James G.

While everyone is quick to point out how technically unworkable proposed ISP level filters are I personally think such concerns are irrelevant. The fact that Internet traffic will be slowed down by at least 50% is a matter of no consequence. The real issue is that it isn't up to the government to tell us what we can and cannot access. It is not acceptable for the ACMA and the government to have the power to presume the guilt of any website that ends up on their blacklists. Unless there will be a full trial and hearing for each and every page intended to be blocked, then how is it within the scope of the rule of law to go blocking whichever content the government finds objectionable. The lack of adoption of voluntary filtering software that Senator Conroy pointed out doesn't mean that filtering should become mandatory - it means that we don't want our Internet filtered. Given that any page containing child pornography or other illegal material will already under current laws be shut down as soon as possible once it is discovered, there is no need to filter every page online (in the process incorrectly blocking more than 1% of pages). It's a redundant process. It's only effects are to crush what little freedom of media remains, to cement the position of our government as a nanny for parents who can't supervise their own children, and to bring our beautiful country one step closer to the authoritarian dictatorships of years gone by where only media the government approved of could be accessed. Well I don't like it. None of us do.