Clark A

My wife and I applaud the Government's initiative of exploring ways to provide our homes with a clean Internet feed. While we fully understand that we have the primarily responsibility, as parents of two young boys, to educate and protect our children regarding the Internet, a clean feed is of great value to us because - to our understanding - it significantly reduces their likelihood of accidental exposure to violent, disturbing, abusive, and generally inappropriate material. The widely publicised disadvantages of such an initiative, including comparisons of a censorship regime rivalling China, is just so much misinformation and fear-mongering. First, unlike China, the list of blocked sites is regulated by a publicly-accountable government body, the ACMA, and - also unlike China - will be available for scrutiny by our politicians, all of which comes under the rule of democratic law - which China is NOT. Second, who exactly are those most likely to lose out from having a clean feed by default? I believe some of those speaking the loudest are from the multi-billion-dollar-a-year porn industry, whose source of revenue may be affected. In fact, according to Fiona Patten of the porn lobby: "If they go ahead with what they propose [ISP filtering], we’ll wipe out the adult industry in the next five years." There is not likely to be another party with a bigger vested interest, especially one so strongly financially motivated. The Government and Senator Conroy should be congratulated for pursuing an initiative that, while earning the ire of many vocal parties, is certainly benefiting the overwhelming silent majority in our community.