One of Australia's top communications experts says the Government's internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda

But so far there's no evidence put forward that this will be effective in putting any serious dent in the availability of child pornography on the internet. It is clear that there are very strong political motives behind this.

That 68% of the sites were perfectly legal, but such as online gambling sites indicates more a move to protect state revenue than our children.

Commentators in Australia and overseas have interpreted Senator Conroy's policy as pushing the country towards being like repressive regimes such as China and Iran.

This is being falsely sold to the Australian public as protecting our children, but will do nothing of the sort, but simply impose political correct control of what we view.

This must be stopped at all costs.

I would be surprised if it passes into law. Very surprised.

No wait.

I would not be surprised, Australians want to live in a nanny state. All this extra education we have yet we need mummy more than ever.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is working on a bill to censor the net in the USA.Obama talks the about the need to tackle cyber terrorism.

The reality is that Govts want to censor everything we see and hear.The internet is removing the power of the corporate media and the ABC has over us.This is making western Govts very nervous particularily now when there is overwhelming new evidence that clearly demonstrates that 911 was a false flag event. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Oh dear, what do we have here?
Another political scare campaign and smokescreen, for political gain.

Oh yes, wasn't it the Libs that went maniacally authoritarian about 'whistle blowers'; I seem to remember bogus emails; and Heffernan's disgusting baseless homophobic attack on the then Justice Kirby et al. Now they want us to believe that they are the champions of free speech. Great examples of "when it's in our interests" duplicity to me?
Supported by I'm all right so everyone else should be, we have no responsibility to others, and a conspiracy site citation...to another country's system.

My view? 'show me the facts'!

PS Some journo's popularist spin isn't facts either.

pps "Big Brother" was committed because of pathological, paranoid, delusions of grandeur 24 years ago ('1984'). Maybe, his meds are working (sort of)and he joined the Liberal party.

SM, child porn, horse porn, incest or any of that way out sh@t I think the world can do without. If you have to get off on bent crap, go to your local xxxx shop, and they will accommodate you with all your warped fantasys you questionably need. 100% agree that the Internet is by far, the peoples channel.

This is where the common man or woman can sort out the upper levels bull-dust and hear the voices of freedom.

Truth and all it stands by is the only way mankind will move forward.

Thank what ever god or not for OLO.

The Australians choice.

Actually, this is one of those rare occasions where I agree completely with Shadow Minister. There are many alternatives to this heavyhanded approach which would work a whole lot better.

CJ, I would be a dammed sight more comfortable about the future of this if your mob hadn't changed their tune from "block" to "passing with amendments". Eg Ludlam here:

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/politics/20091217-google-greens-and-labor-mp-object-to-conroy-s-internet-filter/print.html

Right now you would have to say the odds are this is going to get up in some form.

If Labor do this they will inherit fred niles and one nations spot at the bottom of my ballot paper.

walk with me: "SM, child porn, horse porn, incest or any of that way out sh@t I think the world can do without"

I shouldn't be wasting time responding to this wwm, as we have been over it so many times here. But this pisses my off so much, I can hold back.

Firstly, no one here disagrees that a world without those things would be no worse off. Very few people want to see it, and only the mentally ill want their kids to see it. So if you think that is what the argument is about, you have it 100% wrong.

Secondly, what is proposed won't stop anyone who does like it from seeing that stuff. It will still be there, available on the internet for all. If you think otherwise, consider this: the government publishes a list of every book, film and game they refuse classification for, along with a reason for why it was banned. Thus censorship today in Australia is a completely open process, functioning in much the same way as our open court system. For the mandatory filter this situation will be reversed. We will not be allowed to know what was banned, let alone why. This is the single biggest criticism of the entire plan. They could cut the legs from under the anti-censorship movement by just making internet censorship as open as it is for other media. So why not just do that? Because if someone determined knows there is a tasty URL out there, it is easy to bypass the filter undetectably to get at it. To put it bluntly, the ISP filter will leak like a sieve - and they know it. So if they published a banned list of URL's, it would become the favourite bookmark page for every testosterone driven school boy in country. Meanwhile, the rest of us who wouldn't go there anyway will have our internet filtered.

(cont'd...)

(cont'd...)

Thirdly, although no one particularly likes it, for the most part horse porn, SM and the like are harmless. It is just consenting adults indulging in perverse activities that I personally find ick. The things aren't harmless (like incest) are illegal, meaning they are already "filtered" far more strongly than proposed mandatory filter would. That is to say if you download them, you are thrown in jail.

Fourthly, the filter won't just ban stuff you find disagreeable. It bans all illegal things. This includes information about Euthanasia. Anti-abortion sites have been banned. Rudd said government leaks are illegal, so I guess they would be banned too. Thus you can be absolutely sure some activities you personally support will be banned because some noisy majority thinks they could be harmful and has managed to make them illegal.

Fifthly, because this banned list must be secret, you won't know exactly what "illegal things" the government has decided you are supposedly so horrible, so corrupting to us mere ordinary citizens, that we can not be trusted to see them!

So wwm, you are telling me because you might be offended by some harmless if objectionable content on the web, you want the government to control of what I can see, without me being able to see what they are doing. And you expect me to take this quietly. Not bloody likely.

These poly-ticks are beginning to play with fire, you aint seen nothin yet.

I know this has been on the agenda for quite a while now, but I wonder if the recent killing of the ETS has spurred this on faster? It is of course the internet that is fueling the war against the carbon cultists and it is the internet that is educating people on subjects never spoken about before in the education system.

The internet is waking people up and the poly-ticks don't like it!

I wanted to write more about this, but these past two governments have made me fearful of free speech, these are sad days in the once wonderful land of Oz!

CJ,
Can you explain to me how SM is even remotely correct on this?

He makes the *political* scare point indicating some sort of nefarious plot. The Labor party couldn't run a crooked chook raffle without telegraphing the fix, let alone some dark and devious 'Big Brother' operation. i.e. 'smokescreen', for what?

And of course the Liberal complexion is far from the odd melanoma or ten. to either side of the argument.

He, no more wants to talk about freedom of speech than Minchin does. He simply wants to sensitize the people to the evils of Labor and paint the Libs as the party of freedom (excuse me while I chuckle at the oxymoron).

Notwithstanding, I would be interested to hear how you figure it's a smokescreen

Shadow Minister

Most people here have never lived in a country where the media are censored.

I have.

You are right.

Australia has taken the first step on the road to a totalitarian state.

The government's true motives are glaringly transparent. Anyone who buys it is simply colluding in their own deception.

examinator,

I can't believe I am defending Shadow Minister. At times I think he is indistinguishable from the real thing. In fact I think it is entirely possible he _was_ the real thing.

But, that is no reason to condemn him. I didn't see you condemning Andrew Bartlett for being politically partisan. Like Bartlett, Shadow does go into bat for his favourite hobby horses regardless of politics. The Libs are certainly a favourite, but so is nuclear and apparently free speech is another.

The smokescreen he is referring to is the trials themselves. And he is faithfully reporting on what a "top communications expert" said. Unless you don't consider Bjorn Landfeldt to be an expert, but that would be a dubious proposition. All Shadow is guilty of is not posting a link: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html But then the bugger rarely does.

As for interesting events today the parody site stephenconroy.com.au was up for a while. It got taken down by http://www.auda.org.au/ - as it should have been as it appears it wasn't connected to a business. However the speed it got taken down with was an all time record, and the usual appeals process seems to have been bypassed. How odd. It is not like the government hasn't promised over and over again that will be a Chinese Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall between it and independent bodies, like the one that will police the proposed censorship regime.

So now Conroy is about to learn the meaning of a new internet term, the "streisand effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect The site has now re-appeared here: http://stephen-conroy.com/

Oh well, I expect, this new era in the internet is going to be a learning process for all of us. The sooner Conroy starts his journey about learning what this internet thingy is really capable of, the better it will be for all of us.

I think censoring the internet (through a bloody secret list even) is probably the biggest act of outright FASCISM by a national Australian government since Menzies introduced conscription. Hands down. Wait, sorry- I take that back- since APEC and WYD2008- both overseen by State Labor and Federal Liberals- together (proving that they're BOTH nothing but corrupt neocons under their facades- although anyone who hasn't got this into their thick skulls long ago is probably so stupid they'd need a bicycle helmet on at all times to stop them hurting themselves).

Nothing else needs to be said- actually no, there is more- this is nothing but abhorrent to a free society and another attempt to cripple Australia's development by access to free information (except the illegal porn- as it's the only content that has no practical use and I could assume is already being filtered by service providers here and worldwide)- absolutely everything else- be it Euthanasia sites, anti-abortion sites, even terrorist advocacy sites should be unrestricted if we want people that can access information outside the scare-media polluting our papers, radio and TV in order to weigh the merits and understand whatever people they would want to know about.

In other words, there is no justification for this abomination to exist.
I know it's partly because Labor jumped into bed with the crazy religious lobby and Family First for preferences and a few extra votes- but I wouldn't put it past them to happily ban gambling sites on behalf of casino owners as Shadow pointed.

I will personally follow Mikk's example and put Labor dead last on my next election paper (where Liberals currently sit- now lucky second-last).

Is the government really censoring the internet? They are only censoring those aspects of the internet that WWM mentioned.

You can't go out and buy an SM XX rated mag in BIG W why should it be available so freely and easily on the Net. There have been numerous issues about kids accessing this stuff even on school sites although it has been tightened up a lot more.

The internet is accessed by kids as well as adults and kids who more and more are left on their own. Technology seems to come in rapid bursts with very little time for the social factors to catch up.

Yes, there is a risk of this censorship caper being taken too far - and that is a valid concern.

While an internet filter is easily downloaded it is not perfect.

But, wait before rstuart jumps on me about this as he is prone to :) -let me ask again -why on earth can't we offer a clean feed. I would certainly choose the clean one as a parent, but would not expect others to do so if they don't have kids or whatever.

It can't be that difficult - man has landed on the moon and is sending satellites into space - there has to be technology to allow a clean feed option that actually works.

It would solve all the problems and angst on this issue without the need for an outright ban.

Rstuart,
I see your point however, I take a lot of stick for my phraseology and so should SM.
Had he phrased it without the political bumf of scare mongering then I wouldn't have taken the stance that I did. I was responding to what he said. I don't believe it's a smokescreen for anything. What's the bet it's cocked up like petrol watch.

BTW I hamper freedom of speech, I have joined the don't call list.
I would also suggest the whole 'freedom of speech' drama is bollocks *it doesn't exist*. freedom of speech is at best relative.

Notwithstanding for me Pelican is on the money (well said you). The govt should offer a clean option to families I would add at a cheaper rate.
Unlike some I aren't the most switched on parents and a little help wouldn't go astray.
I don't believe that Caveat emptor is anything more than an excuse exploitation in Latin.

It is quite amazing that now our Govts will save us from paedophila after eons of abuse from the clergy and family incest.

Suddenly the state will cleanse humanity from it's foibles via censorship of the internet.No mention of the logistics or detail,just trust us and all will be resolved.

You cannot trust Govt with anything unless they are made accountable.When was the last time this happened?

Rstuart.

"Nothing else needs to be said- actually no, there is more- this is nothing but abhorrent to a free society and another attempt to cripple Australia's development by access to free information (except the illegal porn- as it's the only content that has no practical use and I could assume is already being filtered by service providers here and worldwide)- absolutely everything else- be it Euthanasia sites, anti-abortion sites, even terrorist advocacy sites should be unrestricted if we want people that can access information outside the scare-media polluting our papers, radio and TV in order to weigh the merits and understand whatever people they would want to know about." Quoted by king H.

Come on stue! A horses what-see up who know,s what?, the king said it for me. What for the new and naive?, not all are computer savvy, so who protects them? filters? You know the sh@t Iam talking about and you know Iam all for freedom of speech. Its a consumer trap! The courts are full of innocent net surfers, and don't tell me people are all up to speed. Many don't know the laws concerning down loads, lots don't give it second thought, again! its a consumer trap, and its our duty to protect themselves from themselves.

or where does is stop? Come on mate. I said one can go to your local XXX store and buy what turns you on without the public having to monitor those that will get the shock of their lives.

I agree to disagree. And if you cant get your bonkings from your partner ( may it be a horse or snake... or ten foot dildo), and you say, your curiosity is threatened? Mate!....... ) You know what I,ve out lined.

"illegal porn- as it's the only content that has no practical use"

And this my point.

Walk with me,

If you bothered to read the article the "test" also showed:

-That 68% of the sites banned were legal (RC can include a lot of discussion sites, gambling, etc),
-The filter was extremely easy to bypass,
-The "child porn" sites that were blocked were not viewable by accident. (as it is illegal you need a password),
-there are millions of porn sites that continuously change their domains

In short:
-it doesn't work,
-As the list is secretive and "complaints based", the main purpose is political and financial control by the state.

Examinator, it would appear that big brother is labor. If you want "proof", there has been hundreds of articles written by many experts, and this is not the first time the topic has come up for discussion. Perhaps you would care to do some reading before launching such an incoherent post.

I might also add that I'm against the principal of the government making a porn filter to quite an extent too, I'm just giving the concept some leeway for my last point;
-Except for material that specifically involves the actual act of involuntary assault or participation of a minor- both of which DO cause harm to the participant involved (which may include bestiality), on what grounds do the government otherwise have to censor other material?
-That a compulsory filter would block an adult from accessing material he/she wants (minus the illegal sites that have already BEEN blocked by other organizations) by extension of the previous point.
-That business and religious groups might get input into what is abhorrent or not- totally corrupting a censorship system
-That a government would waste taxpayers money making a program to which countless other versions ALREADY EXIST ONLINE- the SAME internet that idiots need protection from.

-The dumbest part is, to see internet porn you actually have to TRY to access it- meaning the kids would have actually TYPED some pornographic term in with the obvious intent of accessing pornographic material- after turning "safe search" OFF.

Kids do try to access it Hazza. That is the point - even if soft porn was considered okay by some - afterall kids can get a playboy from a mate or older sibling perhaps, it is the extreme sites that are of concern.

When I ran a business I had an online site as well (many years ago) and sometimes when searching for various wholesalers a few porn sites would pop up with the most inane search terms. The most bizarre was 'greetings card' and 'gift wrapping' or similar. Things have got better and some of the free or purchased internet filters have cleaned things up a bit.

A clean feed option would not be compulsory but a voluntary subscription or freely provided - this is different from a filter. The feed would only include sites that do not have the unwanted content eg. rape porn, SM, bestiality etc. A website owner would, I guess, in this option, would have to apply to subscribe to the clean feed and be accepted or denied based on the criteria. The other feed would remain the same. Parents then would take responsibility for what they think is relevant or appropriate for their family.

I don't think efforts to stop this sort of content being available to kids is part of a greater government conspiracy. What does shadow minister mean a smokescreen?

What sort of smokescreen?

Interesting Pelican;

And by smokescreen Shadow refers to the broader censorship beyond illegal pornographic material- mentioning gambling sites- and as we do not ban gambling in Australia in general- would mean that it is also an attempt to thwart the internet as an access alternative competitors to local Australian business interests- making the filter based on a corrupt attempt to screw the Australian population out of broader consumer access, and not public protection.

Similarly, there are also implications of blocking Euthanasia information sites, and other sites that the government of the day (or their favorite supporters/lobbyists) simply doesn't LIKE.

walk with me: "What for the new and naive?, not all are computer savvy, so who protects them? filters?"

If you think your kids need protecting, then by all means protect them. There were free government filters. Did you install one when they were available? If not, you could buy one yourself. Did you care enough to do that? Failing that there are ISP's that provide filtering now. Eg http://www.webshield.net.au/ Do you use one?

The point is, if you think your kids are better off not seeing any of this stuff than you can do that. The only other places they might get access to computers are schools and friends places. Schools are already filtered, and you get to control the friends houses they visit. Problem solved!

As it happens, I didn't think my kids needed protecting. They are adults now, but had internet access in our house since primary school. The rule wasn't "thou should not look". It was "thou shall respect the wishes of others". They didn't initially of course. Boys and boyfriends left porn lying around, and both genders were seduced by viruses. But that stopped soon enough.

In the process a lot of other learning has been done. The girls have learnt to leave Google safe search on. More importantly everybody has learnt what a site trying to trick you into downloading a virus looks like, which phishing site is, how to trust the contents of an email, why you should not give your email address random web sites.

As a consequence, coming across unwanted web content is unheard of in my household. In fact given Google safe search is on by default, I imagine it is rare in general. People see this stuff have almost always gone looking for it.

My problem with you wwm is this isn't really about controling what your kids see, is it? It can't be, because you can already so that. It is about controlling how I choose to parent my kids. My response is ugly, but there is no polite way to say it: piss off.

pelican: "Is the government really censoring the internet? They are only censoring those aspects of the internet that WWM mentioned."

Rubbish. They are censoring R18+. These are movies, images, and words that every Australian adult is legally entitled to see. If it really was the stuff wwm talks about, what Conroy characterises as "worst of the worst", they would be only filtering material refused classification.

pelican: "But, wait before rstuart jumps on me about this as he is prone to"

Well, you do insist on waving the red rag at the bull.

pelican: "It would solve all the problems and angst on this issue without the need for an outright ban."

True. No one would object to opt in filtering. So why is it mandatory?

As usual, particularly with computer stuff, I agree with rstuart.

More generally, while I'm an advocate of free speech, I accept that there are some areas where the State needs to limit it in order to protect the interests of the people who comprise it. Stuff like child pornography, explicit instructions on how to make bombs or illegal drugs, and indeed anything else that directly facilitates criminal activities should be banned.

In fact, it already is.

If Conroy's filter could limit itself to only blocking illegal activity, then that's something I could live with, even at the sacrifice of some speed. Wasn't another part of the Labor platform prior to the last election the promise to provide a national fibre optic high speed broadband rollout? If they did that, it would have to compensate for any reduction in performance. Hell, where I live I've only had ADSL for a year - I'd probably only notice it if it affected iView :)

However, the filter that Conroy is proposing can't do that, even according to their own tests. In which case, it has to be opposed. As others have pointed out, it blocks all kinds of stuff that it shouldn't.

PS rstuart - I agree. One aspect of the Greens with which I'm not enamoured is a tendency to nanny state shite. I wasn't all that impressed by Clive Hamilton's recent parachute drop - effective as it probably was at the polls. He's someone I agree with frequently, but who I also think comes across as a smug prude who thinks he knows what's best for all of us.

I'm not an active member lately, but you've inspired me to send a couple of emails :)

Paedophiles can now circumvent the internet and have direct computer interaction.Perversion is all about obsession and no Govt regulation will change that.

The Govt's perversion is their obsession with power.Kevin Rudd is not a man of substance,hence he needs all the censorship that he can muster.

What is meant by smokescreen is that the purpose of the bill is to:

"Protect the children"

Considering that the pedophile sites aren't accessible by the general public, and that they are all closely watched by the police, the block on these sites will mean that potential pedophiles will be forced to use mirror sites, which mask their IP address. This means that the police cannot track them.

The net result is that it is shielding the pedophiles from the police, whilst not preventing any accidental access by the general public to any porn.

As the majority of sites blocked are legal, the net result is that sites that the moral minority feel objectionable or politically incorrect, are the only sites effectively censored, which is what all the fuss is about.

The Blue rinse brigade who know nothing about the internet are certain to support anything that "protects the children" completely oblivious to the real reason.

rstuart I agree that it should come down to choice. I would choose the clean feed for sure given my preferences and circumstances but free speech is not about allowing a free-for-all and then denying people the choice to opt out of the murkier side of the internet.

We classify games and magazines yet people get up in arms about doing the same for the Internet. That is why I am all for a clean feed. It doesn't have to be forced down the throats of those who don't want it.

Shadow M
The smokescreen you mention was never a smokescreen. The filter was always about protecting children. You don't think the police are going to stop monitoring the internet as a whole with regards to pedophilia, whether there is a filter or not?

SM and others

As I now understand you you are questioning the effectiveness of any such system. On that we *agree* to a point.

Where we diverge is the basic assumption many seem to make.
that because I think things through every one else does. The majority simply don't.

I point to a number of facts about human tendencies

- information fatigue.
- general ignorance to the inherent risks and limitations remedies in technology, .
- Complacency with technology.
- misplaced trust in off sprungs.

Truism : what man makes, man will break.

IMHO the average public aren't as savvy as they should be and need some protection from if not themselves then others, especially children.

Scenarios I've seen. Young girl while on play date goes upstairs with friend to big sisters computer and clicks on big sis anti abortion site has read. Oops, tears trauma all around. Transpose with a big brother's and porn. ...

Inquisitive children are at home alone get on to how to make bombs or where to find caster oil berries (Ricin) and how to get a (very dangerous omitted) high.
Oops two potentially dead boys.

BTW the plants were accessible on a landowners fence line...his response ' I am not legally required to remove them.'

Caveat emptor? Which average parent
-. can identify the plant
- thinks to warn their children.

No system is perfect ,but that doesn't mean we shouldn't *try* to protect the naive, unconsidered, vulnerable...Nanny state? Hmm.
It seems to me this issue is more an I want rather than I need. But I ask at what risk to the above? and who wouldn't be prepared to protect them .

Hence I agree with Pelican filtering should be the norm and unfiltered should be a more extra expense option etc.. Me personally, I'd go filtered even though there are no young children here, besides I don't need to look at those sites anyway. There are less appealing get the information. (books, and optionally unfiltered sites unis, libraries)

Making it a party politics issue is simply odious irresponsibility.

pelican: "We classify games and magazines yet people get up in arms about doing the same for the Internet. That is why I am all for a clean feed. It doesn't have to be forced down the throats of those who don't want it."

I think you meant censor, not classify. There have been several attempts to classify the internet, PICS being the biggest one. The infrastructure was put in place, meaning Internet Browsers (such as Microsoft's Internet Explorer) respected PICS ratings. PICS and related ideas were always voluntary. They had to be, because getting the governments around the world legislate the implementation of a uniform rating scheme around the planet was impossible. So the idea instead was that web sites that gave PICS ratings would attract more visitors because they displayed classifications. But in the end stuff all users cared about ratings, so web sites gave up on rating themselves. I can't find much "positive" information about PICS now. This site criticises it: http://kris.koehntopp.de/artikel/rating_does_not_work/

And if you did mean censor, then the comparison with books, magazines is fallacious. If the current movie / book / magazine scheme was just adopted unchanged by the internet there would hardly be a ripple. But in that case it would be an open system, and it would be stratified by age. It is neither. Thus we have kids being allowed to see MA15+ sites, the entire population having R18+ banned, and no one has a clue as to where the gate keepers are drawing the line.

You know this. Yet you persist in saying censoring the internet is no different to books. In other words, you persist in justifying this to yourself with things you know aren't true.

Rstuart, others

The problem is that to read/gain these books/mags requires greater effort than simply clicking on a keyboard.

I believe in transparent censorship, but an extra cost "unfiltered" option much like porn channels on Cable TV i.e. those who want it pay for it. No one is suggesting that those channels need to be free to air.

How and where the 'line' is drawn is the question. I suggest your option is as good as any better than most.

I have three objections against those in favour of "freedom of speech" argument.

- Freedom of speech is a *relative* freedom anyway. To suggest that the issue is black or white is seriously misleading. the idea that parties (governments) don't restrict information to the public's interest by dubious reasons now, is pure nonsense.

- Therefore, To elevate it to a party political mandate and sell it by scare mongering or misleading is disingenuous at best irresponsible at worst.

- 'freedom?' to view read anything one wants legal or not, is a myth, it comes with a price probably high price tag (unacceptable risk ?).

In the mix of what to exclude has to be presentation (graphical displays, pictures) Does anyone's 8 year old daughter *need* to see and aborted fetus? In truth such sites go for the visually shocking.
Are children simply collateral damage for someone else's moot "limited rights?" i.e. to access sites most of us probably wouldn't, anyway.

That strikes me as more than a bit doctrinaire and/or self indulgent

Actually examinator the flipside is that minors have LESS opportunity to actually VIEW illicit images on the internet than they would a porn mag in their possession because they can't just go to their room, pull it out of their textbooks and read it, but have to be at a computer to do so- if they can only access a family computer under parental supervision, problem solved- without the need for anything drastic to be set upon the ENTIRE country. And I'd say parental supervision around machinery is a LOT more important in itself.

As for your other points:

-Freedom of speech IS relative- however that does NOT justify governments banning and censoring things at the expense of the entire public- for its OWN reasons, at entirely their own discretion (ie no democratic consultation at all) on the ASSUMPTION that "they know what's good for us"- assuming it IS even our benefit they are actually thinking about. The fact that they currently have all the rights and citizens have zilch merely shows how illegitimate and not-so-workable our present system IS- and definitely not a justification for its existence (ie maintaining the status quo).

-Parties DO sell scare-mongering, and they DO pass policies to the benefit of special lobbyists, party donors and groups giving them preferences in return. Liberal AND LABOR. It's pure naivety to think otherwise- and realizing this- outright stupidity to shrug it off and continue voting for them- there is no excuse.

-Aborted fetus- to the government's credit, if an aborted fetus were on a billboard in public view they would probably tear it down- unlike the "longer lasting sex" ads and, in fact, sexualized public advertising in general. However, if there were anything they blocked on the blacklist that were available (arguably also to kids)- like blocking gambling sites but not also banning pokies, casinos and those little candy-grabbing claw machines- then the 'protection' premise is a crock.

King Hazza,
I'm not sure that I fully communicated the point I was making or even that we're comparing apples with apples.

The point was that to get the books/magazines/comics etc someone has to *buy* them. Not every family house hold has a pile of dirty mags etc, however most have computers.

The range of *instant access* to hard core violent porn is easier, more wide spread, variety of choice and anonymous on computer than in mags etc. A passive pic is no substitute for bump and grind hard core movie.

Were that not so, there would be no market for such movies.

You can monitor your children at home but can you always be so sure about the diligence of the parents and older siblings of their friends?

Did you read the scenarios I posted? all real examples. I mentioned other issues more dangerous i.e. ricin berries, bomb making.

True images may be handed around to circumvent any filtering. Like I said no system is perfect.

I also said, that unfiltered net should be a paid for option *like* porn on Cable TV. You want it you pay for it. There are endless sites with teasers with only are you 18, question.

I used the principal of 'need' easily obtained (educational, games etc) over 'want' a discretionary product (Mercedes Benz you may want one but need?).

I also cited other considerations.

In context I covered or agreed with you on most points. I have contempt for the political situation in related topics I stress the average man's culpability in reigning in the pollies.

It seems to me that you're using extreme or absolutes, both are the bane of sensible discussion. in some of your point your argument smacks 'of baby and bath water' over this issue. IMO changing policies rather that changing govt because of a moot absolute 'right' makes more sense.

BTW I don't support any party. And I actively seek to modify the system to make it more representative

The government has no place in this country implementing a filter, it goes against our very liberties. The people on here trying to justify this invasion of our rights are pathetic to say the least. Stop demanding the government be your nanny, grow a pair and set up your own filters if it bothers you that much, it's not hard to do and can be done for nicks. I'm no IT expert yet I managed to do it, the software is free and all you need is an old P2 computer ($50 bucks at most) to run it on. It took me all of 2 hours to set up.

Just like you spent time learning to drive so you could passenger yourself and your children in safety, so too can you teach yourself to protect your children from harm on the internet. It's about time you fools began taking some responsibility for yourselves and stopped pushing your ignorance onto everyone else, I'm sick of the lot of you, it's your fault this world is such a piece of crap, too many morons whining to the their nanny's they need protection from the bogey man.

Instead of wasting time watching some solarium burnt tart from bondi on TV or four idiots trying to win a yelling competition, spend that time educating yourselves on how to set up your own filters. You'll then be in complete control, have the ability to dictate what you deem acceptable and will save the rest of us a truck load of money and grief. Go on, get on with it, you can do it!
Here I'll even give you the links to the software I use to get you started.

http://www.smoothwall.org/
http://www.urlfilter.net/

Now get off these idiot boards and get on with it! Sheessh, next you lot will be wanting the nanny to ban cars, coz you're too lazy to teach your kids how to cross the road, gimme a break FFS!

Examinator,

My main issue is that if the system only targeted illegal sites I would have less of an issue with the attempt.

Considering the plenitude of free filtering software systems that are available (and installed on my kids computers), far more comprehensive than what is being proposed, and does not slow the network down, the question is why in god's name is Conroy trying to install a half *ssed system that completely ineffective against the pedophile target, and which targets non pornographic legal (but not politically correct) sites.

As the "list" is secret, there will be almost no oversight what so ever, and if the censorship strays from the paltry test list into political bias the public will never know.

The blue rinse brigade is helping Conroy impose one of the worst infringements of civil rights in the last couple of decades. What's next? Book burning?

Shadow! We know it doesn't work and they can ramble on as much as they want. Its like night clubs! Making money from the innocent. What poor form! Now this needs lots more balanced talks, coz there,s a line, even for money, should not be cross. And I love money. Now I do a lot of baiting on here and the triggers are real, and don't forget the three levels of society.( perspective ) I am working my guts out on this site of equal opportunity for all and not a land-slide for those who know a better understanding of the workings.

Now! as far as I see it, its a stale-mate. You all play, but not together. I have a lot more to say on this, but law is the new reading.

Hands are tied.

Merry xmas.

Off topic, I have a new idea. What if we stopped the world as we are? like groundhog-day. Your fuel, food, your pay-packet and so on, everything that is here today and now, and just freeze it. The same day will be as it was yesterday? normal! Ten years from now( or until we all agree on something ) the prices will be the same. The only down side will be the profit-makers! ( Oh! lets feel sorry for the profit-makers )They will become extincted( instead of all living things on this planet ) and when the world agrees with a change, when we move one day forward?

I don't know.

Just a thought.

As you are?

Off topic, I have a new idea. What if we stopped the world as we are? like groundhog-day. Your fuel, food, your pay-packet and so on, everything that is here today and now, and just freeze it. The same day will be as it was yesterday? normal! Ten years from now( or until we all agree on something ) the prices will be the same. The only down side will be the profit-makers! ( Oh! lets feel sorry for the profit-makers )They will become extincted( instead of all living things on this planet ) and when the world agrees with a change, when we move one day forward?

I don't know. it sells its self. sham wow.

Just a thought.

As your greedy selfs.

examinator: "To suggest that the issue is black or white is seriously misleading. the idea that parties (governments) don't restrict information to the public's interest by dubious reasons now, is pure nonsense."

True. But the only person so far to suggest the issue is black and white is you. No one here is asked for all censorship laws to be rolled back, yet you argue as though they had. No has argued that speech that has traditionally been regarded as illegal (such as slander) should not be illegal on the web. Only you say this. Rather than answer the points raised, you puts words in our mouths and then shoot them down.

More tellingly, I don't see the reverse argument either. The people saying we need the filter don't say we aren't handling things that are already illegal perfectly well now. Slander on the web is prosecuted in the same way as any other media. Kiddie porn is banished as much as it can be. Snuff films are well hidden, if they exist at all. The bottom line is, stuff we humans universally regard as abhorrent isn't on the web any more than it appears anywhere else, because we hunt down those that produce it and stop it at the source.

examinator: "Does anyone's 8 year old daughter *need* to see and aborted fetus?"
examinator: "The problem is that to read/gain these books/mags requires greater effort than simply clicking on a keyboard"

Odd. You managed to answer your own question. Are you planning to show any 8 old's aborted fetuses? Because if you don't, they aren't likely to see it. They are filtered out by Google safe search, and no 8 year old is going to go looking for them. It may only require a click. But a click is enough to change "unwanted glimpse" into "deliberately sought out". The contrast between requiring a click and unavoidably glimpsing the tits hanging out of the magazine rack at kids eye level is stark.

Yet still, you want it banned. You want to ensure no adult in Australia can see a hard hitting anti abortion site. It is hard to find any charitable explanation for this beyond you wanting force the entire population into following your particular puritan brand of Judeo-Christian ethics. That would be the same brand of ethics that leads wwm to say: "Its like night clubs! Making money from the innocent."

It should be clear to you the vast majority of the people who use the internet don't want this. It is not a small minority, or a slight majority. You are forcing a particular brand of ethics down the throats of a populace when the vast majority find those ethics repulsive. This should hardly be surprising. We are the culture that John S Mills gave rise to when he said: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

And is it the vast majority. On every newspaper story is is consistently rations of 100 to 1 against. And nonetheless, you think this is a right and proper thing to do?

Rstuart and others

I appreciate what you're saying but the clear logical implications of what you are suggesting, unfiltered net is the norm, IMO ignores the reality of day to day.

Much that is written on opinion sites tend to be virtually bi polar with precious little for objectivity. The vigour/intensity of some editorialising tends to be more assumption than objective reasoning.

I rarely intend to say my opinion is sacrosanct, merely to point out that the views as expressed often *appear* extreme and that there are valid alternatives that need to be taken into account i.e. if *any* mass net filtering happens then the next inevitable step is ministry of (lack)information. Simply put, that isn't provably true (an unsustainable assumption...based on preconceived 'prejudices').

One could suggest with good cause that is already well practised by both political sides already. Accusations by either side is disingenuous.

By nature I tend to critically analyse/examine( objectively as possible)opinions which is my hence 'examinator'. I see that as my contribution to topics.

My experience leads me to understand that most OLOer are *not* the societal norm, in that some try to articulate/ reason their opinions rather than wallow in the emotional.
That is observational not pejorative.

The assumption that what is good/appropriate for middle class OLOers may not be for the greater number of people who need protection.

Hence I stress the optional approach as a compromise.

The scenarios I suggested did happen albeit on the first one with other legally available but equally unpalatable content.

Your first/second point was a direct response to King Hazza. There is a marked difference to JPG of nudes to Hard core MP4's (context)

Re no adult comment …*.read all that I said I offered an option.*

The option approach forces parents to make a decision up front. It's the marketing principal of windows bundling (in reverse) .

SM

Your option places unrealistic emphasis understanding and thought processes on those whose off sprungs who need the protection most. A bit like the stated intention of the Liberal's aboriginal 'intervention.'

I have reservations to the methodologies of both.
I still advocate the optional approach.

Publishing the list would simply make them a target. The extremists, e.g. the extreme anti abortionists claim that they were being discriminated against.
________________________
RawMustard,

it's not a case of growing anything, It's a case of do I stop my children from having and going to friends' houses.
Do you really expect every one to vet other parents to that degree before hand?

Then you need to consider ability and or ability to pay for the help.
Do we then need to run a check on parents of friends?

Frankly, gratuitous "Nanny state comments" seems to indicate a lack of depth of thought/empathy to others condition on the topic.

Examinator,

Your objections could be answered by making it illegal (with hefty fines) to expose children, one's own or other people's, to pornography or extreme violence. Having installed the government's optional filter to any computer that could be used by children would be a defence, and it would be up to the government to make such software foolproof to install and use.

My concern is the temptation to our elite that would be provided by a secret list of banned sites. The mainstream media used to have a monopoly as a gatekeeper of information to the masses. In the days before the Internet, opinion pieces used to commonly appear in the newspapers on what a basket case Sweden was, with a miserable economy, high suicide rate, etc., and how we needed to guard ourselves against such socialistic ideas. No one could judge the truth of all this unless they had lived in Sweden or had access to a major research library along with the motivation to spend hours investigating. This is assuming that a letters editor would have allowed the party line to be challenged in any case. The Internet makes it all too easy to expose lies or shadings of the truth. Why do you think that sites wouldn't be censored simply because they have the potential to embarrass the politicians or their developer mates? Do you really doubt that power corrupts?

examinator wrote:
"it's not a case of growing anything, It's a case of do I stop my children from having and going to friends' houses.
Do you really expect every one to vet other parents to that degree before hand?"

How would you know that your kids friends dad doesn't have a bunch of legal but questionable material under his bed, which your child and his friend take great delight in viewing while the dads not home?

Just as I and my friends did when we were kids!

Are you going to demand your nanny forcibly search all homes for such material?

examinator wrote:
"Then you need to consider ability and or ability to pay for the help."

If you're too lazy to do it yourself and don't want to spend money to do it, why should I have to pay from my own pocket for you to slowly but surely destroy my right to freedom and liberty. You people certainly have a bloody nerve!

examinator wrote:
"Do we then need to run a check on parents of friends?"

See my first response in this reply, nuff said!

examinator wrote:
"Frankly, gratuitous "Nanny state comments" seems to indicate a lack of depth of thought/empathy to others condition on the topic."

Frankly, expecting people to pay for you to destroy what our ANZACS fought and died for seems to indicate a lack of depth of thought/empathy to others condition on the topic.
You disgust me!

examinator: "Frankly, gratuitous "Nanny state comments" seems to indicate a lack of depth of thought/empathy to others"

It cuts both ways. You aren't exactly showing a lot of empathy for those who believe an open and transparent society is ultimately the best guarantee we have for strong and safe communities. Some of us hold that principle pretty close to our hearts, you know.

examinator: "Much that is written on opinion sites tend to be virtually bi polar with precious little for objectivity."

Irrelevant in this context. I was commenting on the response to news stories. Regardless of what side the news stories took, that ratio of comments for and against the filters was the same. The same numbers are reflected in the uptake of net filtering options in general. When the Federal Government offered them for free, there were 6,000 takers. The ISP that provides the same service the mandatory filter seeks to forcibly impose on us has 3,500 customers. These numbers are truly insignificant - just like the number of people who comment in support of the mandatory filter on news sites. Amazing coincidence, eh?

Speaking amazing coincidences, there was another one over the weekend. After the filtering announcement last week there was an initial rush of opinion columns in the papers that died down towards the end of the week - pretty much the normal pattern for any breaking news story. Then on Sunday, the day most mum & pops actually read the paper, there was this rash of pro filter stories. I counted 6 of them. Truly amazing.

examinator: "My experience leads me to understand that most OLOer are *not* the societal norm"

No one said those 99% who disagree with the filter were a societal norm. But they are representative of those who use the internet heavily. And yes, I agree, for now they are also a minority.

So what you are effectively arguing is it is perfectly OK for the bulk of the society to curtail the freedoms of that minority. Apparently we who use the internet heavily can't be trusted to view on the net what the majority view in movie theatres, or in the sealed Penthouse Magazine at the newsagent, or ordered via mail from the local X-Rated DVD catalogue. Nor can we be trusted to do the right things by our kids do the equivalent of putting the X-Rated DVD at the bottom of Dad's sock draw, should we think the need arise. And the people who are making this judgement are apparently the ones who have least experience with the internet. Wonderful.

If you are going to support that claim, the least you could do is back it up with some figures that show we heavy internet users are the ogres you are making us out to be. You know - that we have sex with kids & animals, rape vulnerable females, and are in general unpleasant violent nerds. It should not be too hard to show a correlation with heavy internet usage and anti social behaviour - if such a thing exists. A little objectivity isn't too much to ask for, is it?

RStuart,
Clearly it's me and my approach that you object to, you don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying.

I don't see any issue in the strict limitations of a news(sic) paper article, because there's precious little point in discussion in that myopic context. Nothing is that simple.

This topic is/was intended to do some populist push polling. Note the emotive phrasing. I responded, pointing that out.

I see no point in OLO always dividing on political lines. I simply suggest that it isn't a matter of one or the other two extremes. Most people tend to *average* out in the middle but vary wildly issue by issue(I'm no exception). Their stances are influenced by their personal interests, limited experience (beyond their own comparatively narrow world), resentment, a sense of missing out on something. (Observational not judgemental.)

It seems if one disagree with Raw's extreme characterisations or you are a weak minded, emasculated, lefty, socialist, con person out to destroy the world and send us back to the stone age (or something like that).

You want proof ….consider for example sake the number of cases that are referred to social services and child protection, Ask a police-person. (more than fill our prisons)

Then ask the crisis intervention people ?

Then there's the countless children that get missed by the system.

Do you objectively think the parents of these children have enough where-for-all to think about subjects unless they're hit in the face by them ,then it's too late.
Go to the children's hospitals, emergency rooms and see how many children are injured because of lack of thought by a parent.
Evidence suggests there are more who may benefit than those who won't.

My point here is an over all one, NO-one is a perfect parent so a little help wouldn't go astray.

That's what I meant about empathy for others.
I do understand those who don't want the the ' potential restriction', HENCE , I suggested the *compromise*, Position.
Where's Raw's?
Is the Labor plan as it stands a faultless one that will unquestionably work? No.

resturt.

My problem with you wwm is this isn't really about controlling what your kids see, is it? It can't be, because you can already do that. It is about controlling how I choose to parent my kids. My response is ugly, but there is no polite way to say it: piss off.Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 19 December 2009 3:02:58 PM

LOL. Me telling you how to bring up your children? I don't even know you! let alone care, that's your biz. Its the junk we all agree that's rubbish. I have out lined my point, which was very clear, and if these intervenus underwear vultures- (meaning addicted to this type of material) was ever to get into the hands of any of the so call innocence we claim to respect and protect, and I guess when you walk down the street and see the youth acting like Americans and all the other copy-cat stuff their adopting, and this don't concern you at all? Well buddy, It concerns me! Ive got five myself From 9 to 18 and all know how to switch off the filler, either by own no-how or helped by request of other siblings, so its not safe because the youth out smart us by a 100 to one.

Its just my opinion to the fact, that's all. No I say, but at the moment the law is on your side. Human-beings since the cave days have enjoyed the bonkings of others and in all honesty, the wild thing is as normal as farting. As for mags and alike, again your biz! Dont have that stuff in my house or have the need for it.

The wife and I make our own porn, and behold, its very good. smile.

I will say it again! Its the crap! and nothing more.

examinator: "Evidence suggests there are more who may benefit than those who won't."

That statement is the essence of the problem. You claim there is evidence to show this. What evidence? Show me some evidence that correlates internet availability with harms. Not one off examples. Not anecdotes from workers who "just know". Real life aggregate stats from a reasonable population size that show internet usage when up, and so did harms to some group. The internet has been around for decades now, so there there has been more than enough time for such evidence to accumulate.

Except there isn't any to be found, is there? It didn't happen, did it? This means what you claim just isn't true. It is in fact a lie, yet is is repeated over and over again, seemingly getting stronger with every repetition. Its power comes it being a wonderful sound bite, and "common sense" makes you think it should be true. This makes it an ideal lie when you are trying use it to control the behaviour of others.

Here is an interesting list:

France: The total ban of a movie has ... fallen in obsolescence, although it is still legally possible. No such ban has been decided for more than twenty years. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/41535/20080828-1334/www.classification.gov.au/resource6b64.pdf?resource=253&filename=253.pdf

Sweden: "framework of regulation .. not used very often – by the Swedish Board not really since 1995" http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/41535/20080828-1334/www.classification.gov.au/resource58fc.pdf?resource=259&filename=259.pdf

Norway:"Norway's national film board has lifted a ban on hundreds of films censored for sex or violence since 1913" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3154766.stm

If what you said is true, countries like the above that have largely done away with censorship should have started to see a growing problem. Only they don't.

walk with me: "Me telling you how to bring up your children? I don't even know you! let alone care, that's your biz."

I am glad we have that straight. So I take it you don't care what what my kids see in my house, and thus you don't have any intention of controlling it with say a mandatory filter? Excellent! We are on the same page.

walk with me: "acting like Americans and all the other copy-cat stuff their adopting, and this don't concern you at all?"

Let me get this straight - you are claiming if people see something on the internet, a portion will rush out and "copy it"? Do I have that right?

You will get no argument from me that since the internet has arrived, the availability images and movies showing of porn and violence has grown immensely. So according to you, now people have been seeing it for the last decade they should be copying it. That should not be hard to prove. Just pulling up the ABS statistics showing a sharp rise in people copy-cating crimes depicted on the internet.

But of course you can't show that, because if didn't happen. What we are in fact discussing is some fantasy of yours. And to answer your question - no, your fantasies don't concern me at all. Except when you try to use them to justify controlling what I can and can't see. Then they concern me a great deal.

Rstuart. No,No, you misunderstood me. When I said we make our own porn, I meant without the lens. Memory only. You talk of fantasy not causing damage on the Internet, I beg the differ. There are lots of evidence to this like confessions of serial killers, rapist, and such, but as you said, only the small minority, still one to many in the eyes of the victims.

Going to play golf right now, I will continue later.

And don't forget your sight contradiction in your last posts..

Back this after-noon.

walk with me: "No,No, you misunderstood me. When I said we make our own porn, I meant without the lens."

Not sure how I managed to create that impression. I understood what you meant.

walk with me: "There are lots of evidence to this like confessions of serial killers, rapist, and such"

Yes, wwm, that is the usual argument given to show porn harms people. The problem is it is, when you come back from golf, you will give me a series of one off examples to make your case. But one off examples don't prove that porn is on the balance, harmful.

Perhaps an example will help make it clear why not. There is no doubt that vaccinations kill. Some people get allergic reaction to them and die. What is worse, it is possible they may never have caught the original disease, so they seemingly die for no good reason. By the "if we can save just one death, we should stop (insert you favourite cause here)" reasoning we should stop vaccinations. But of course that is obviously just silly. Even though vaccinations undoubtedly kill people, they save many more then they kill. Stopping them would do more harm than good.

It is not so clear cut with porn. Firstly, where is is clear vaccinations do kill some people, we don't really know for sure if porn was a contributing cause to a given crime. Sure criminals may say "the porn made me do it", but the also say "the booze made me do it", or "the devil made me do it", or even "society made me do it".

Secondly, the evidence that porn is harmful is ambiguous. Yes, people who do certain types of crime are highly attracted to it. But people who renovate cars are attracted to car magazines, people who fly planes are attracted to aviation magazines but no one would say they do those things because they read the magazines. Rather, there is some underlying cause that attracts them to both flying and magazines about flying.
(cont'd....)

(...cont'd)
It is likely to be that way with porn too. In fact, there is some evidence that points to these people using porn as a substitute for doing the real thing, which they try to avoid because they know it is bad. So there is evidence porn could actually reduce harms, not increase them.

Back to your claim you have examples, such as confessions. It may be true porn has harmed some, it may be true it has saved some from harm. Unlike vaccines it is very difficult to say for sure even for a particular incident. Thus the statement "single examples prove nothing" is even more true for porn then it is for vaccines. But just like vaccines, that doesn't matter. What matters, is on balance, did things get worse or better?

Fortunately it isn't hard to check this for porn. We had a time 20 years or so ago when there was no internet porn. Now we are flooded with it, with everybody free to see as much (or as little) of it as they like. To make your case, all you have to do is name a selection criminal acts you say porn contributes to, and then show they have had a large, unambiguous increase in them over the past 20 years. Crimes are great for this sort of thing because we have hard, reliable statistics gathers by various government departments. And if porn is as bad as you say, the huge uptick in availability of porn should have caused a corresponding huge uptick in the related crime rates and thus be really easy to spot.

So there is my challenge to you. You want to control what goes on in my household. Fine. All I ask in return is before you do so, you show what I do in private has some material effect on you. It is not an unreasonable request.

rstuart
Your response to me earlier clearly demonstrates you are missing my point.

Put simply, at the moment parents do not have a choice about which internet they use - there is only one feed - the unfiltered version, and while there are filters one can download they are not perfect. I must say they do make an improvement.

At the moment those like you who want the unfiltered version have it. Those who might like a clean feed as a second option do not have this choice at the moment.

What problem do you have with this? If it is about freedom of choice, at the moment people like me who don't want to risk of their kids getting hold of the Xtreme stuff on the Net, have no choice unless we ban computers in our homes, ban kids from homes with computers and hover over their computer even at school. This is of course untenable, OTT and unrealistic.

My kids are older now so for me it is not as important as it was say three years ago, but for many families it remains an issue.

You seem to have an issue with this unless it is your freedom that is at risk.

Restuart. Yes, I was going to give what you asked not to, and for sure, your case holds water for your circumstances, but Pelican has the magic bullet. Two feeds would solve the problem perfectly as well as peace of mind for all-us.

At the moment, our computers are based in the living room, just to keep a visual on the content their viewing. Even you tube has its concerns with the content. But still everyone,s circumvented the point. Does today's world realty need this type of (extreme material)?

eg. A few years ago, my son and buddies were just jumping off the garage roof onto a trampoline, after viewing Internet content, and the stunt went horribly wrong. The thought of my son in wheel chair just chills me to the neck bone. ( lucky he was not killed )

The two feed, is a winner, no doubt in my mind. thanks to all.

How little regard you all have for humanity. You use children as a commodity and you sleep at nights. How the stronger you are! Yes the world is not a perfect place, but like all through human history, the slaves must not know. The matrix is here. smile.

by L.J simmons
Pelican! just a little poem for you.

walk with me: << A few years ago, my son and buddies were just jumping off the garage roof onto a trampoline, after viewing Internet content, and the stunt went horribly wrong. The thought of my son in wheel chair just chills me to the neck bone. ( lucky he was not killed ) >>

Cripes. Don't let your kids watch 'Funniest Home Videos' or any action movie you care to name on prime time TV!

What I'd like to know is why there is apparently a vote in unbridled wowserism. All political parties - including the Greens - seem to be terrified of being offside with the most paranoid prudes in the community, to the point where they all seem quite happy to censor the vast majority to silence a tiny, if loathsome, minority.

Sorry - we don't need it, and what's proposed won't work anyway.

pelican: "Your response to me earlier clearly demonstrates you are missing my point."

I am certainly missing something.

pelican: "at the moment parents do not have a choice about which internet they use - there is only one feed - the unfiltered version, and while there are filters one can download they are not perfect."

This is the bit I am missing. Given I have already said you _can_ purchase a clean feed now, this statement makes no sense to me.

For example I said it in this thread:

rstuart: "Failing that there are ISP's that provide filtering now. Eg http://www.webshield.net.au/ "
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3315#78859

Admitedly that wasn't in a reply addressed to you, so maybe you didn't read it. But I have said it in replies addressed to you in other threads. Eg:

rstuart: "pelican: ... if you really want a filtered feed don't just whinge about it, go and sign up for one. You can do so here: http://www.webshield.net.au/ "
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2597#58974

So your statement "at the moment parents do not have a choice about which internet they use - there is only one feed - the unfiltered version" is just plain wrong. Either that or I am missing something, as you say.

Here is a piece of gratuitous advice for those of you who do want a filtered feed: use a service like that provided by Webshield, even after mandatory filtering comes in. Why? Because the mandatory filter will miss most of the bits you want to keep out. It simple maths. There are 1 trillion web pages: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-big.html About 1% are porn: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15721799/ So there are approx 10 billion porn pages out there. Assuming we have devote 1,000 people rating 1 page per minute 8 hours every working day, it will take them about 1 century to get through them all. But it only took 2 decades to add them in the first place. I trust you see the problem.

If you want more stats on internet porn, you may find the flash video on this page useful: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/12/internet-pornography-stats/

Interesting choice of words CJ so, lets have a look at them shall we.

1. Wowserism: Exclamation of astonishment at a person or thing.

2. Unbridled: not controlled in any way, or feeling and behaviour.

3. Prude: person who is excessively modest prim or proper.

My answer to you is:4: Prudent! Cautious, discreet and sensible.

Your hypocrisies and pretexts seem to have no boundaries, but there,s not one person in the world that's not a Hypocrite my friend. If you picked 3 and 4 for me, your right. smile.

Jokes a side, The funny thing is that we are all working for the same cause and as who,s voting on what, its your constitutional right to do so. Before one Judges another, one must look at him self. In my opinion, the world in a bit of a mess and being an environmentalist and political activist, what do you think I should be doing? sitting around all day with my head up my arse, knowing how much this planet is in trouble! I dont give a sh@t what people think.

All the best to you and your family and best wishes to you.

Well, I could say something but I feel like I'd be recapping rstuart and CJ Morgan- but I think I can add a few new points.

Shouldn't the lesson to this story be that kids should NOT get access to computers with internet access AT ALL until they're older? Generally it sends a clear point that the internet simply is NOT suitable for young children.

I mean, a kid could pinch dad's credit card, jump on the machine, enter every detail in and have a giant shopping splurge without him knowing till the parcel comes to the door (or the bill). It would be impossible for someone to do this over the phone or by mail if they were underage.

But instead, the rest of the country's mature adults are expected to get their (free and private) access to pornography, as well as access to stunt videos, fighting matches, documentaries, and to information unsuitable for children (eg politicial sites, to how to make a battery) cut solely because some parents feel strongly that seeing this stuff too early is going to deviate their kids (but the horribly sexualised and gruesome content on morning TV- Britney Spears etc, along with Australia's Funniest Home Videos, The Simpsons, South Park, the news, UNICEF ads, sex adverts on buildings isn't a big deal)- but at the same time, can't even be arsed to speak to a few other parents about taking preventative measures themselves (if the other parents would say no- would you want your kids with theirs at all?)
Just another case of someone trying to pass their own problems onto someone else out of their sight.

And daresay, there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too. Sadly I think it's exactly as CJ said- pollies obsessively pandering to the minority of wowsers.

And daresay, there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too. Sadly I think it's exactly as CJ saidPosted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 December 2009 2:28:34 PM

Thank you. You have made my point for me again. Now, listen to this. What is the base line for all of society? Yes, that's right! the upper class. From that line we can draw the picture of where the right and wrongs begins and ends, and thats why they - pollies obsessively pandering to the minority of wowsers.

That line is where we look up to and this is where targets are formed for the height-level,s one can achieve. You know the pecking order, so dont use that as your base line for your argument. That said,

"there is a huge lack of understanding of how developing minds actually WORK coming from this problem too".

No! there,s a lot of understanding on the young developing mind, but the question is, how will they perform as adults in the future is still yet to be seen. Have a look at the cartoon the family guy, psycho stewie, hell bent on killing his mother and taking over the world. Peter griffin, and I wonder how a child see,s that as a roll model along with homer Simpson and you can go on until the sun comes up. So Its a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

I,ll finish with saying, Its a risky old world today. Maybe your right. Things will just work out just like we worked it out, and its the same way, just another day.

rstuart
You are talking about internet filters not a clean feed. My understanding is that ISPs that offer a clean feed/filter are still using the same Internet feed and screening at the distribution point. This is not a perfect system.

I find when talking about these issues that as soon as the words prudes or wowsers come out for lack of cogent argument the debate is already over.

Particularly annoying is when some posters liken the internet filter to anti-democratic practices such as in China. It misses the point.

How do we make the Internet safer for younger people given that the Internet is now a major educational tool?

It is almost farcical at how any issue of child protection on these forums is turned into a demonisation exercise. This is not about being populist but being pragmatic about how we can get around these problems. It might not be a problem for you but it is for others.

What is your argument against two feeds?

Pelican “It is almost farcical at how any issue of child protection on these forums is turned into a demonisation exercise.”

Any parent who buys a child a computer can also afford to by the appropriate management software.

My VET licence covers 3 PCs for $99 pa. and includes a comprehensive site vetting system to block chatrooms and adult sites etc, unless exempted by the parent..

Thus VET software resolves all the parental issues which can ever be considered for $33 pa.

So why do we need the government to act as VET and ban adults from making free adult choices?

Answer – we do not

I protested conroys proposals months ago and got a letter telling me why he knew best

Get this – no politican, least of all a socialist politician, knows best for what suites or interests me.

No politican has the elected right to limit my internet choices.

If Conroy manages to set this system of institutional censorship up, I can only pray that the next (non-socialist) government has the sense and respect for the electorate to dismantle it

pelican: "You are talking about internet filters not a clean feed. My understanding is that ISPs that offer a clean feed/filter are still using the same Internet feed and screening at the distribution point."

Hmmm. This is an issue. I can't visualise what you think a clean feed is, so I am having trouble understanding your comment. I'll put my reply in general terms and hope we can progress from there.

You can think of the internet as being like our road system. The web sites in this analogy are the houses and business on the roads. The internet is the thing that connects you to them. And just as when you build a driveway to your house you become part of the road system, when you connect your computer to the internet you are become part of the internet.

There are no feeds on our road systems. Yes, there free ways that are faster than normal roads and there are secluded quiet roads, but there is no "feed" than only connects you to kid safe roads, or will only take you to schools and playgrounds. The best you can do is set up a gated communities with someone guarding the gates. The internet is no different. There is no "clean" version of the internet that will only take you to kid safe sites as by definition the internet, like our road system, connects every site to every other. In fact just as the entire point of the road system is to connect everybody to everybody else, the entire point of the internet is to connect every computer to every other computer on the planet. And like our roads, if you want a clean internet the best you can do is erect a guarded gate - or a filter as they are called on the internet.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

All the Australian government is proposing to do is to implement mandatory guarded gate. Their proposed "clean feed" is just the internet seen through their filter. Lets put censorship concerns aside for a moment, and look at this proposed in terms or what you want versus what it will do. Unlike books, movies and so on which are graded by age, this mandatory filter will apply to _all_ Australian's - kids and adults alike and must be suitable for both. But that is an impossible ask. It must allow adult sites through that aren't suitable for kids - sites that show condom use, give advice on reducing harms from recreational drug use, show news reports of abuse animals, war victims, homosexual sites, self breast examination .. the list goes on and on.

And of course, that assumes a filter that actually removes all R18+ sites and only those sites is possible. As I have explained before, it isn't. There are 1 trillion web pages out there. Technically and economically it is certainly possible to filter of say 1% of them. What isn't possible is creating that list in the first place. The government is proposing all banned web pages will be personally viewed by a bureaucrat, but as I said that takes an absurd amount of time to do. Anybody can do the simple calculation that shows it will take (very optimistically) a 100,000 man years to rate the likely 1% of "unclean" web pages out there. Even rating 10% of those 1% unclean pages is likely beyond us. That means 90% of the pages you want filtered will still be freely available on the "clean feed".

Have you got that? Not only will the mandatory filter not achieve why you want, putting it together is impossible. It doesn't take a genius to see this. The reasons should be understandable by the biggest internet Luddite out there.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

But a compromise is possible. Firstly, go back to a graded rating system so the kids can have a safe internet without harming its usefulness to adults. This would mean that like DVD's, books and movies, ultimately the families would be responsible for deciding what they and their kids can and can not see. This is fairly simple to do. It could be done adjusting a filter running on a PC depending on who is logged in, or by setting a dial on the ISP filter.

Dealing with the impossibility of manually rating all internet pages also isn't hard - just get a computer to rate them. The issue is computers aren't very good at this sort of thing. If you set the dials so computers filter most of the unclean pages they end up banning some good ones as well. This weakness means the government can't use computers in their proposed mandatory filter, but if we make the usage of computer ratings optional and just use it to filter the internet for kids this is no longer a serious problem.

So there is a solution. And the point I make over and over again, yet you seem to disagree with, is it is available now! Both PC based filters and the WebShield ISP clean feed solution do exactly what I described above. You said you would be happy with an opt in solution, so what is your problem with what is already available?

To put it another way, I am still utterly mystified by why you think the government imposed mandatory filter is good idea. Not only does it have censorship implications, but it is likely it will only catch 10% of the pages it is supposed to, and even if it did catch 100% the single rating system means it won't do the job you want. Worse, the governments proposal doesn't include anything that would work. It merely "encourages" ISP to offer a WebShield style clean feed, as a chargeable extra. For the life of me, I can't see a single redeeming feature in it.