Stephen Conroy's aim in promoting the Internet filtering system is simple: to knock a few centuries off the time he would otherwise have to spend in Purgatory. This is the nice thing about religiously-motivated decisions: they don't have to make sense or achieve anything tangible whatsoever, they merely have to make you feel good. Billions of taxpayer dollars are about to be spent in an effort to improve Senator Conroy's hypothetical afterlife. Perhaps he can put in a good word for the Prime Minister too, if he gets there first.

Dear Simon Wright and Jon J

Your solutions?

How would you protect our children?

..as well as the broader community from people raised in a culture (an atheist culture no less) that conditions them to follow their base instincts and desires. In other words behave like animals.

So solutions please. Prove me wrong

I'm no expert on this subject, but I think a solution that would please most people would involve a simple filter, similar to what google uses for its image/video search engines. A default setting with moderate filtering, and options to change to strict filtering or to turn it off. The matter of who decides which material gets filtered or not is still another problem altogether, but if there is an option for no filtering it becomes less important.

Grateful,
What specifically do you want proven wrong about? Whether humans are animals? Do you know a guy called runner by any chance?

Perhaps Kevin and Stephen Conroy could use the excess pink bats to filter the net.The result will be the same.

Notice that an article about Lara Bingle gets more attention than this important issue.ISP filtering is all about Govt control.It is the thin end of the wedge.We will not know what they are censoring and will be no different from China.Facism is on the rise.

Stezza wrote: "What specifically do you want proven wrong about? Whether humans are animals? Do you know a guy called runner by any chance?"

Demonstrate that those who oppose this policy have given serious thought to dealing with the issue: protecting children. In other words do they care enough to have put together a serious alternative.

Concerning animals: people cannot choose to model their behaviour on animals and expect civil society not to crumble.

"How would you protect our children?"

Protect them from WHAT? What possible harm is going to come to a child from seeing a few bits of human genitalia put to use? If children are old enough to be interested in sex then they have a right to find out about it; and if they are not interested in sex then they can find some other website. Your assumption that pictures of sex have some magical power to 'harm' children is absurd and completely without evidence.