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.

This is a modern day spanish inquisition.

The religious amongst us don't understand, don't like the information gained and are fearful of the web contents, so there has been a campaign to censor the internet.

All through the ages it is the religious that have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into progress and enlightenment. Instead of educating themselves and taking steps to ensure net safety, they want a blanket censorship over the lot - how typical!

Instead of accepting that mature, adult Australians are capable of using the internet without wanting to visit illegal sites and kiddie porn, we have to be subjected to a censorship of anything that these people believe is 'unsuitable content'. Not content with controlling their own homes and internet usage, they want to impose their wowser views on the entire populace!

I totally agree with Mark and I hope this attempt to silence public dissent over government controlled censorship is treated with the contempt and criticism that it deserves.

The entire notion of censorship of the internet is blithering nonsense. The agenda here is political.

Make no mistake, the generation of moral outrage - and you fell for it, runner - is the key to building a platform or moral righteousness on which a politician can stand tall to spruik ego-building public presence. Conroy et al have resorted to bullying and bluster when their sham is exposed by people who intelligently dismantle their arguments.

This is yet another attempt by the nanny government(s) of Australia to keep us compliant mushrooms.

I'm more inclined to think the problem is ignorance. I am religious, retired and use the internet for research. I am fully aware of misuse of the internet, but the 'solution' will not solve the problem. It is too easy to bypass the censorship software.

It looks like there is a good chance of defeating this plan. Both the Coalition and the Greens are opposed to it, which means that the Government cannot pass a new law through the Senate unless one of those groups changes their mind. However, there is a risk that those members of the Coalition who appeal to reactionary moralism might be able to get the Coalition to change its position. If that happened, the Government’s scheme would pass. Therefore, to ensure the defeat of the Government’s censorship plans, it’s vitally important to reach people who might be convinced by reactionary arguments and try and convince them with other arguments. Most people arguing against the Government’s plans are not doing this.

...

The correct strategy is to appeal directly to people who are worried about what dangers there might be on the internet, and to show them that there are plenty of ways they can keep themselves and their children free from bad websites. A second strategy is to point out how the Government’s plan will slow down websites that many ordinary, apolitical people use regularly: Sites where you book cheap hotel rooms or plane fares, Ebay, Amazon, Australian media sites and so on.

Make no mistake. The Government will parrot the “Kiddie Porn” line over and over again. And while “people like us”, who support free expression as a basic principle, will see through that for the joke that it is, it will appeal to some people. Maybe even enough people for the Coalition to change their mind and support censorship. If that happens, the plan will succeed and we will lose. We must think hard about how we can appeal to those people, not just the ones we already agree with.

More at http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=144

Perhaps, runner, we should worry about whether Aboriginal and other children living in abject poverty have basic plumbing and maybe a phone line before we worry about exposure to the internet. If you don't like porn, don't look at it. It isn't compulsory. I have never come across porn intentionally or accidentally in all the time I've been on line. I guess you must have to look for it before you need to worry about it.

Runner’s got a point but the problems he cites have been around for many years. The net exacerbates it but censorship will achieve what it does in every other sphere – create a black market, or in this case an even harder to find black market.

I totally agree with the gist of the article. I would predict a patch will be available literally within hours of any filter being activated, and rightly so. It’s little wonder “the new media represented by the blogosphere is atwitter with fulminating dissent"

What people are mostly overlooking is why the censorship. Why did China censor their internet?

The reason for internet censorship in China is to prevent freedom of speach and ideas. To prevent disent in the communist government, and for the government to have control over what the people see and read.

Are the Australian government plans to do the same to Australians? In theory, our government is supposed to govern for the people through listening to the people. Unfortuneately there are thoise in governmnet that are of the minority that will use their power to force their will on others - this can NOT happen.

As it has already been pointed out, no matter what the government does to try and stop the actions of a very minor minority, this same minority will find ways around the government's actions at the cost of loss of freedom of choice and speach of the mainstay of the population. I for one am not a sheep and value my individuality, my freedom of choice and my freedom of speach.

This website could easily be blacklisted by the government under communist censorship laws because a few politicians don't like what is said. Think about that.

If Govt censorship can be narrowed to child porn and the like ,well and good,but who is going to watch the censors?Do we also have a private body involved to keep them honest?

I, as a family therapist, am tired of the devastation on individuals and families from Internet pornography and gambling.

Go for it, Mr. Rudd and company! This is your chance to help save some families from the horror of sexual abuse, paedophilia, financial devastation, and severe family conflict from problem gambling.

Ozspen,

If you are interested in stopping internet gambling, there is a simple way to do this without all the trouble and cost of internet filtering. All you do is to amend the banking act to provide that any person whose credit card is debited by an overseas gambling site shall be entitled to have the debit reversed. The result will be that no overseas gambling site will allow an Australian player to gamble with them.

The fact that this has not been done shows how spurious and misleading the government's actions are. What they want is control.

A couple of weeks ago the young nerd at my computer store informed me that 50-60% of Internet traffic is porn-related. I have no idea how accurate that figure is, nor what proportion of it might constitute kiddie porn.

I agree that the proposals seem overly draconian, and while I wouldn't label them "communist", I think they're way over the top - particularly since they won't stop serious Internet criminals anyway.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned at the ways that our freedom of speech are being eroded lately. We should resist this sh!t - how about an OLO-based petition?

Kiddie porn peddlers do not post their wares on open websites. These censorship proposals will do nothing, NOTHING, to stop that sort of behaviour. Peer to peer file sharing will not (cannot) be filtered. All this will do is slow down your download speed and enable the 'security'overseers access to what you're looking at.

What really strikes me as odd, is that all the fundies that believe in the coming 'end of days' and fear oppression at the hands of an Antichrist, will quite happily build and hand over all the tools needed to enable such oppression in the name of morality. How stupid is that?

While I don't believe in the Antichrist, I do believe in freedom, and this ain't it. Not by a long shot.

This is disgraceful.

Rudd WON the election because of the young vote.

Rudd's promise to deliver world class broadband here in Australia was HIGHLY appealing to young voters.

It would appear this promise - like so many others Mr Rudd made during his campaign, and since becoming Prime Minister - was nothing more than A SHORT JOCULAR COMMENT.

The Chinese government uses these kind of filters to block access to their citizens. The filters don't work very well so they also need armies of internet police. Is that where we are heading?

The tools to circumvent the filters already exist in commercial and open source form. Anyone can download them now free of charge. It just won't work.

This is a stupid idea. I can only think of it as a bargaining chip to get support of conservatives for the budget.

politicians love censorship. they thrive on controlling knowledge. a device to censor sex images will be used to censor political content.

it is in the interests of ordinary people people to keep the web free. if you let the pollies control your information, you will be their mugs, the tax-horses that support them blindly. that's what you are now, of course.

many of you are terrified by exposure to information at odds with the received wisdom of the elite. close your eyes and think of 'er majesty, having tea and discussing the form guide. there now, calm down.

there is pornography on the web. don't look at it. tell your kids about sex honestly and it won't hurt them, either.

for those who understand that pollies are people, andnot good ones, fight for freedom of information. it is an important tool in becoming citizens, rather than subjects.

Its a fool who says the internet is a wonderful invention until the porn is gone.

Millions of websites with sex acts and nudity corrupting this generations' children.

The net today, with its porn, is "the stuff of the fall of a civilisation"...pushing susceptibles into ever increasing sex crime.

There will be a massive computer somewhere correlating names, address and attidues for the coming global Antichrist...Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11.

If the net originally came out of US Defence... they will also be sweeping to gather info on ideas that will help to kill people.

Will this filtering stop our kiddies from researching the blue footed booby? What sort of search results would we get if we were trying to research testicular or breast cancer? Would a young mum having problems be able to look up advice on breast feeding?

There are all sorts of perfectly innocent reasons for wanting access to information about genitalia. Maybe you want to find studies related to kids and porn because you're worried about it. You might want information on euthanasia not because you want to die, but because you're against euthanasia.

Another thing, will businesses, people using the net for educational purposes and similar be compensated for the reduced speed this filtering will cause? University students on campus are charged for internet access. Will the government compensate them for the extra charges they'll have because of slower downloads? Will people with timed call charges be compensated for the extra time it will take to download to their phones? Will government compensate businesses who miss out on contracts because they couldn't do whatever in time?

I'm paying for bandwidth. If the government wants to eat into my bandwidth I want compensation.

Arjay: "If Govt censorship can be narrowed to child porn"

On the contrary, it isn't narrowed to child porn, the explicit intention is to expand the net to include anything deemed "harmful and inappropriate". Conroy said on the ABC's media report yesterday this includes euthanasia. Note the possession and selling of information on euthanasia is currently legal.

Arjay: "who is going to watch the censors"

There is a black list now. It is a list of Australian sites that have had "take down" orders issued against them. For reasons I don't understand this list is secret, despite FOI requests. Thus the Australian voters don't know what sites have been censored in this way, or why. Current thinking is the new system will just expand this existing list.

http://www.efa.org.au/FOI/faq_foi_aba.html

Obviously a hidden switch that removes information from the internet is ripe for abuse. Combining that with the proposed lax definitions of what can be removed and it is nothing short of insane. Any of the recent spate of government leaks - gone. How about criticism of a government minister he claims is defamation, or criticism of the judicial process?

This has already happened. In March 2006, Richard Neville set a spoof site www.johnhowardpm.org that looked similar to the Liberal Party site, but contained an apology from John Howard for the Iraq war. At the behest of the Prime Ministers department the AFP made several calls to MelbourneIT, the people who controlled the domain name www.johnhowardpm.org, claiming it was a phishing site and demanding it be taken down - a demand MelbourneIT eventually complied with. Unlike conventional media MelbourneIT was just spineless, as www.johnhowardpm.org clearly wasn't a phishing site.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/government-shuts-howard-spoof-site/2006/03/17/1142098638843.html

Finally Arjay, you seem to accept that filtering "just child porn" is technically possible. It isn't in the sense that none of the filters stop child porn from being exchanged by email, or the myriad of other ways that don't use the web - or indeed a few ways that do use the web. You can, for example, buy an unfilterable, encrypted www channel from the US for $2/month now.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=783500

Dear auld Runner... still running from life and reality eh?

You'll wear your knees out Runner, with all your worrying.

How about this:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23324735-23272,00.html

Profile of a typical Internet porn user:
Male, under the age of 35 years, heterosexual.
He could come from any part of Australia although Queensland and Western Australia consume more pornography per head than any other state or territory.
He is an average income earner, bringing home about $40,000 a year, and probably lives in the suburbs.
He votes for major parties and is just as likely to back Labor as the Coalition but he's also religious, probably Christian.
He has a good social life with friends, family and work colleagues and he's in a monogamous relationship.

Didn't we read recently of one of those Hillsong types who fibbed about his cancer to hide his alleged porn addidiction?

Not sure how faked cancer and a love of porn are related but the interesting part of this story is the link between 'backwoods' states, like WA and Qld, where the 'iggerant' so lurv God, and the higher incidence of porn and 'fambly' problems.

Does Runner play the banjo by any chance?

On top of that is Rudd's need to look-sound-feel a 'real' Christian, and his need not to be either outdone by the new convert M Turnsbull or to offend the dullest man in the Senate, from the AOG party-of-heaven.

Rudd should consider how 'revolutionary' his 'edumacation revolution' will be when the kiddies computers are running at 486 speeds in the classrooms.

No sooner logged on than it will be time to leave for the next class.

Well, he did say he was from Qld didn't he?

The 'smart' state.

Oh, my God, could it be true that Rudd still attends the Hillsong Church.

Surely he would know that Hillsong has a close alliance with the the US End-days groups.

Don't wish to call them a church, because every time they come on Fox-Line their glacial gazes reminds me too much of Hitler's stormtroopers.

Interesting that we haven't seen or heard much from them during the close-coming US election.

But bet the're still for Bush/Cheney et al.

Would stake my life on it, because reckon no one else would have a bar of 'em.

Sorry, forgot about Howard and Rudd.