What can I say, Clive Hamilton and his ilk are pillocks. Their version of freedom of speech is that everyone is free to say what Clive likes.

Censoring the internet will not stop the paedophiles.Computers can now have direct communication without accessing the net.With encrypted codes the censors have no way of breaking or stopping the communicaton.

We should not let Govts or any other bodies have blanket powers to censor.If they can filter just the paedophiles,well and good.Who will watch the censors and keep them honest?

Thanks Kerry Miller. It is interesting to discover that your main intention for this article was to head butt Hamilton in the first paragraph. Hamilton may be the first public figure to lobby for Internet filtering of porn, however, he is certainly not the first public figure whose research unveils some worrying trends.

Meanwhile the usual “Get Clive” stormtroopers are here to take him out at the knees, – the topic of course, irrelevant.

And while there are many adults who cry “foul” when threatened with censorship of internet porn, the schoolies are giving each other head jobs with many teens unaware that oral sex can cause STDs.

A peer reviewed study from the journal CyberPyschology and Behaviour revealed that males aged between 12 and 17 who regularly viewed porn had sex at an earlier stage in their lives and were more likely to initiate oral sex, apparently imitating what they had watched.

A rise in rates of oral sex has been linked to an increase in numbers of tongue, mouth and throat cancers caused by the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2228388.0.internet_porn_encourages_teenagers_to_have_sex_early.php

An Australian survey revealed that 84% of 16 and 17 year old boys had been exposed to internet pornography and 60% of girls. 73% of boys and 11% of girls admitted to watching porn but then more girls these days are submissive to the sexual demands of boys, fearful of being left out of the loop.

Kath Albury, researching pornography at Sydney University early in 2003, believes the promotion of cunnilingus on the internet has meant many young men now see this activity as highly desirable.

Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said there had been a rise in sexual practices among teens, copied from internet pornography including group sex.

Meanwhile I ponder the naivety of those who believe the filtering of internet porn would censor freedom of speech. Are they not yet aware that freedom of speech and freedom of information has been suppressed and censored for decades, on issues of significant importance, to which the public are entitled?:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKSYD23097020071105?sp=true

http://www.huliq.com/44227/government-found-interfere-public-health-research

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92habitat.html

Dickie, that last link ... that is why I wish to remain anonymous on OLO. Another time, another place.

I read you Q&A. It's my trusty wooden leg again - for sure! Cheers.

Software already exists to enable citizens in uncensored countries to provide unfettered access to the Net through their home computers to friends and family members who live behind firewalls of states that censor, eg. http://psiphon.civisec.org/index.html

For us in Australia, it might be a good time to setup an account with an overseas friend.

This software has been developed to support the freedom of people in countries that don't have freedom. The same software can be used to search for the things that the Net Nannies don't want us to see. What do you do then? Do you criminalise software that has been developed for the benefit of the citizens of Iran, North Korea and China? Is blocking porn more important than basic freedoms?

There are other implications. Language translation sites provide loopholes, as does the Google cache, as does The WayBack Machine, a glorious effort to provide an internet archive. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of porn, censorship never ends with blocking the initial cause of complaint. The good, the bad and the ugly are all mixed up together and can't be neatly separated out. That is the underlying rationale of the success of the internet and WWW, the freedom to link from anything to anything.

As well as these partly technical considerations, it is not possible to draw the line between righteously well intentioned censorship and denial of important freedoms. That is because censorship is always about someone in authority telling other people what is good for them, a denial of freedom. Adult to adult not just adult to child; it morphs into some adults treating other adults like children because they make a moral judgment that those other adults can’t handle freedom. We have laws already to deal with law breakers. We don't need censorship as well