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.