It could be, but US has much more influence on the world, and it used to be the beacon of freedom. So all this is happening in the country that was supposed to be the most free in the world. Whether it's more fascist or less fascist than other countries, that's besides the point. They are already fascist enough, and the trend is going up, not down. And the fact that this is happening, while it's still the most powerful country in the world, scares the hell out of everyone else.
No, the US narrative is that it thinks the rest of the world looks on it as a beacon of freedom. A lot of countries do not think "do what the USA does" is a good idea. (Just look at labour law or socialism for one example)
I's sorry, what? Can you please provide some examples of developments in Australia that in any way match what the parent was describing? Or have you been misled to believe that our Internet is filtered in any way?
Australia has the sanest political climate of any developed country I've lived in, in large part thanks to compulsory and preferential (ranked) voting. Sure there's things like the manufactured boogeyman of "boat people", the lingering spectre of racism, and increasingly vocal tea-party-like factions, but not nearly to the same extent as in the US, UK, or even Canada.
There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave. It's a form of making censored Internet subscriptions cheaper than Internet Freedom subscriptions that will lead those ISPs to exit market. Heard of NBN? What if the government says that ISPs must have 'appropriate criminal filters' in place to be eligible for NBN access? Look to UK for more (Remember Wikipedia being blocked?).
Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament (USA/UK need to ask). It's controversial to be in the parties and support parliamentary requirement to go to war.
There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours are abound that they are discussing ways to use the piracy phenomenon as a form of economic bogeyman to spy on small businesses for the big businesses. Not only that, but there's implications that the government likes the ability to spy and restrict opposition groups. Even The Pirate Bay colourfully said that copyright lobby is so powerful that ISPs are forced to attend 'optional meetings to discuss ways of reducing copyright infringement'.
Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy? It's per infringement, so 100 pictures can easily become a $132k fine.
> There's mandatory Internet censorship in Australia, in a sense that it's funded by the government and users have no choice except to leave.
This is simply not true. There are two ISPs: Telstra and Optus, who voluntarily block websites from a list provided by the government. However, I don't know anyone who actually uses those ISPs, and they're more expensive to boot. The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court. They're also cheaper, and in my experience provide superior customer service.
If the government decides to impose restrictions on NBN access, the latter group of ISPs are highly likely to fight it in court, and are quite likely to win.
And furthermore, given the fragile position the Labor party is currently in, it has shelved its plans for mandatory filtering, and is unlikely to reintroduce them, as it alienates their voter base, who are increasingly driven toward the Green Party, which is now in a position of significant influence and vocally opposes Internet censorship.
> Both parties have been known to support the ability to declare war without parliament
While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books.
> There's many secret copyright enforcement meetings and rumours
They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia.
> Did you know that police can now issue $1320 on-the-spot fines and confiscate all electronic equipment deemed involved in piracy?
No I did not, and could not find any sources to corroborate that, nor examples of such fines actually being issued. Can you provide some links to that effect?
> The other major ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, have no intention of implementing the filter, and in fact actively and successfully fight government interference in court.
They may be expensive in some aspects, but they have a duopoly over cable among other competitive advantages. Even gamers/buyers like it due to lower ping in some cases.
iiNet and Internode are becoming one ISP, so they're two brands soon. iiNet seems to offer policing users with copyright infringement notices as a compromise due to relentless lobbyists. Again, I believe these compromises are a result of political tactics of Door in Face technique [1] and Overton window technique [2].
Labor party does not care if there's many surveys, polls, rallies against it. They're still considering the mandatory filter. I have similar concerns about the Liberal party wanting an Internet filter since they publicly stated that Labor's Internet Filter is not effective enough. Fortunately, they are not accepting an Internet Filter for now.
> While Australia doesn't require parliamentary approval to go to war, the countries that do, the US in particular, don't seem to pay that rule much heed, so I'm not sure how much would change if such a rule was on the books.
Democrats and Republicans jointly voted for the Iraq War. I'm not sure why you say they're avoiding that. Labor party was vocal in their opposition to Iraq war. If they were actually trying to gain votes, then well done. Seems like a cheap tactic that would be absolved with the parliamentary requirement.
> They can meet in secret as much as they want, but fortunately, they cannot pass laws in secret. Until a bill is introduced, such meetings are of no concern, nor are they in any way unique to Australia.
There are secret international collaborative exercises such as ACTA that erode Internet Freedom that were only initially exposed due to Wikileaks. That said, the results of such secret meetings, the government comes out adamant that copyright is a fundamental right over Internet Freedom and other rights.
This trend appears to be happening in Canada, UK, and EU simultaneously. The G8 are coordinating their authoritarian efforts in a way that is completely unprecedented. Like a lot of things the US is probably the one pushing for this on its "friends".
I feel things have calmed down in the UK on that front since TB got booted out. Personally I thought the height of that was when David Blunkett was home secretary.
Who authorised the police to use water cannon and fire arms on protesters in the UK then? Your comment looks like political bias. Both governments ratchet up the attacks on its people. Government is the problem, not which one.
I think its about time to realise that the ruling classes see it as us and them. We the people are the enemy of governments. It does not matter which party we are talking about.
