Peter Bowden, you are pursuing the same hysterical arguments as Conroy and his supporters.

Nobody in their right mind wants children downloading porn from the net. No one in their right mind wants children being used to make porn that is then put on the net.

But what on earth makes you think Conroy's proposal is going to prevent either of those things?

My friend's children are strictly supervised when they use the internet. The only computer they are allowed to use is in the sitting room. There are only certain times when they can use it, and only when there's an adult to supervise.

Maybe you need to suggest similar measures to your grandchildren's parents.

Or do you expect governments to take over personal responsibilities such as this?

I forgot to add that I apologise for lumping in people who want the boats stopped with people who want an internet filter, and in one fell swoop, managing to deeply offend both parties.

I do know that there are categories of ignorance, and it doesn't do to muddle them all up.

It's simple.

Rudd did a deal with the ACL, thinking they'd deliver him votes from far right loonies of evangelical goonmobs that parade around as moral guardians for all the rest of us.

Conroy wears Opus Dei undies, and supports Rudd's crippled view of the world.

The ACL tells Rudd what to do, or did anyway, and Rudd has his cabinet deliver the goods.

Watch the latest ACL video, where Jim Wallace list the five 'top' election priorities, it's a hoot: http://vimeo.com/13721045

Heavens above!

All he wants, apart from a full time school chaplain in every school, is more and more censorship.

Rudd, the ACL and Conroy sem to prefer to live in a theocracy, like the one we are fighting against in Afghanistan.

They despise 'democracy', and all that goes with it.

Furthermore, Peter Bowden, I have been using the internet since we got an internet and I have never once come across porn of any kind.

Your use of the word "chasing" is odd, but probably accurate as in my experience I would have to be "chasing" it in order to find it.

From what I've been told, porn sites like many other sites require payment before they let you see the images. So one would have to be on a mission, wouldn't one, to get any further than the "teasers?"

Those who argue for a filter never mention these facts, to hear them you'd think every time you clicked on Google you were inundated with porn.

Which suggests that the problem of porn and its consumption needs to attacked from some other angle, and that its availability on the www is a symptom rather than a cause.
Just stopping nut jobs from downloading it isn't stopping the nut jobs getting it elsewhere.

If anyone comes up with a way of preventing it being uploaded in the first place, I'd be supporting that. But don't forget, with the exception of child pornography, not everyone agrees on what is and isn't pornographic.

Given the last Prime Minister's stupid attack on Bill Henson, I wouldn't be wanting any government to be making those kind of judgement calls for the rest of us.

briar rose, Peter Bowden is dead right about children and the whole "I have been using the internet since we got an internet and I have never once come across porn of any kind" only shows that you have either never had kids or never given a s#*t what they were up to. The whole idea that you would stop children using the internet is equivalent to the whole argument that the article follows. When ever children are near the thing they are always looking for that word they can change to get what they want. While helping a school class use the net the students were asked to search for "french language" the boys of course googled "french laugerie" wow what a bonanza, a good 30 seconds of inappropriate pictures.
The internet may well be equal to the explosion of books with the invention of the printing press but the internet has one very special feature that books don't. Misinformation!! Even now a book that lacks credibility will be quickly lost as it won't go for reprint or will be withdrawn. The rubbish on the net goes on and on for pages, constantly being renewed and redone with the greater majority of it being crap. Google any subject that you have real knowledge of and if the first two pages aren't crap i will be amazed.
The real problem the net has is accountability, you can say anything with out being responsible for what you have said or the cause you are championing. I may not particularly agree with censorship but the net needs to be built again and some serious accountability built in. Enough fairy fanciers telling people that immunisation is bad for your kids, you should at a minimum have to have qualifications in public health to comment and back it with credible research. It is often the same with news coverage, a big storey brakes it's out there fast and then it is found to be wrong. no apology or clarification it just gets withdrawn.

The most effective way to protect children is education and supervision while on the internet. The responsibility is with the parents to do this, or use the software already available that blocks these sites. Those against the filter are not pro-childporn!

nairbs' comparison of the internet to books is interesting...
"Even now a book that lacks credibility will be quickly lost as it won't go for reprint or will be withdrawn"

Top 3 published books:
1. The Bible
2. Quotations from Chairman Mao (the little red book)
3. The Koran

Lacking credibility indeed.

Perhaps censorship of book publishing should be considered!