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) .