Family First: Steve Fielding http://www.stevefielding.com.au/

Anti-pokie: Nick Xenophon http://www.xen.net.au/

I can see Fielding saying yes to the filter, but maybe Xenophon is in a spoiler mood at this point in time, but I would not get your hopes up yet!

Maybe time to contact Nick and ask him to update his FAQ to answer his thoughts on this...

http://www.xen.net.au/html/faq.html

lol so much for Australian criticism of China's lack of internet freedom........

Exactly - I don't give a stuff about someone else's kids. Why should I suffer to please them?! You've taken away my violent movies, you're taking my violent video games, but don't steal my uncensored internet!

Double damn-straight.

Yes, but that's worthless if both the government and opposition are on the same side.

Edit: ie The government needs a majority of votes in the Senate to pass legislation. That can come from either the Government Senators + Greens + Independents or from Government Senators + Opposition Senators. As the previous government was in favour of something similar, I don't think we can guarantee that the opposition will vote against this.

Hence, the Greens votes may not even come into play.

I've corresponded with the Conroy's Shadow, Bruce Billson, on this matter, and he's dead-set against the filter. So there's some hope there, perhaps.

What isn't entirely clear to me is just how much of this must be done legislatively, and how much can be done just by executive fiat.

I sent a letter to mr conroy suggesting that this not go ahead for x reasons. He basically sent me a long assed reply saying it WAS happening.

Let's put it this way, unless the media covers this and everyone pressures the government to do this then we are screwed for the next 2 years that kevin rudd is in power. When he gets kicked out in a couple of years then, just like workchoices, it can dissapear

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that if this goes in, it will take some sort of miracle for it to be repealed. The best bet is to try and stop it happening, or hope that it is so unfeasible in reality that it dies a natural death after many setbacks.

Now if I opt out of such a plan, would that automatically place me onto a 'pervert' register because I wanted fast internet?

I believe filtering is a waste of time. I was in Saudi and you won't believe the amount of porn I saw people sending around there. The more taboo you make things, the harder people try to get them. If they are worried about child porn, simply ask service providers to provide the details of people going to specific websites...its a simpler solution to a problem. If they are worried about kids, then what they fail to realise is most kids are smarter than them when it comes to computers so as fast as they close holes the kids will make them better. They need to spend more time concentrating on bringing kids up with higher moral values and better education levels than this shit.

The internet is not a childs place.

The internet is realistcally, when viewed as a whole, a cross-section of society. It holds up in that cloud the knowledge, wisdom and histories of the planet. By histories I mean everything from infinately detailed accounts of wars, to what John Doe made for dinner. Everything on the internet has some importance to someone, and everyone finds something interesting. Who has the right to decide what is interesting and proper?

As a detailed cross-section of mankind, the internet is full of as many flaws and atrocities (and illegalities) as civilisation. I don't agree with, and don't like a large portion of the internet. Many places are home to the most foul bottom feeders of society.

And yes I think all this activity should be discouraged (hint, hint), but if history has ever taught us anything it is that you cannot take freedom away. Someone will always fight it. Censorship does not work. PERIOD.

The solution to this problem however can also be found in history. The solution is called education (politicians: its pronouced "ej-oo-key-shuh", and means "the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills"). By educating children, in our schools and at home, about what the internet is and how we can use it effectively. Then we can cater for everyone.

You wouldn't let a 5 year old roam the city at night.
Yet you want them to roam the internet with a drunken, dopey, and downright blind bodyguard?

You wouldn't let a 5 year old visit a warzone during a conflict.
Yet you want them to roam the internet with a shy, shaken up, and stupendously blind bodyguard?

You wouldn't let a baby go somewhere new by itself.
Yet you want them to roam the internet with a psuedo-neurotic, near-sighted, and nieve nanny?



The internet is not a place for children. It is an adults and an adolencents domain. Children are allowed, but please bring a parent.

Excellent article. If I want to filter my internet I will do it my self. We are not in China!!! We aren't at the reigns of a dictator and his pals, right? I hope not. "Dad, why did they make the Great Firewall of Australia?". "Umm... Because Therase wasn't happy with Kevin's late night viewing...".

The arguments for censoring the Internet today are no different from the arguments for censoring books and films from the 1930s to the early 70s, when Don Chipp, as Minister for Customs, pretty much put a stop to it. Then, as now, the argument was that children had to be protected; but nobody ever produced any evidence that children were being harmed, or were even in danger; and there was never a trace of evidence that the censorship did, in some mysterious way, actually improve their lives.

The joke in Melbourne in the 1960s was the prolonged adolescence of "Mr Rylah's teenage daughter"; he was the Victorian Chief Secretary, always justifying a ban on this or that book or film because he would not want his teenage daughter to read it. Poor girl, she must have had a very dull life, probably eventually allowed to have her 21st in a nursing home.

The three essential truths are that pixels are no more capable of harming children than words on a page or pictures on a screen; that politicians and bureaucrats don't give a stuff about harm to children, but are in love with the idea of controlling other adults; and that most harm to children is inflicted by their own parents or other close relatives.

Net censorship is just the same old wowserism that censorship has always been.

This is stupid. The internet servers providers (i.s.p) should of looked at ways of combating children safety on the internet years ago. I.s.p should offer family with children filtering, but on there end and not the family end. That way the kid's can safely surf children friendly sites and chat rooms ( Which should be monitored) With out the risk of taking to people who risk there safety.

All so if i.s.p offer this serves, a police check will need to be put in place to stop the evil ones from pretending to have kids.

I'm confused, you think we should have police checks to use the internet on top of censorship!?