No rational person would support an internet filter AT ALL.
A quick rundown:

-sites, forums and networks for extreme illegal interests like pedophiles and snuff enthusiasts, the only material with a moral premise for banning- would merely result in these people unsatisfied without their online fix. In the past we have caught these people (in particular, the ones actively engaging in the behaviour) by detectives accessing these networks and luring them in.

-Plans for making bombs, weapons? Too easy- anyone can make a gun or hand-to-hand weapon- and you'd learn enough bomb-making advice from high-school chemistry. And again, detectivework helps nab terrorists by tracking reciepts of people that purchased huge amounts of fertiliser and ignition material- but don't have a landclearing/replantation career.

-Extreme preaching? Most important to NOT be censored!
I don't know about you but I'm more comfortable being able to understand what these people say instead of not even hearing about it.
Think about it- if a terrorist attacked us and made a statement, wouldn't YOU want to know why?

The ONLY thing worth censoring is police information prior to arrests and military intelligence not associated with any scandals or illegal acts- which we already do quite successfully.

Excellent article.

Of course, I agree with Arved von Brasch that the main threat is the power that it gives to Governments to censor, at will, sites that it considers a threat, and that should be the major focus of the anti-Internet Filtering campaign.

Nevertheless it is most helpful to also understand the technical problems posed by Filtering and I congratulate Arved for having explained them so well. Now, we can all understand what the truth behind Conroy's claims of the success of the trials.

---

Have any polls been taken on this issue? I believe I heard once that the overwhelming majority were opposed. Even if not, that would change very quickly if there was a proper public debate on this. So there is no way that this legislation should stand any chance of becoming law in a properly functioning democracy.

About three weeks ago, I learnt from a member of Greens Senator Scott Ludlam's staff that they are, in fact, expecting the Liberals and Nationals to back away from their previous strong opposition.

I had put in an e-mail to Senator Ludlam early last year that they simply move a motion in the Senate that it be put to a referendum. However when I phoned his office around September last year, I was told that opposition by the Coalition to filtering was practically guaranteed. Implicitly, it seemed that there was not urgent need for a referendum motion to be put. This still made me nervous that, at a coming election, many voters would face an impossible choice (even if only on a two-party-preferred basis) between the Coalition on the one had with its past record of Work Choices, the Iraq War, Telstra privatisation, etc. and the Labor party on the other hand with Mandatory Internet Filtering. Nevertheless, I did not pursue further my request that a motion for a referendum be put at that stage.

Now, that has changed.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The serious risk that Internet Filtering could soon become law should be considered unacceptable, even, if, for example, the rough edges were to be softened by, for example, Labor Senator Kate Lundy's proposed amendments.

Yet, when I put to one of Scott Ludlam's staffers, two weeks ago on the phone that they should go ahead and move a motion for a referendum, as I had urged earlier, she told me that Scott Ludlam would not.

Why I asked?

Because, she told me they did not expect that it would be carried.

I should have asked her how she knew that.

Furthermore, since then, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has suggested that her Government's health system reforms be put to a referendum at the Federal elections. Surely, especially now, a motion for a referendum on Mandatory Internet Filtering at this year's Federal Election could hardly be depicted as unreasonable.

If the Coalition were to vote against such a motion, then surely that would give the Greens a perfect opportunity to differentiate themselves positively from the Coalition and gain a large number of votes at their expense as well as at the expense of the Labor Party.

And if the Coalition were to agree, then better still. The public would assuredly drive a large blunt stake through the heart of Mandatory Internet Filtering at the referendum. The Greens should still expect do very well from a grateful public and certainly would do a lot better than if they were to remain on their current trajectory.

How could the Greens lose?

Why won't they seize this opportunity with both hands?

That is an excellent article .

While I normally would be against any sort of censorship , my attitude to Net Censor/Filtering was set in concrete in favor .
I don't like the Porn sites that exploit very young ladies even if they are "age of consent".

In my view it is absolutely "Bent" to have what looks like a child about Height 5 ft coupled up to a giant Afro , blood visible .
This is sick and extremely cruel , the aficionado's of this stuff need help .
The other issue here is "Fisting" here the aficionado's are satisfying their lust for blatant "Cruelty" , by any Judgment these situations should not happen and should not be allowed to continue .

The 'Net' is impossible to Police so some other way needs to protect victims possibly living next door to you .

'Age of Consent' caters for 'normal' situations in Life , exploitation is different , should A of C be different for explicit Visual Art's ? Definitely Police-able , might fit into international law enforcement if somebody can decide at what age these Transgressions against Humanity can take place ?

You are right Conroys Gigabite motor mower will not work , unfortunatly .

You are right Shazbaz. When I consider that people acting on socialist political opinion have been responsible for the deaths of over 150 million people in the last hundred years, and many people openly profess socialist opinions online today, definitely that should be banned too.

Also, I think lots of things online are "Bent" too, so they should be banned, right?

Great article. Secrecy + censorship can only lead to evil.
Manorina has it spot on...Control.
I'd go so far to say our culture is threatened by new radicals.
Folks used to say "its a free country" and mean it, and be proud of it.
We now find it acceptable for folks to want more control than is appropriate for us, and for them. Why would anyone want such control?
It started with prohibition which has proven that unethical yet profitable wars can be everlasting, ever growing and become "unseen" in the sense that folks no longer believe there is an alternative.
Do folks remember the media lead-up to the Iraq war? How would you like that sort of "single message" approach to be applied to the net?
Downright scary that Conroy and his fellow censors hasn't been pulled into line on this one. (I suspect that Liberal and Labour have the tax-free religious groups driving this one. Greens may be the only secular way to vote now. Bummer.)