Divergence: "It is incredibly dishonest that this censorship proposal was not put up before the election."

As much as I dislike the proposal, as much as I think Conroy's statements on the subject are either deliberately miss leading or amazingly ill informed, you can't say we were not warned. This proposal was an integral part of their election platform, publicly available for all to see. It was put there years ago by Beazley.

If Rudd has been consistent on one thing, it is his dogged implementation of his election promises. This is another one of them. Unlike his other promises this will be a test of just how dogged he is, as this one is near universally loathed by all constituents that understand what is proposed.

I agree with bushbasher that the proposal is unlikely to get up. However, it is unique in that it manages to be both a total waste of money and a danger to our democracy and social fabric. Ultimately what protects us and our children is a society where the watchers are watched, all options are put on the table and discussed, and no one person or organisation gets silence thoughts or descent they personally find uncomfortable. Take that away and a large part of the Australian culture will die.

rstuart

Don't worry rstuart the national broadcasters and many universities have banned any sort of biblical expression for decades. Christ will continue to build His church. The gospel message was not stopped when men were thrown to lions, or sawn in two or thrown in pots of boiling oil. You don't really think any effort by puny mankind will prevent the Only message that can save man from His sins being preached.

It is now time to stop the pervert industry from ruining any more children's lives. Mr Rudd is to be applauded.

Runner are you saying there are no religous groups or teaching in universities, well don't know what Uni you went to. In my Uni days there was total freedom of expression, and it is still the same today.

An effective way to counter the follies of governance is not to support it, withdraw or withhold it. With any luck the brainiacs wont 'heed the call' and whoever is left over does a third rate job.

The thing about the internet is that people can get contrary and variant messages out into the world and back. Sans intermediation, without interference or background noise, without permission, directly, in a split second. State doesnt like that sort of thing. It threatens their fragile sense of political security. It undermines their power. Statistically insignificant contrarian aberations, left un-checked, multiply over time and before ya know it, constitute an unacceptable threat to the main program (theirs not ours) and the 'system.' Thus the system requires controls.

If the internet were to go on for another 50yrs as it has the last 20, the propaganda framework that obfuscates the real authority of state (force) may become redundant. If the masses dont buy the feel-bad/feel-good cocophony of vacilating lies... they might get restless.

Sort of starting to happen they way l see it. The recent financial stress (a major systemic threat) is forecast to get a lot worse. Its the sort of thing that throws everything else into focus. Its easy to get along, be happy and tell nice stories when the going is good (read, the money is flowing), but when it goes the other way the dynamic changes. People get upset, ask hard questions and start challenging things.

Will be interesting how the govt handles this emerging climate. So far its been a lot of window dressing. Maybe this too will resolve in the same vain. And dare l say it, vanity is what politics is really about and Chairman K.rudd is about as vain is they come.

I can't believe this writer thinks Hamas isn't a terrorist organisation. They themselves tell the world - are proud too - what they do, i.e. send in suicide bombers to blow up women and kids on buses.

Then again, this is the same writer I'm pretty sure that thinks Israel, with it's large and very growing Muslim minority (some towns of which are openly hostile to Israel, with some having arguments over flying the national flag at the schools they run in the Arab towns) is an aparthied state!

Apartheid states don't tolerate leaders of minority communities being openly hostile to the nation that treats them better than any Arab country ever has.

You must have meant Saudi Arabia mate. What evidence do you have that Hamas is not a terrorist group?

You people just don't want to see anything negative in the other do you. With a name like Lowenstein I'd say you're like those whiteys who used to own slaves, and now feel incredible guilt for what they're forefathers did.

Israel is the only democracy in the mid-east. Hamastan isn't, they were voted in, but it's just mob rule. Churches are burnt, Christians have fled. Democracy means treating the most vulnerable minorities with equal rights.

Hamastan certainly doesn't do that mate.

yes, benjam1n, you have correctly noted that loewenstein is an idiot, and a pretty slimy anti-semitic one. (yeah, yeah, he's jewish: he's still anti-semitic). he is correct that hamas was democratically elected, and of course you're right that this doesn't in any way preclude hamas from being a terrorist organization. which of course it is.

but people are agreeing with his main point here because it's a no-brainer. which means loewenstein had just the required amount of brains to write it.