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?