@SeekTheTruth:

Yes, 87% was the worst and 2% was the best. However, the 2% speed reduction also had the highest number of false positives and the greatest number of misses. The filter which had the acceptable false-positive/miss rates did slow the internet by 87%. If you are going to espouse truth over hype, you should really espouse all of it.

It [ISP-level filtering in UK] must be working and of value.

Sorry, that's a bit of a leap. Look at how the Wikipedia fiasco went down. I would say that is not working, when a page is banned for featuring artwork which is freely (as in speech) available on shelves in record stores in the same country.

As for why filter at all - why do we bother to classify literature and film and prevent certain ages from viewing 'unsuitable' material?

How about so parents can determine what material would be appropriate for themselves and their children?

Using the same arguement - who decides what is objectional for certain ages?

It's call the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). I'm sure you've heard of it.

Let's get the parents to do their own classifcation and drop the M and R ratings!

Those two are not mutually exclusive. Parents are entitled to decide what their children will watch; it is perfectly acceptable (in a legal sense, although caveats exist) for children to watch R18+ movies. Classifications are in place to aid parents in making that decision and to prevent minors from accessing said material without parental consent. Since it would be impossible for every parent to watch everything, we have the OFLC. It's not perfect (just look at the games which have been RC'd this year -- thanks Atkinson) but it's still a reasonable advisory board on the whole.

It all does start somewhere - but that place does not have to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

That's the first point I agree with. ISP-level filtering would force a lowest common denominator approach, though.

As for those who fear a moral policing - any civilised society needs to have some form of moral code and base from which to work or there would be chaos. And those chosen moral codes need to be policed one way or another.

Again, you seem to have missed the point. No one is suggesting we should let child pornography run rampant; the complaint is that the ISP-level filter is an ineffective and highly inefficient way of attempting to prevent illegal activity. It will have absolutely no positive effect; in fact, it is likely to drive such activity further underground, making it harder to police. Furthermore, the ACMA blacklist is not publicly available, and is complaints driven, so there is no way to determine if sites have been incorrectly added to the list. This is the 'moral' concern: there is currently no transparent accountability and no way to know if a site has been added to the list or why.