Ah but that is exactly the nub of the problem.

The internet is in no way like TV. In TV and radio, the selection of material is in the hands of the producers, and this can easily be controlled.

The internet is more difficult to filter even than the mail, as encryption, bit torrents and mirror sites can not only mask the packages , but also where they come from. Also site like Wikipedia and face book have content that is user driven, and constantly changing.

A filter at best can only filter out some of the presently known sites from those that are technically illiterate.

So essentially only those not actually looking for the information will be partially protected from bumping into it, those that want to bypass the system can do so in a heartbeat.

Too right Michael- I also take issue to the fact that the authorities that decide what we can and can't watch have some incredibly odd views about what is appropriate viewing.
For TV- nudity, the F-word and the one-finger salute are so damaging they are actually considered controversial- yet it's ok to market a drugged up pop-star dressed provocatively and straddling every object or person in the room, directly TO kids. And of course, the nudity and salute are suddenly ok if a blurry box is placed over the specific offending appendages, and the F-word is no big deal if there is a beep over the vowel?

In short, I'm not even touching the notion of how much higher authorities have right to regulate what we can and can't watch until there are even people amongst them remotely qualified to do it- ones that aren't shallow, short-sighted wowsers but actually balanced people with a grasp on reality.

Anyway, Pelican- there are only TWO things that actually do warrant censoring on the net- child pornography, and gratuitous torture/murder footage lacking importance to the public- which require a very careful scope to define either.
Extremist political literature must absolutely NOT be blocked- if some jihad group makes a call of arms it is MY right to know about it from the primary source. I'd rather people could see it and hopefully gain an understanding of the minds behind them than taking Piers Akerman's or Miranda Devine's version as fact.

I don't support the filter because aside from a notable lack of singling out precisely what will be blocked AND the invisible blacklist, is because I have absolutely no trust in the honesty of either major party both with a very strong record of corruption and abuse of powers- to not also abuse a net filter- say, take bribes from the Brethren to block things they don't like as part of the policy.
Block anything of any actual public interest and we as a society WILL regress back to the horribly socially ignorant days of the 90s where information came from one source.

Hazza
I don't have much faith in political parties these days either but it is for me a choice between two evils and the extent that that evil might manifest. ie. is the effects of child porn on the net more harmful than the effects of some minor censorship on content that is already illegal?

Again, I am talking purely about illegal content - that which you have outlined yourself above.

The problem is Pelican that this issue simply can't be classified as a priority of blocking child pornography and snuff or allowing it- because the government haven't explicitly stated they would limit the scope of such a filter to these things in particular (despite how often they mention them to gain support), nor set a precedent to implement legal restraints on their ability to go beyond these things- nor even public transparency on what they will block and being open to being altered and interfered with on a political whim or lobbyist request.

And thus it should be treated precisely as the open-ended dubious slippery-slope that opponents are making it out to be.

And again it's WHOSE standards decree what material is not to be permitted to the public- and beyond a consensus on banning child and snuff material- everything else as far as our classification boards go lacks a lot of credibility to impose on the internet.
Similar deal with our own laws.

On the note of democracy- if Australia were even the faintest skeleton of an actual democracy the public would be allowed a vote in a referendum- or to initiate a referendum to override his policy.
Simply expecting a cooperate nation-wide movement of ensuring everybody compromise their vote just to put the Mad Monk's Liberal party in power (assuming they will NOT pursue another filter of their own) is unacceptable. (putting aside our rather watered-down, unequal and indirect voting methods)
Although I could go on and on about what democratic processes most leading western countries have been using for decades and we have no trace of here for ages elsewhere- as I could go on about Australia's lousy legal system.

Contrariwise, pelican, I think the comparison with mail is an instructive one.

>>The internet is not like the mail system. It is easier to stop illegal activity at the door of the internet, unlike the mail system which would involve every letter and parcel being opened to check for illegal content. Of course it could not be done for reasons of privacy and pragmatism.<<

If you wish to prevent illegal material reaching its destination, why would you not consider opening every letter and parcel?

It would, I agree, be impractical anywhere except in a tightly-controlled police state. Or in time of war.

But doesn't that suggest the internet is being targetted simply because it is, as you say, easier to do?

Superficially, at least.

Censorship at the state level never succeeds. Information always gets through - even in censored letters, even in wartime.

The only realistic response is to encourage individual responsibility. Just as the best way to influence your child's behaviour with drugs, or table manners, or with the opposite sex, the key to establishing the groundrules on porn is through parental conversations.

And the least effective way is to make it a technological challenge.

Pericles I don't agree that your analogy is pertinent.

The analogy with postal mail would be email and of course I would not suggest we lose the privacy inherently expected in our personal communications, and which is protected by law. (Although many government departments monitor staff email and monitor what websites are being accessed much to my chagrin - not so much the websites but email should be personal IMO).

Websites are not private they are put up to provide information. There is no expectation of privacy. Email is of course different.

Nevertheless I agree with Hazza to the extent that in it's current form I would not vote for the filter purely because it should be a transparent process and only include illegal content.

If this is not guaranteed or protected via legislation and oversight then it is not in our best interests.

My argument is that we can have the best of both worlds - a free internet but without the illegal content that is not acceptable in any other sphere (other than illicit).

That is the discussion government should be having with interested parties.