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.

That this legislation would do anything to protect our kids is one of the worst kept lies ever:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/australia-on-internet-watchlist-with-iran-north-korea-20100312-q23p.html

Only those with no IT knowledge would swallow that drivel.

All the filtering of rubbish and undesirable sites can be done by parents with good ant-iviral packages.The money would be better spend on improving these.

Let parents decide what their children should see and keep big brother where he belongs; ie, in communist totalitarian states.

Jon J wrote:
QUOTE: "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.
UNQUOTE

Well of course pictures influence people’s attitudes and behaviour. Just ask the advertising industry.

The question is: What are WE, not just our children, being taught? How are WE being conditioned?

If there is one single message that can be identified it is that people are to be treated as objects of sexual gratification.

This message is all pervasive. It is the main method by which businesses seek to generate demand for their products. It is the message delivered just by visiting, or simply passing by, the local newsagent, with the female body plastered everywhere to sell everything from soap to cars.

Even if the internet was closed down altogether, the message remains: people are to be treated as objects of sexual gratification.

Others have argued that at the end of the day are we not just animals? This implies that base instincts are to reign and not to be bounded by higher values and institutions that define a civilised society.

What you see on the internet is as much an affect as a cause. It allows people to engage their fantasies in public but with some degree of anonymity. But these are fantasies of people with no care for the consequences of propagating attitudes that, at the end of the day, will just undermine civilised society.
cont...1/2

cont...2/2

And before you exclaim that i have indeed lead a sheltered life, in fact the opposite is true. For a start, I know what it is like to grow up in an atheist household where the only rule is “there is no right or wrong”.

Now my view is that marriage is the channel through which intimate behaviour should take place, because it provides a framework in which rights and obligations can be clearly understood and agreed to.

This is the only type of message that will at the end of the day put the genie back in the bottle. It may dent the advertising revenue Magazines, TV and IPs ...but tough! The kids are more important.

grateful,

You are assuming that this is really about pornography rather than government control of information, as in China, Iran, and the other countries that practice internet censorship. You should take a look at what is actually proposed. The government can ban any site that it likes, even this one, regardless of whether it contains pornography. The temptation to shut up political opponents or to stop damning information from reaching the public is likely to be too great to resist. Power corrupts. The list of banned sites is to be secret, even though there will be penalties for linking to such sites, and there will be no appeal.

There would be risks even if the power to ban were restricted to pornography. Governments have form on this. The Comstock laws in the US and similar laws in Britain (in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) were used to prevent information on contraception from being distributed to the masses, using the pretext that it was obscene. (The elite were worried that their supply of cheap labour would dry up if ordinary people could control their fertility.) Then there is the Well of Loneliness case. The book was banned in the UK as obscene, even though it contained no explicit sex. It was deemed objectionable because it advocated tolerance for homosexuals.

Loss of our freedom of speech is a very high price to pay so that you can save a few dollars on Net Nanny and avoid having to discuss the issue of internet pornography with the parents of your children's friends.

Divergence, you say "Loss of our freedom of speech is a very high price to pay so that you can save a few dollars on Net Nanny and avoid having to discuss the issue of internet pornography with the parents of your children's friends."

You have obviously thought seriously about the issue and are sincere in you view.

However, lets be clear: I am not trying to avoid spending money on a Net Nanny. We discuss with our children the obsession this society has has with the flesh and the reasons for it; Just ask anyone involved in marketing how difficult it would be trying to sell most products to pruds such as myself :-).

In additon, we mix with families who do not have this childish obsession and so there is no need to convinc them of need for a net nanny: most, including myself, don't even have a TV!

Unfortunately, there are people who express views such as:
"Let parents decide what their children should see and keep big brother where he belongs; ie, in communist totalitarian states.Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 14 March 2010 11:22:34 AM"

when there are people around who believe:

"
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.Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 14 March 2010 5:58:43 AM"

In my view such people really have to grow up and think a bit more of the consequences of their actions for the community as whole as well as their children. As i have said, i know from personal experience the damage that is done.

cont...

cont..

I can agree with you on the government, although my understanding is that they are simplying trying to apply the same censorship laws to the internet as other media.

Unfortunately these days with the spread of the atheist creed of "no right & not wrong", there enough people in the community who cannot be relied upon to do the right thing (such as buy a net nanny or speak to their children's friends parents about do so)..something which i think the above quotes exemplify.

So one has to choose between the lesser of the two evils....at least until atheists wake up to themselves, realise what a mess they are making of society and admit they are not so smart afterall.

grateful,

"the atheist creed of "no right & not wrong", Where do you get this drivel?

With 15000 children abuse by the church in Ireland alone since the 30s, I think society is far better off.

Shadow minsiter,

i would be last person to advise people to go to church

Concern the atheist creed: I was raised on that drivel. Perhaps a more astute athiest would argue that there is right and wrong based on some utilitarian concept, but they lack a clear criterion and methodology for the difficult choices. But this is off the topic.