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.