TRTL:"the disdain for public opinion that has shone through here leads me to believe that even if he could comprehend these issues, they wouldn't be taken on board."

I think you're being a bit harsh on Conroy: he knows his public and is playing to it for all it's worth.

In fact, one of them chimed in with a post straight after yours...

get used to the fact that we live in a world in which 50% of the voters are women and that these laws are designed specifically to pander to them. All that is required to make them genuinely popularist is a few blokes on side, then the views of the rest are irrelevant and they probably wouldn't vote Labor anyway (or they're "rusted on" and hence can be ignored).

For a truly draconian law based on the same thinking have a look at this: http://www.agd.sa.gov.au/news/pdfs/Intervention%20Orders%20(Prevention%20of%20Abuse)%20Report.pdf

Antiseptic

Exactly what are your objections to the legislation and how would you rewrite it?

benk, my principal objection is that like so much of the current wave of legislation it reverses the burden of proof. IOW, all that is required for a site to be banned is for a complaint to be received, while the process for having a site removed from the filter list is far more convoluted.

In a broader sense, I am strongly committed to taking individual responsibility, which this legislation is specifically designed to remove. As I said, that appeals to very many women and some men, so it is a populist measure. I've never been a big fan of populism; it leads to badly flawed decisions that rarely provide a genuine benefit to the populace, but are often masking special treatment for some interest group or other.

How would I rewrite it? By putting a match to it.

Anti,Johnj
I look at it slightly differently, Experience at the sharp end has taught me not to expect too much from many more parents that one would suppose. If this weren't the case Social Services and many charities would have a far lessor work load than they do. And no, most of SS work isn't tied up in policing marriage break ups etc.

I would argue that the children of "preoccupied,inexperienced, indifferent or just plain bad etc" parents need/deserve protection too. How do you make the above parents act responsibly? And is that the Government responsibility? It is however, the Govts responsibility
to attempt to protect the vulnerable or needy in our society. Mutual protection is the point of society. Without it, we have chaos or a dictatorship of the powerful V the rest. Yes Col, Thatcher missed the point and was wrong, society does exist.

The fact that the legislation is faulty is no justification for doing nothing.

The key issue is as the the headline implies "*HOW* do we define what is a child". I give up, that is beyond my my competence and pay levels. That's why we employ MP's and legislative drafts-persons at big $s isn't it?

The myopic and in some cases paranoid based argument that "*I'm a responsible parent and so are my friends, so no external censorship is warranted* is weak and not true.

Examinator,

If the legislation had an opt out option for those that did not have children, or who preferred to use their own filter, I would have no issue with it.

However, it proposes filtering sites based on complaints by the vocal moral minority, and a whole plethora of legal sites completely unconnected to child porn makes it probably the most vile piece of legislative censorship I have ever seen.

If I can simply tick the box "unfiltered feed" then the blue rinsed dowagers can look at their knitting sites with the blissful illusion that all the nasties have been purged.

A child is defined in age, not puberty or anything else. Any moves to lower the adult age would only serve the rogue parents, by kicking their kids out earlier.