pelican: "A good but well worn strategy is if your view does not match mine I will call it whingeing"

You commit a worse crime than not agreeing with my views, pelican. You said: "I would like ... to have an option to choose unfiltered or filtered internet access via my ISP". You now say that is not right, you already have a solution you are happy with. You actually go on to say: "the same cannot be said about access for other children". In other words your concerns aren't controlling your households access to the internet as you claimed, it is about controlling what other parents allow their children to see in their own homes.

My point was you have said this all before, so I knew what your original comment was a sugar coated lie. It is this dishonesty in debate I find tiresome.

pelican: "the dentist site ... was banned because of child porn spammed onto the site by the Russian mob."

Indeed. The dentist site didn't know of course and they rang ACMA to find out why they had been blacklisted. The ACMA refused tell them why their site was banned or even acknowledge it was banned because the list must remain a secret. So the Russian's were then able to use their site to distribute child porn for a while longer because of this blacklist. Worse, the dentist remains on the site remains on the list today, even though it has been clean for ages. Tell me, how does this slow down the distribution of child porn or protect children?

pelican: "non-existent attacks on freedom of speech"

The owners of the anti-abortion sites, Christian pro life sites and euthanasia sites that we now know are blacklisted would disagree pelican. Their sites exist only to make a political point, and they have now been blacklisted. We would not be able to see them if the mandatory filter became law. And you say the threat to freedom of speech is non-existent?