> 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 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?