Article: [Conroy] further claimed that similar kinds of filtering already exist in UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand.

I wish Loewenstein didn't repeat the "miss-conceptions" promulgated by the minister. The countries listed have exactly the kind of filtering we have in Australia now. All those countries have ISP's offering a "family friendly service" which is filtered. None have compulsory or even "opt out" filtering. If you want a filtered internet feed, contract one of the ISP's here:

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=9#ff%20seal

There are stuff all countries that do have what the good Senator is proposing for Australia. 3 come to mind: China, the UAE and Iran. If this proposal is implemented they will be our only peers. The remainder of the world is either too poor to have the internet available to is general population, or they don't do this form of censorship.

I am sure runner and his ilk will soon chime in with dissenting opinions. But I'd lay odds none of them actually practise what they preach and have one of these filtered feeds. The reasons are pretty straight forward. They cost more because there is a low of work in maintaining the list and additional equipment required to implement it, and they slow down the internet. Nonetheless runner will sit here begging to have something he doesn't take by choice forced down his throat.

Needless to say, if the government does implement its filters this market niche will disappear, along with ISP's that depend on it.

On the positive side, it's nice to see this blizzard of disinformation from Conroy is weakening. He no longer claims any western countries have the kind of filtering he is proposing. He no longer claims the previous trails were a success. And for new trials they are inviting (pleading?) for ways of filtering email, https, peer-to-peer, and so on. I am hoping that shows he is beginning to understand the current proposal won't stop kids from sharing porn or whatever. When he gets no creditable responses, perhaps he will also realise filtering the internet in any meaningful way is impossible.

Unless any of us are naive to the point of imbecility, we are all aware that a certain amount of filtering and a much larger amount of surveillance takes place already.

Until now, however, people by and large, have seemed perfectly content to accept this status quo. It is not to be wondered at then, that Government could read this silence as assent. The popularity of (my favourite bugbear, it seems) Wikipedia alone would seem to argue this. Despite the fact that it has never been a secret that this site comes in for modification and manipulation by government agencies, people flock to it happily.

Yes, I fully agree that people should make public their concern about this move and its unacceptability. But while most of us are simply too apathetic to counter increased governmental intervention in our lives, I don't think we can really blame pollies for assuming that they are free to chip away at our freedoms with impunity.

The plethora of moves we not only stood back and let happen but, in some cases, actively condoned in the "war against terror", was probably seen as a green light by governments not only in Australia but elsewhere. What I consider to be far more worthy of terror is our continued reluctance to do anything more than engage in on-line squabbles amongst ourselves while ignoring the fact that we are giving tacit approval to policy-makers to use carte blanche in respect of our freedoms and rights.

Compulsory filtering is neither technically feasable nor desirable.
I have no desire to join Iran, China and UAE as a member of club Thought Control.
To those who say "but what of the children?" I give them this:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people, As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
Put simply: *No one* has the right to limit my information! Anyone who tries to do this is perfoming and aggressive act and it simply will not be tolerated. As someone on Wired said: If I have to rent a VPN to an offshore ISP to get unfiltered internet then I will!
Of course this is all really about politics. Labour needs the Family First in the Senate to get it's other policies through, and there is obviously some "new right" religious influence in the ALP these days.

What are you talking about Romany? Do be specific and tell us what is being blocked already. To generalise as you have is stupid. Say something or say nothing but don't gabble on about unknown filtering.

If you know something, spit it out mate.

I can't really express the outrage I feel at this. We have Howard Mark 2 on our hands. Don't canvas something at election but bring it in soon after and before the next campaign.

Censorship never works but it hurts people in the short term. Will people be jailed for getting to a site Rudd doesn't like? Like an atheist site?

If Rudd goes ahead with this he should enjoy the time he has left in charge as he won't be there after the next election. He will lose the leadership for starters as Australia cannot afford a religious lunatic in the top job. And we can see just the start of why with this.

The pathtic ignorance of these politicians is that they don't understand they will not stop the people they say they are aiming at. They'll just go peer to peer or even snail mail.

They don't use the net so have no idea of what it can do and how easy it is for the experts to avoid anything a government comes up with as "secure". Nothing is secure, ever. The most vulnerable part of any such security system is the human beings who run it. They are prone to attack, bribery etc and forced to give up the keys.

Why would they even bother with this when there is so much phishing going on. Wouldn't you think that would be more critical? Perhaps someone should Phish Rudd's accounts and see how his attention changes.

Any effort by the Government to protect children from the fruit of the pervert industry should be applauded.Any fool can see that the destruction of families has caused more social problems than any other single factor in society. The porn industry might give a few adults a little pleasure but the cost to abused children and families is evident. The harder we make it for the children of irresponsible drug and alcohol effected parents to access perversion the better. We have more than enough enough porn on the SBS and free to air TV to satisfy the lusts of those held in bondage.

Let journalist scream as loud as they like about censorship. They like some artist think only of their own dogmas and rights not of the victims of this sick industry.

I agree with Antony and most of the commenters.

We normal people are being caught in a religious push that we didn't vote for and didn't expect.

Senator Conroy of Victoria’s campaign appears to stem from the assumption of religious reactionaries that it is they who have the RIGHT to control people's thoughts and morals through controlling straightlaced politicians.

A very small minority of Anglican and Catholics, mainly from Victoria, are pressuring (short back and sides) Conroy and Rudd that our right to choose should be taken from us.

Grass roots liberty and choice are alien concepts to High Churches.

I only hope that Conroy's vision is a bad dream that will be voted down by Parliamentarians who have the guts to represent their constituents rather than The Party.

Beware Mr Rudd if this censorship measure goes through you’ll lose more votes throughout Australia than you win in Victoria.

Pete