So nice to know the "Good, moral, all wise pols" (read: corrupt, greedy control freaks) are doing their usual instead of solving real problems (*sigh).

"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you and protect you."  "Qui custodiet ipsos Custodiens?" the benevolent, honest Government (any and every Government) answers, "Io." [ "I am."].

Odd your Minister mentions China in his interview. Life, it seems, is a constant battle to preserve freedom. I eschew the predators, child molesters, etc... but I want it done in a way that infringes on their freedom maximally while avoiding mine. I'm not sure that's possible, but I like the effort.

Censorship has a long and culturally/religiously biased past. It always fails, usually after causing much misery. In the electronic, data mining present, it promises to harm maximally... and not just the guilty. The "No fly" list which penalizes two year olds while allowing terrorists on airplanes is a good example. Who knows what "Lists" exist (besides Po's and his Missus)?

Your only hope is vigilance and drafting folks who agree with you and LOUD (and well funded [the pols notice money]) protest.

I believe that protest should emphasize education of the public: Transparency of the process. Most worrisome are the processes which go on in the dark, with neither visible limitations nor controls.

It'll probably work as efficiently as MyKi does....

way to streamline the market lizardmen

P2P is the place where porno files are at their most accessible but the "Clean feed" won't even touch it. The problem is when the filter starts touching on areas which the Australian community finds acceptable.

Two examples I can think of.

A world renowned photographer had taken some nude photos of a young girl. He did a private showing at a gallery. One of the invited people took exception to the images of the young girl and made a complaint. The tabloid press grabbed the story, accused him of being a pedophile. People came out ranting and raving how could this happen. The photos were taken away by the police, the artist was questioned.

The photos were taken years before the showing, her parents gave him permission to take them. The girl, who was years older, gave permission and her blessing to show the pictures. The police gave the photos back to the artist because he didn't break any laws.

I did get to see the photos. They were very striking and beautiful and had no sexual connotations what so ever. The problem is, one of the biggest criticisms came from our Prime Minster, who said it was disgusting and horrible and these types of photos should not be called art, even though he never saw the photos. There are now some state laws where you need permission to show some types of artwork.

Artwork which is acceptable around the world and by our own laws can be filtered out

Another example is that Australia doesn't have an adult rating for computer games (its the R rating here). Some games have to be changed to be accepted into Australia. Although the gaming community have been screaming out for an R rating the government have refused. We can watch violent movies just can't play violent games.

Now if a game is refused classification because we don't have the R rating, the board could filter out web sites which show information for that game. After all, its the same people who rate the games who will be rating the web sites.

They might not end up doing this, but how would we know, if they will not tell us which web sites will be filtered, and the reason why.

Precisely. No transparency, no accountability. A system that is closed off and feeds on your taxpayer monies.

Don't put up with it for a single moment. Do the "Arbiters of the Public Morality" get psych profiles done? How are they hired? Does one have to have references dating back to Salem, MA? The Spanish Inquisition?

No, were I an Australian, I'd be making pots of tar and bales of feathers and hewing some rails.... and the plans to use them.

You can't filter the internet, it's retarded to even try.

Just start typing out reproductive organs and actions in board posts all over the net, that will show them!

One Attorney General out of 6 has vetoed it [South Australia].  It's a State Legislation issue that needs to be unanimous...so one individual in a country of 20 million plus is holding the country and its gamers to ransom.

The issue isn't so much that one is against it....it's the other 5 who represent probably 80% of the population at least who are FOR it.

The vote "should" be 'majority rules'.

But it isn't.

Implying that a majority of the vote can prohibit access to information cedes the point that a government has the authority to do this in the first place. I don't believe any government does and it wouldn't matter if 90 percent voted for it.

he's not talking about the internet filter.

A government has the authority to run a country within the laws of the land. That includes access to information, no matter how many people are against it. We can only vote the bastards out.

Fact.

1 individual in the entire country is prohibiting the population's access to 'adult' R - rated games .... you know, the shit where you blow some fucker's head off because he's in your sights...etc.

One person controls/prohibits what 20 plus million can and cannot do.

THAT is wrong.

You want a majority rule?

the AG of South Australia is the ruling 'majority' of one.

man i kinda hate my country now, if they told us what sites were going to be blocked i would be fine with it. i hope elmental doesn't get banned since we can't have R games.

New Zealand's filter went live without telling the electorate this month.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/new_zealand_internet_filter/

Sneaky buggers.....

Indeed. They like doing things without others' knowing what they're up to....prevents "resistance".

Man you Aussies have some serious issues with your government.

So do we, for that matter, stupid 'Progressives' think the world can be forced into being a better place by removing freedoms and adding restrictions. Lol. Redundancy.

QFT

And let's not forget the politically correct crowd... the ones who want to remove age-old nursery rhymes and fairy tales from school libraries/curriculums because they send inappropriate messages.... the ones who want mother and father references removed because it discriminates against/confuses children of same sex unions.

I mean, what a load of old bollocks!  Most of those things have been around for centuries - and they were written in such a way as to children about life in a non-frightening way - yet these upstart PCers, newcomers to the scene know what's best for ALL.  There's far more important/relevant things to be campaigning against - child porn for instance - but no, they're out there trying to get Little Jack Horner removed because he's uncouth and doesn't use cutlery.

As for this 'clean feed' thing, it will no more stop illicit porn being distributed across the net than putting on a medical mask to stop blood-borne contagions.  But, as usual, the government is meddling in areas it know little or nothing about and should leave well alone.  I mean, who (in any great number) gave the government permission to cut up/censor the internet so as to preclude everyone from something one or a handful deems as unsavoury? 

By all means, crack down on child porn... but that should not be the responsibility government.  Government has legislated it is illegal, and that's where its role should end. Now it is up to law enforcement to track down and prosecute offenders... to remove it wherever it is found.  No it should not be up to government to censor the internet and blanket ban all and any areas seen as unfit by a few to all persons.  If it does, the govenment will be overstepping its role... and authority.  Furthermore, what happens to art... the Norman Lindsay nudes if some pollie gets his/her knickers in a knot?  I mean, do they get removed from all Aussie internet because Miss So n' So, the Member for Prudish is offended by bare tits... er, 'spose I oughta be politically correct her... um, breasts?