Mark has posts his comments loudly and widely around the internet. This article is a dumbed down version of them. In this letter he gives a more detailed explanation of his views, and I found it far more persuasive:

http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf

The noise in the media about the issue reached a crescendo recently because of tactical error made by the minister in response to Mark's persistent criticisms of filtering. The minister asked his employer to reign him in. Whereas the media has for the most part ignored the issue of censoring the billions of voices of on internet until now, perversely this attempt to publicly censor one individual drew their ire:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/how-government-tried-to-gag-censor-critics/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html

It is amazing how loudly people scream when they feel a little of their perverted indulgences might be restricted. I say go for it Mr Rudd, you will prevent aboriginal and white kids from sexual abuse. Hopefully the loop holes for artists who want to photograph kids nude in sexual poses will also be cut off. I don't like Mr Rudd's chance as their are to many sick minds that demand their fixes.

I would agree completely with the article and hope that the Greens will prevent the legislation introducing mandatory filtering from becoming law.

However there was one omission from the article that reinforces the argument. It was stated that illegal material is extremely hard to find on the net. What is almost impossible to find is FREE illegal material. Those who seek out the illegal material and download it can be traced through their credit cards, and I gather that this is the main way these people are tracked down and prosecuted.

All this means that compulsory filtering, which will degrade the net for everyone, just to satisfy the urge of politicians to exercise control, is not only unnecessary but will end up mainly as a real threat to free political discussion.

We have already seen the power of spin in influencing political decisions. In the coming decades, when it will be necessary to reduce the standard of living (something, of course, that politicians will never admit), our leaders will be even more determined to control what we see and hear, and this must be resisted at all costs.

runner if Senator Conroy succeeds in building his Net Nanny the response times will be so long the internet would be unusable. Every time you try to flick to a new page you would wait 5 to 30 seconds meaning that playing on the online forum site will be become an exercise to torment.

With really slow response times caused by all those additional search programs checking every mouse click most people would find it safer to waddle down to the bank to do their banking or use telephone banking.

In countries like China where users are penalised for inappropriate internet usage users install software like TOR which hides their physical address, distorts their searches and confounds Net Nanny software.

Importing Chinese censorship software into Australia will be a great leap foward for our two counties - ay Kev?

Seems to be an odd alliance of the Catholic censorship tradition and Rudd looking to China again. This time for internet censorship tips.

Even in polite society religion does actually influence political policies. The immediate concern for a politician is to be SEEN to be responding to a religiously sensive electoral base.

Hence of Rudd http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26107 - there are high hopes for his Catholicism

Not surprisingly this is Conroy's denomination as well and he represents Victoria - long recognised as the heartland of Australia's Catholic political activism (Mannix etc).

Rudd and China? Rudd has long been inspired by China's achievements, culture and Mandarin. He is more than aware that China is the world's heaviest censor of the internet by any measure.

Note that the argument is religion and national emulation count. Like any Church the Catholic Church has done many good things.

However hopefully a vocal minority will not misrepresent and restrict the much larger number of moderate Australians.

Whoops - a denominational error of the Reporter... :(

Rudd has strongly been influenced by Catholicism. While religious, he is better now described as Anglican.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd#Society_and_religion

"Some commentators have described Rudd as a social conservative.

...Rudd and his family attend the Anglican church of St John the Baptist in Bulimba in his electorate. Although raised a Roman Catholic, Rudd began attending Anglican services in the 1980s with his wife. Like John Howard, Rudd has addressed congregations of the Hillsong Church.

"Personal faith also provides a compass point for my life. It also therefore helps shape the view I try to bring to the public space as well."

Rudd is the mainstay of the parliamentary prayer group in Parliament House, Canberra. He is vocal about his Christianity and has given a number of prominent interviews to the Australian religious press on the topic.

Rudd has defended church representatives engaging with policy debates...In an essay in The Monthly,[122] he argued:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity..."

That last para is worth reading in full.

Basically I think Rudd-ALP-Government are allowing certain minority voices to have their censorship say. Then legislation can be voted down on conscience. Internet censorship, by slowing down Australia's internet, will damage are economy and service industries.