dagget wrote:
"As far as I can recall mandatory net filtering was not put to the people at the last election, so why does it necesarily follow that we who voted for Labor (even if only on a two-party preferred basis) should quietly accept net filtering?"

I wasn't aware of this either but I just read an article that states that:
"In the run up to the last Federal election, just a few days before the poll, the ultimately victorious Australian Labor Party released a ‘Cyber-safety Policy’. Internet censorship via ISP-level ‘filtering’ was featured in the policy. The exact words were: “A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”"
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

The whole article (longish) by Syd Walker is worth a read. He is basically attempting to have an adult conversation with Clive Hamilton along the lines of - how dare you attempt to censure what I read, as an adult. He also floats the idea that there may be an ulterior motif, that our security services may want the ability to control what we read and this advances that cause. He also addresses the arguments that Clive uses directly and this might help satisfy some of the other complaints in this thread.

Something else I discovered from the Liberal Party press release (Nick Minchin). Apparently the ALP plans to discontinue the provision of Australians with free pc-based filters at the end of 2008
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/libs-shoot-down-filtering-plan-misguided-and-deeply-unpopular/

Greens and Liberals are opposed to mandatory ISP filtering. By my reading this does add up to the ALP being worse than the alternative mainstream parties, at least on this issue.

dickie, thanks for the links.

I presume they are meant to show sexual assaults rates are rising. The second two do, but the figures are given without comment. The first does supply the needed details, but shows if anything a drop since 1996. None mention porn at all, let investigate a correlation to it. I presume the links dealing with correlation and cause are coming?

dickie: "WHERE IS THE DATA YOU HAVE SEEN?"

If you have a problem with the data the reports used, look at the citations at the end. You have seen scientific papers before - yes? Good. You know how it works.

dickie: "you dredge up "data" from ... of the Japanese ... reverting to the 70s"

And a recent study on Internet and porn in the US. Both are relevant as human nature doesn't change quickly.

Q&A: 'Hamilton said he was opposed ... to “extreme and violent pornography”'

He wasn't always that explicit during the interview. But now I think about it, regardless of what he said in the heat of the interview he has repeatedly said at other times he only wants to filter only stuff that is banned now. My point is really that speech directly inciting self mutilation, hate and violence takes obvious precedence over titillation, even "extreme titillation". Of course porn that directly incites those other things fall into their category. He is reversing the two. The only charitable explanation I can think of is he is trying to make it politically palatable.

chandralekha: "turn them into, well, wa**ers"

All sexually active males are enthusiastic and regular wa**ers. Physiologically, it keeps their sperm fresh and reduces prostrate problems in later life. Just as periods aren't voluntary for females, regular ejaculation isn't voluntary for males. I doubt the availability of porn effects it too much.

chandralekha: "Adolescent boys who are exposed to porn ... are unlikely to become interested in their partner's pleasure"

Ya gotta be kidding me! Does that mean people who are exposed to horse racing are unlikely to anything other than whip a horse when they first meet one?

Dickie is so worried about what might happen that he is prepared to strangle everything.

It is like being so worried about car crashes that a speed limit of 10kmph is imposed.

Both would be ridiculous and impractical.

Thanks billkerr for that link to http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

Whilst I would take issue with one or two secondary points raised in that article, it is excellent and urge everyone to read it in spite of its length. Some of it bears repeating here:

"If obscenity is the issue, can we discuss real obscenity?

"How about illegal wars, based on lies, wars in our own times, that this country participates in and/or supports?

"These are wars in which innocent people – many, many people including many, many children – have been and continue to be killed, maimed, suffer poverty and disease, all as a direct consequence of armed assaults by Australia’s ‘allies’.

"These appalling and entirely avoidable obscenities don’t seem to bother you much, Clive, judging by your website (http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/). Yet you’re shocked about pornography on home computers.

"For what it’s worth, I think you have your priorities backwards. I think they are seriously screwed up.

"Would you agree that if ‘hate speech’ has any meaning at all, it is ‘hate speech’ to promote illegal wars based on lies?

"If so, why aren’t you concerned about the proliferation of such ‘hate speech’ in the mainstream media, every time there’s another war in the offing in the middle east?

"If not, why not?"

Thanks dagget for joining me in recommending the reading of http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-censorship/

Some people here have been critical of the focus on Clive Hamilton. Q&A described it as "attacking the messenger", dickie saw it as an unfair head butt of Clive, Steel said the problem was not Clive but religious lobbyists

I think Syd Walker's article responds to those views.

Firstly by pointing out that the Minister (Conroy) is pretty much incompetent and relied on Clive to put the secular argument for censorship on "Australian Talks", ABC Radio Talkback. If you think I'm being unfair on Conroy then check out the letters by Mark Newton on the EFA site (download the pdfs) which demonstrate beyond question his incompetence:
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/11/19/filtering-followup-to-newton-letter/

Religious lobbyists will mainly appeal to religious people. The pro-censorship camp needs a secular advocate. Given the incompetence of the Minister that person is Clive, along with his co-author Michael Flood

Syd Walker repeats Clive's most persuasive arguments and responds effectively to them

davidf

We are not on the same page in reference to children viewing sexually loving relationships or farm animals having sex. I have no problem with sex.

I am talking about the worst case scenarios - violent porn, rape porn, child porn. As a parent I would rather my children not be exposed to this at all, but if so at an appropriate adult age. At the moment I have no control over this other than within my own home (to some extent) but have not control over what is going on in another home they might visit in this era of latch key kids.

rstuart
You probably know more than I do about the technicalities or feasibility of streaming one filtered and one unfiltered option via an ISP. But even it the filter is not perfect it does reduce the risk. This way at least it maintains choice.