Conroy's attempt to censor the internet makes no sense politically or socially. I wonder if he is being put up to it, by greater powers, in the pursuit of an experiment to see if the internet can be censored in a western democracy.
It wouldn't be the first time this country has been a guinea-pig in social experiments of new technology.

It was most telling, that Conroy's initial purpose for censorship of the internet, was to protect children from child pornography. This is believed a key that opens all doors and avoids all discussion. A similar reason for the previous government's Intervention in the Northern territory, was that the aboriginal camps were supposed to be overrun by pedophile rings. So where were the truckloads of arrested pedophiles?

Conroy's 'child pornography' is a rhetorical tool, and an excellent example, to which you allude, of creating fear. Once created, the politician then expects a subservient public to acquiesce.

It is important for these technical devices used by politicians to be exposed as simple tricks to manipulate the public. Eventually they will become cliches and they will have to think of something else.

It seems that von is happy for the likes of Polanski and Henson to set the standards for our society. His snide and deceitful distortions at Scripture shows exactly where he is coming from (and its not above).

von rambles on about freedoms and yet still writes

'Freedom of speech does not give us the right to say anything we please.'

So we see he is happy to have perversion, rape, killings etc but when his own sense of self righteousness is offended by words it is not okay.

He claims that pornography and violence is harmless. Well try telling that to young girls who have been raped by young boys copying what they have watched. Try telling that to young boys who have been sodomized by perverts feeding on this filth. von seems offended by absolutes and creates his own.

Mr. von Brasch

I strongly endorse the sentiments you express.

You have put the case against censroship exceptionally well.

We should NOT have a right to not be offended.

Free speech, if it is to have any meaning, must specifically include the right to say things which other may find deeply hurtful.

Any belief system or ideology including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, deism, Fascism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, Sikhism, socialism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a legitimate target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

Classification systems should not be turned into a tool for censorship.

This is such a difficult issue because as the author argues who decides where to draw the line on potentially harmful material and what will or won't cause harm.

Censorship can certainly be abused and used as a tool for oppression of the media and of peoples.

Let's face it though, we are censored in many ways through law such as the walking around naked example. Quite frankly I would rather people walk around naked if they choose than see the continued proliferation of violent porn and other debasing material. It is quite ironic that nudity is less acceptable than the sexual abuse of another person on film.

There is no doubt that as we are exposed to more and more overt violence and perverse porn (I am not talking mainstream porn which is a private matter between consenting adults) we become desensitised. Anyone born in the 60s or before can see it for themselves.

The author is right that societies change and we are malleable or fickle in terms of what we perceive as appropriate as adults let alone in reference to children. We are manipulated by both sides - the strict religious lobbies who have low tolerance and the no-censorship team who argue that exposure has no impact, causes no harm, even for children.

Evidence in the Little Children are Sacred Report is oft ignored in reference to the effect of porn in communities with high rates of sexual abuse on children. Including evidence given by perpetrators after the event. It has become unfashionable to argue for clean feeds for the internet (on principle) or for classification rules to remain on games.

Runner, when did Arved condone illegal activities such as rape and murder? Nowhere in the article did he say violence was harmless. Bill Henson's photographs were rated "G" and "PG" by the classification board, so you don't have a leg to stand on there.

Pelican, the recommendations in the "Little Children are Sacred Report" said in relation to pornography; "87. That an education campaign be conducted to inform communities of: a) the meaning of and rationale for film and television show classifications the prohibition contained in the Criminal Code, b) making it an offence to intentionally expose a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent object or film, video or audio tape or photograph or book and the implications generally for a child’s wellbeing of permitting them to watch or see such sexually explicit material." I couldn't find any recommendations asking for it to be banned.

And in relation to pornography being the cause of high rates of sexual abuse on children; "Although researchers like Marshall (1988) have found that up to one-third of child sex offenders said they had viewed pornography prior to offending, there appears to be little evidence to show a causal link between pornography and offending (Howitt 1995;Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Services 2000;Seto et al.2001, as cited in Brown 2005,and Wortley & Smallbone 2006)". So there is no real link.

People need to come up with a link, otherwise it's bunkum and people trying to force their own unwanted morals onto others.

Those of us who oppose the censorship proposed by Senator Conroy are not necessarily in favour of pornography. I actually agree with Runner and Pelican that it can be a profoundly negative influence, desensitising people to abuse and promoting callous attitudes to women and other people in general. However, child pornography and pornography involving unwilling participants are already illegal. Real objections to the rest can be met by giving people the option of a clean feed and by making it illegal to expose children to it, as Grebo said.

Our real objection is that the good Senator is using disgust with this material as the thin end of a wedge that can ultimately be used to censor ideas and news that the government and the corporate elite don't like. It is clear from the list of banned sites that was published on Wikileaks that the government is concerned to ban far more than just porn. If you believe that a Labor (or Liberal) government would never do such a thing, you might think of the truth-is-no-defence religious vilification laws in Victoria.