"...Senator Conroy's mission to filter the internet..... has little or nothing to do with child abuse and everything to do with political control."

Nothing more needs to be said.

"Perhaps Ulhmann's theory on our governments proclivity to secrecy is founded on a sense of deep insecurity, that if the people really knew the caper it was, the politicians would lose their credibility, and then their legitimacy."

In my opinion both major parties have already lost credibility and legitimacy in my eyes!

I was once a member of the Labor Party, but I resigned in disgust because of several of their policies, however I continued to vote for them. Not any more!

This filtering idea is a shocker. It's one of the main reasons I REFUSE to vote for Labor this time around. I've written to my local member Darren Cheeseman about this issue and got in reply a short, cheap email without any commitment which simply said my concerns would be passed onto the minister responsible. Cheeseman most certainly won't get my vote either.

When the only choice is between two stale old political parties which do nothing to make Governance of this once great country interesting, then I'll have to find another alternative altogether.

This filtering idea is an insult to intelligent Internet users. The greatest pity of all is that Conroy's seat is so safe, there doesn't appear to be any way to get rid of this party grub.

I think I have seldom come across a more insulting and despicable attack on freedom than Conroy's insane determination to filter the internet.

And it is insane to persist in an objective when there is so much evidence to demonstrate the objective is unrealisable and unrealistic.

I have a suspicion that the voters who support Conroy in his mad mission are the same voters who want to stop the boats. It's the same mind set.

It must be extremely difficult for parents to protect children against undesirable internet content, and I have a lot of sympathy with that. But the responsibility to censor remains with individual users.

Child pornography is a vile thing. I don't believe trying to filter it in Australia will make any difference, because there will always be ways around the restrictions as there are always ways around every restriction. And you can't control a whole society based on the perversions of some of it's members.

Briar Rose,

"I have a suspicion that the voters who support Conroy in his mad mission are the same voters who want to stop the boats. It's the same mind set."

Your suspicion is wrong, and it is not the "same mind set". I oppose cenorship in any form; but I am totally opposed to illegal boat arrivals.

Leigh

>> I oppose cenorship in any form; but I am totally opposed to illegal boat arrivals. <<

Now before I comment on your statement above I want to be clear; Conroy's plan is a total waste of time, from what I understand child porn is available irrespective of the mainstream internet. However, child porn along with torture porn should remain illegal.

I am opposed to children being detained in refugee camps indefinitely, the harm from living like a prisoner is equal if not worse than the harm caused by a paedophile. Therefore, I believe asylum seekers require swift and humane assessment. That you would oppose asylum seekers along with "any form" of censorship is a dire indictment on you.

Children are starving in third world countries, refugee camps and/or being sold as sex slaves and much worse. While internet censorship is not the answer, you really need to think through what you are saying.

Its hard to find pluses for the current Labour party. This is one of them. Anything that restricts porn and the inevitable child abuse that accompanies it is a good thing.