//The de-regulated expansion of the online child sexual abuse industry is one of the more nefarious manifestations of late-capitalism//

Excuse me? You look for a whipping boy, and the first one you come up with is Capitalism? Oh, those people out there abusing these women aren't to blame, it's those greedy ISPs, wanting to make their filthy money. Now excuse me while I go back to my flat panel monitor and high speed ADSL. Grow up, the real people to blame are those out there MAKING this cr*p, they won't be stopped from doing that by blocking access to the site. Go out there and catch these sickos rather than sitting and complaining that your search for sex returned results for.. SURPRISE! SEX

And, for those interested, the rebuttal:

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/googling-sex-online-opinion-response/

Just because you find something offensive does not mean you can call it child pornography.

The site clearly states that only adults are employed.

The site backs up this claim by linking their company names to the site and videos.

Despite these FACTS you prefer to proffer your claims that under age actors were used, and your basis for making these claims seems to be nothing more than your “spidey – sense” telling you that there must be children involved. Correct me if I am wrong, I would love to see any EVIDENCE you have of child abuse, any at all.

For someone claiming to be doing Post Doctoral research in the area of Censorship you have a serious deficit in knowledge regarding the topic. Before you submit any papers for grading I strongly suggest you visit and read http://libertus.net/

The reason why the ACMA may take action on your complaint has nothing to do with child pornography. The current Australian video Classification scheme forbids BDSM, fetishes and coercion. It is this forbidding of coercion under the Classification Scheme that allows the ACMA to take action regarding this site.

If you were properly researched in Australian Censorship you would know that this kind of material is not allowed in videos. It is however allowed in books and magazines, and has been for decades, and there are currently no plans to censor print media in the same way as video and the Internet. So, even if you are able to have the Internet censored the material which you personally find offensive will still be available for purchase in books and magazines.

In short, you have NOT found child pornography. And, the fact that you have found something that offends you is NO excuse to impose censorship on the rest of us.

'In other words, I have to pay a corporation to make sure that I am not traumatised by online child sexual abuse images.'

Hahahaha. Well, one option you may have missed is not searching for the material and clicking on the link. I have to wonder about your google settings too.

While I cant fathom the mindset of the target audience of that disgusting site you wrote the promo for (I wonder if you should be censored or locked up for reproducing it), until you have proof that the women involved were not acting and were under 18 I think you have zero legs to stand on.

You simply cant censor a fantasy. Or else Nancy Friday would be in huge trouble!

Dyler Turden,

Great name!

'It’s no different to television stories entreating us that crime is out of control by showing an undercover investigative reporter pretending to stagger up Kings Cross at three in the morning waving his wallet, and filming the results.'

So, so Funny.

I wrote a pretty annoyed yet comprehensive blog post at http://libertarianchimp.blogspot.com/2009/08/googling-sex-returns-sex-videos-o-oh.html

So you used a search engine to look for sex and found sex? Bloddy amazing! Did you expect search results for research into the eating habits of the Indian brown cockroach?

Try re-selecting safe search in Google, Yahoo or Bing: it's ON by default in all the major search engines and needs to be manually disabled by choice of the user. Use the facilities that are already in place before making unsupported wild claims of this nature.

My google results differ enormously from those you claim and I have search on the "medium" setting, not the default "safe".

What a beat up and crock of nothing.