few days ago, I postulated that Stephen Conroy has to be bluffing with his pledge to “make changes at the classification board level” to get around what seems like an impassable road block in the Senate, thanks to the Coalition, Greens, and Nick Xenophon pledging to block any filter legislation.

As I suggested in the first article, such action would be a massive blight on the democratic process in this country, but just now, another thought came to mind.

If Senator Conroy believes that it is POSSIBLE to circumvent any possible outcome of a Senate vote on the legislation, and that his filtering proposal is such a good idea – in the light of all the opposition to the plan, why has he not circumvented the parliamentary process, and sought these changes at the “classification board level” already?

Hmmm. I’m now more convinced than ever that he’s bluffing, in line with my previous article. He should just keep on censoring his own contact details, and realise that he won’t succeed.

  • Conroy said that he was having changes made by the censorship board to make it more palatable for the senate to vote on it, not to bypass it. I rand and spoke with the reporter doing the interview to make sure. As much as the policy repulses me to the bone, Conroy is being misquoted by any suggestion that he will bypass the senate.

    He just hopes changing the scope of what is being censored will make all the difference. I think we all know that it will not.

  • And Michael, if you believe in an open internet… turn the moderation/approval of comments off on your blog 🙂

  • Perhaps that is right – but he is still rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to give the impression of not making a backflip over the policy before the election. I doubt that the detractors would be swayed in any way.

    Both the Greens and the Coalition state that home-based filters are their stated position.

  • I only choose to moderate to ward off spam – I’ve never blocked or deleted a single comment made. 🙂

  • Agreed. I only argue that the Senate circumvention is a misquote. Open Internet folk like you and I must remain with the facts, else he disregards our entire argument due to one factual error.

    And don’t worry, The filter will NEVER pass the senate.

  • I know it won’t – as my initial “bluff” article suggests, he just doesn’t want to deliver another ALP backflip.

    My point that he could have already “made these changes” already – (let’s remember, it’s been THREE years) – also stands. He’s performing CPR on what is almost a corpse.