"...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.

Greg Lees is seriously out of date . Keppler ,Galileo and the burning of some monk in 1600 is a long way removed from filtering the internet in the 21st. century.

But he obviously has not gone chasing pornography, for he has not discovered how easy it is for his grandchildren to unearth some of the most disgusting pictures that are available. And he certainly does not know how addicted small children are to chasing on the net, Nor how modern research tells us how easily even adults are influenced, and how so much more children are.

I suspect, however, that he does not have grandchildren , for no adult, no matter how liberated, would want 8, 10 , 12 year olds to go chasing and encounter the abominable filth put on the net by deranged adults

Severin,

I don’t usually respond to your comments because you have made your opinions quite clear on everything – as you are entitled to – and I have nothing say because you are never going to agree with me, nor I with you.

On the matter of authoritarian Labor’s intended internet censorship, my first post said everything I had to say about internet censorship. Censorship is the theme of the article, not illegal entrants. My response to Briar Rose’s comment stems only from the fact that I think her comment lumping pro-censorship feelings in with anti-illegals is wrong; certainly in my case, and she doesn’t know the feelings of other people well enough to make such a presumptuous statement. Like many people, she is quick to label people as having the same opinions on everything just because she doesn’t like what they say on one or a few subjects. She can get back to me or not, as she wishes.

But, you come along, totally off subject, and give me a lecture – or rather, you “indict’ me for the simple fact of having a liberal attitude to censorship, but a conservative one to illegal entry to Australia.

Any time you want to say anything about any of my posts, have a go at me by all means. But, I suggest that you learn a lot more about people, their ideas and beliefs and how they might not all adopt a one-size-fits-all political stance. There are many of us who do not base our thoughts on what a political party tells us to think; and while we might take a left or right wing stance (for want of a better description) on one issue, it doesn’t mean we take the same stance on another issue.

I’m sure will have ample opportunity to stay on subject and have a go at me in future. Just remember, that I think that you are wrong, just as much you think I’m wrong.

Leigh

If there is one thing we will agree on it is that we are unlikely to concur on much. However, if you had actually read my post you would know we agree on one point on this thread.

I am fully aware that Briar Rose brought the 'red herring' of 'boat people' to the thread. You did not need to respond. That you did and that you consider people seeking asylum as of greater concern than hard core porn struck a nerve. As I am sure it would with many people.

I did not make the generalisation:

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

Briar Rose did.

I am fully aware that everyone holds a variety of (and often contrary) views, therefore, your admonishment to me that:

>> I suggest that you learn a lot more about people, their ideas and beliefs and how they might not all adopt a one-size-fits-all political stance. <<

Was not necessary.

In summary, I agree with your position on Conroy vis a vis internet censorship, from there we part company as there IS porn made at the expense of others - people are harmed, particularly children and this is the issue that needs addressing not internet censorship.

I do hope this is clear enough for you.

My dear Runner. With all due respect, the filter will do nothing to restrict the movement of child exploitation material. This is what people well versed in all things Internet have been telling Conroy since the filters inception. The blo*dy thing simply doesn't and won't work!

This is not about stopping kiddie porn or anything like it. The filter is all about our Government destroying our democratic rights. Surely even you must be concerned about Government 'secret' lists.

Since Labor and the Coalition are on the nose and Family First is a ridiculous joke, I might be tempted to direct my preferences towards the Sex Party. At least they're not burdened by antiquated religious superstition.

I agree completely Greg Lees, I see nothing but an attempt by a corrupt immoral government with a long history of gross misconduct trying to get control of the biggest thorn in its side- the free expression on the internet. Maybe blacklist a few politics sites critical of its policy it can pretend are 'extreme'?

Briar Rose- not really. It WOULD be the same people that want to ban euthanasia, or political viewpoints that are different to themselves. The kind of mentally-sick people that can't sleep well at night unless they feel like their heroes are controlling society. Godwin would forgive me comparing them quite nicely to another society that thought like this.

Peter Bowden- no offense, but children shouldn't be allowed to use the internet AT ALL, due to the ability to do online credit card purchases, political sites and lack of judgement skills to handle online communication with strangers etc- just as they shouldn't be allowed to watch the news, drive, or drink alcohol. Just because some people are bad parents, doesn't mean society must be retarded down to compensate. While we're at it, lets ban cars too, because it's dangerous for kids to drive?

Nothing left to say, the evidence of why the net filter does NOT stop pedophiles accessing child pornography, and a fair bit that it would prevent detective's methods of tracing it to them, has been said a million times.
Sadly I think a good many voters are simply computer illiterate and don't actually understand how the whole thing works.

I'd like to leave with one question- can anyone give a single reason why they would still vote for Labor in the next election, despite this? And still supporting the filter, or simply not liking the Liberals and being too lazy to find another centrist party aren't excuses.

King Hazza

Am not voting Labor or Liberal - Greens and who ever else I deem appropriate to place between Lab/Libs.

BTW

Agree with your post.

Cheers

Peter Bowden, you are pursuing the same hysterical arguments as Conroy and his supporters.

Nobody in their right mind wants children downloading porn from the net. No one in their right mind wants children being used to make porn that is then put on the net.

But what on earth makes you think Conroy's proposal is going to prevent either of those things?

My friend's children are strictly supervised when they use the internet. The only computer they are allowed to use is in the sitting room. There are only certain times when they can use it, and only when there's an adult to supervise.

Maybe you need to suggest similar measures to your grandchildren's parents.

Or do you expect governments to take over personal responsibilities such as this?

I forgot to add that I apologise for lumping in people who want the boats stopped with people who want an internet filter, and in one fell swoop, managing to deeply offend both parties.

I do know that there are categories of ignorance, and it doesn't do to muddle them all up.

It's simple.

Rudd did a deal with the ACL, thinking they'd deliver him votes from far right loonies of evangelical goonmobs that parade around as moral guardians for all the rest of us.

Conroy wears Opus Dei undies, and supports Rudd's crippled view of the world.

The ACL tells Rudd what to do, or did anyway, and Rudd has his cabinet deliver the goods.

Watch the latest ACL video, where Jim Wallace list the five 'top' election priorities, it's a hoot: http://vimeo.com/13721045

Heavens above!

All he wants, apart from a full time school chaplain in every school, is more and more censorship.

Rudd, the ACL and Conroy sem to prefer to live in a theocracy, like the one we are fighting against in Afghanistan.

They despise 'democracy', and all that goes with it.

Furthermore, Peter Bowden, I have been using the internet since we got an internet and I have never once come across porn of any kind.

Your use of the word "chasing" is odd, but probably accurate as in my experience I would have to be "chasing" it in order to find it.

From what I've been told, porn sites like many other sites require payment before they let you see the images. So one would have to be on a mission, wouldn't one, to get any further than the "teasers?"

Those who argue for a filter never mention these facts, to hear them you'd think every time you clicked on Google you were inundated with porn.

Which suggests that the problem of porn and its consumption needs to attacked from some other angle, and that its availability on the www is a symptom rather than a cause.
Just stopping nut jobs from downloading it isn't stopping the nut jobs getting it elsewhere.

If anyone comes up with a way of preventing it being uploaded in the first place, I'd be supporting that. But don't forget, with the exception of child pornography, not everyone agrees on what is and isn't pornographic.

Given the last Prime Minister's stupid attack on Bill Henson, I wouldn't be wanting any government to be making those kind of judgement calls for the rest of us.

briar rose, Peter Bowden is dead right about children and the whole "I have been using the internet since we got an internet and I have never once come across porn of any kind" only shows that you have either never had kids or never given a s#*t what they were up to. The whole idea that you would stop children using the internet is equivalent to the whole argument that the article follows. When ever children are near the thing they are always looking for that word they can change to get what they want. While helping a school class use the net the students were asked to search for "french language" the boys of course googled "french laugerie" wow what a bonanza, a good 30 seconds of inappropriate pictures.
The internet may well be equal to the explosion of books with the invention of the printing press but the internet has one very special feature that books don't. Misinformation!! Even now a book that lacks credibility will be quickly lost as it won't go for reprint or will be withdrawn. The rubbish on the net goes on and on for pages, constantly being renewed and redone with the greater majority of it being crap. Google any subject that you have real knowledge of and if the first two pages aren't crap i will be amazed.
The real problem the net has is accountability, you can say anything with out being responsible for what you have said or the cause you are championing. I may not particularly agree with censorship but the net needs to be built again and some serious accountability built in. Enough fairy fanciers telling people that immunisation is bad for your kids, you should at a minimum have to have qualifications in public health to comment and back it with credible research. It is often the same with news coverage, a big storey brakes it's out there fast and then it is found to be wrong. no apology or clarification it just gets withdrawn.

The most effective way to protect children is education and supervision while on the internet. The responsibility is with the parents to do this, or use the software already available that blocks these sites. Those against the filter are not pro-childporn!

nairbs' comparison of the internet to books is interesting...
"Even now a book that lacks credibility will be quickly lost as it won't go for reprint or will be withdrawn"

Top 3 published books:
1. The Bible
2. Quotations from Chairman Mao (the little red book)
3. The Koran

Lacking credibility indeed.

Perhaps censorship of book publishing should be considered!

Cheers Severin- I personally treat any party that feels the need to intervene in what people can access to such a paternalistic manner to hold a rather frightening state of mind- and automatically placed on the southern side of the ballot- if that means placing the shooters 4th and 5th to get the others at the bottom, so be it!

No problem Briar- I fully agree. But I believe it would be fair to differentiate the two concerns of borders/filtering. One is the belief that eased border security would risk allowing dangerous persons into the country- the other (beyond child/bestial porn) is an obsession with what other Australians do in their own homes and what information they should be allowed to know, based on absolutely no course of logic.

Ditto Blue Cross and Stezza- also completely agree.

Niarbe- I also stated that children should not use the internet and why. You only support my argument and every statement around it. Also, navigating information on the internet requires a brain, critical-thinking. It's more like letting your children catch a bus and spend the night somewhere- if you don't think they can handle it you shouldn't LET THEM DO IT. On the internet you tell the stupid kids to NOT BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ- something they should be taught anyway. It should not rely on a (supposedly) impartial (and somehow omnipotent) power to split the truth from the lies, thankyou- it's up to the big boys and girls of society to learn it for themselves.

Conroy's policies are the most frightening breach of privacy I have seen outside of authoritarian regimes such as Iran or China.

Why is this not an election issue?

Western governments only decided they had an 'obligation' to educate people after an expanding franchise gave the vote to many people who had had no formal education. Since then they have been walking a fine line between educating people enough to vote rationally, but not quite enough to see through the lies and manipulations necessary to keep any party in power. Obviously the Internet represents a real threat to that politically optimal level of ignorance, and so governments have to try and assert their independence and control over it. Senator Conroy is only the latest -- certainly not the last -- in a long line of administrators desperate to keep control of their murky secrets.

Spot on, Greg Lees. The filter is highly likely to be a ploy to stop free flow of information about a whole lot of things,

and will not stop despicable child porn which is mostly peer-to-peer.

The comments here are enlightening

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/internet-filter-puts-the-common-good-first-20100729-10x38.html

One concern is the current influence of the Cathlic church in the Liberal Party, hence the chance they may run with "the Filter" if elected.

does anyone know their policy?

Briar Rose,

“I do know that there are categories of ignorance, and it doesn't do to muddle them all up.”

You really are a nasty little thing.

Severin,

Thanks for yet another lecture. I shudder to think that you might be somebody’s mother-in-law.

Unfortunately while I am competent with using computers I am not a techno-whiz as far as the intracacies of filters etc.

In principle I agree with removing illegal content from the web as it is not legal in any other form, child porn being the most obvious.

If the issue is the filter will not stop children accessing inappropriate sites or the scourge of child porn then we need to look at other ways to do this.

I have always argued for two feeds. One unfiltered and one filtered to exclude porn for those who have children where it is impossible to constantly monitor children on the Net as much as one tries between being a modern 'working family' and a 'contributor' to economic growth (taking tongue out of cheek now).

I do think some of the comments above about government interference in our lives is a bit OTT. We are not living in China and while the blacklist was definitely the wrong approach, any themes to be blocked should be totally transparent and should not include legal content that might be contentious or uncomfortable such as abortion, euthanasia etc.

The issue is choice for parents and I am biased as I have been a parent from the beginning of the Internet age and have experienced some of the problems and issues.

Pelican, I should point out that pornography is not so easy to stumble upon by accident, may be filtered with commercial filters already in existence and available at stores, online etc. The problem is, all sites are required to declare themselves adult-only sites or general viewing sites (which affects how they show up in web-searches) to fall on the right side of the law. If someone were to wrongly place pornographic material on a general site, and this would not be detectable by commercial filters, there is no basis to assume a government filter will be any different.

Also, you state that illegal material should be banned. Child pornography is an obvious one. Pornography or exploitative/abusive material for enjoyment consumption like bestiality is another;
But then it becomes very hard to draw the line.

Things like hate-speech, photos of political violence or abuse, scandals, hate-preachers, guides on euthanasia, grizzly photos of civilian casualties in a warzone might also come under 'illegal', but add an extra precedent that it would be more important people are able to verify and understand such things existing, than continue on blind to them. To block such material starts a rather dangerous precedent.

stezza, well blew a big whole in that argument, i had totally forgotten the ignorant fundamentalists that do what ever they can to destroy education and knowledge in our societies. I do think Runner might have something to say on that.
King Hazza, you are depending on the general public to be intelligent. Sadly this is the one thing that i have found the public not to be. They generally allow themselves to be influenced by the mentality of the local shopping mall and the nightly news. These will all supply the miss information that i was talking of and is why we always seem to have poor chices at election time between dumb and dumber.

King Hazza is right. There are many ways for deviants to get around filters of any sort on the internet.

If we agree to filters for child porn etc, we will find that there will be some other sites that will also be affected- leading to our right to freely surf the net for whatever we legally want.

We don't want to live in a society where the Government decides what we can and can not see on the internet.

It should be up to parents to decide what internet filters are appropriate for all children in their own household.

The government would be better placed to seek out and jail all those deviants who search for kiddie porn and the like, rather than destroying everyone else's internet experience in a democratic country.

Suzeonline

>>The government would be better placed to seek out and jail all those deviants who search for kiddie porn and the like, rather than destroying everyone else's internet experience in a democratic country.<<

To which I would add seeking out the producers of child porn - stop the trade at the source.

“The free flow of information is the free flow of creative energy that enriches and enhances a society, giving it the chance to transform itself into something that was before unimagined. To this potential wonder, there is no place for Senator Conroy and his dread dark age vision.”

If we consider the internet merely a new or another way of people communicating, we see it as an evolution in letter writing, books and all the individual pleasure and enrichment that brings.

To the exploitation of children

There are cheap software tools parents can acquire which limit THEIR children’s access to “dangerous” sites, those of either a salacious X rated nature or where predators might lurk such as chat rooms etc.

I note “THEIR Children”, not Senator Conroy’s children.

When tools exist for parents to safely supervise their children, we do not need a state enforced nanny, who will censor the internet and restrict the free flow of ideas for adults, as well as children, under the spurious disguise of protecting juveniles.

Another point, if we care for young children, we do not send them off alone into public parks where deviants might lurk we go with them. So too the way of keeping your kids safe on the internet is to be with them when they explore, instead of using the internet as a cheap alternative to a tutor or child minder.

Censorship is censorship and it has always been applied for the wrong purpose, simply because it is an opportunity for the abuse of power by those who seek to enforce their right to regulate others.

I would suggest everyone make it an election issue

It is your “right of choice” which you are talking about

Vote Labor for Censorship without Choice

Vote Liberal to retain your freedom to have a Choice

Nairbe, either which way you put it, the internet is definitely poised to help people become wiser and better informed, and most importantly, more capable of independent thought- especially when you compare the level of knowledge (and access to knowledge) we have now, as compared to the good ol' 90s where the media was the ONLY source of up-to-date information about the world (give or take 6 months) we had, and their opinions were the only ones being heard.

Sadly such an arrangement just doesn't reel in the volumes of suckers that so many got rich on in the past, and so naturally such an arrangement would have a lot of enemies. I don't normally make historical comparisons, but this is very precisely close to the Mandarins of the last Chinese Empire trying to stop the broader public getting an education and weaken their own privileged spot over society. Labor being an entity that clearly, relies DEARLY on ignorant suckers to survive.

Aimee

you write

'My dear Runner. With all due respect, the filter will do nothing to restrict the movement of child exploitation material. This is what people well versed in all things Internet have been telling Conroy since the filters inception. The blo*dy thing simply doesn't and won't work!'

I can only comment on the concept of stopping child porn. Labour has a very poor record in installing pink bats and building school buildings so you might have a point. However the opponents to the filter are obviously going to scream that the filter does not work. Many scumbags make millions from the pervert industry and no doubt these are among the loudest opponents. Whether it works or not I doubt whether you or me are able to discern. There is no doubt that the reduction of porn albeit slight will be a reduction in children being molested.

Runner, I ask how perverts would "make millions (assumably money)" out of internet child porn, when material online not only tends to be free, but would even more likely be free with pedophiles because to pay for it would require GIVING YOUR DETAILS AND BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION.
No really, do you seriously never think?

Explain how a pervert will make a transaction ONLINE without providing information (or otherwise we would have the answer right there- just read the receipts and you can bag every pedophile around the world).

I'm now convinced that the few average people who endorse nanny-state measures are thick as bricks, and need the government to do this because they seriously are too stupid to figure out simple things by themselves.