PM considers Internet Ombudsman

No not Soviet 1980, China 2010.

Filtering anything the government "may decide later" isn't in ITS own interest could be removed, as would reporting on what was removed.

It's "stupid debate" because they don't undertand what they are doing.

Experts have told them numerous times that the filter will not achieve what they want it to (child porn etc) due to the nature in which such material is distributed.
But all the current government does in such situations (not just the filter debacle) is stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la" and hope the objections go away.

A lot of people are very opposed to the imposition of secret government censorship, and it has nothing to do with libertarianism, extreme or otherwise.

Apart from the fundamentalists who want to ban everything (which is where the libertarian slur came from), most people who are aware of the details are opposed to government censorship whether it is applied by the govt or by a panel appointed by the govt.

The enforced secrecy with heavy penalties for any disclosure gives an opportunity for a future govt to secretly ban opposing points of view. That, and the fact the filter won't work as claimed, is why the whole idea stinks.

"The role of cyber crime and internet bullying on children is, frankly, frightening, and we need to be deploying all practical measures. "

Oh won't somebody THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

First it was Witch Hunt,
Then it's Communism, Mcarthyism
Now it's either Terrorism or Paedophile.

That's how you turn a democratic country into a totalitarian one.

"He said most people “are sensible folk” who “know where the balance lies”."

Congratulations Ruddy, now you've not only alienated me for wanting to ruin my online life (ie gaming), but you've just insulted me as well.

I am one of those 'sensible folk' who doesn't like the idea of having someone who resembles Martin Prince and his buddy Nelson (aka Conroy) tell me what is and isn't appropriate. In that same interview he mentioned that it's no different to censoring movies, books etc. In doing so he made the obvious error of assuming that everyone agrees with how the government censor such material already. I for one do not. I do not agree with their view that it is more appropriate for a teenager to believe that shooting someone would just make them disappear into thin air rather than seeing blood splatter everywhere (aka Left 4 Dead 2)

My other question is this, if Kruddy is so determined for the government to 'protect the children', is he now assuming the responsibility for raising them entirely?

how can it be a stupid debate?

what is stupid is when the people who will live under the filter are given no say in the process and run over roughshod by a government with an ideological bent who has absolutely no intention of stopping and asking the plebs what THEY think.

not to mention behaving in childlike fashion if they think plugging their ears and ignoring the public will make it all go away.

far from being a stupid debate it is an absolutely essential one, in terms of governmental control of its people, and a debate that has been done over and over in history. Rudd ignores that at his peril.

and kevin, YOU ALREADY ARE deploying practical measures under the aegis of the AFP and so on, with honeypots and moles wiggling their way into encrypted filth networks. what you are doing by deploying this IMPRACTICAL filter is creating an imposition on EVERYONE not just the crims.

i dont know about you lot but i resent being one of the many imposed on by the actions of a few and do not believe that this kind of response is necessary. i mean really, wont people think of the kids? i dont HAVE any kids to protect so that whole justification rings hollow to me, and makes it doubly clear to me the govt just wants to stick its oar into my life because it can.

i sure do know where the balance lies, Kevin. its at the point where opt-in/opt out is, and anything past that is badly skewed. id much rather stay on this side of the balance and never enact the policy but if it *must* be, then i will only go as far as the option, and no further. judicial oversight of the block list, and no further.

that is not radical libertarianism, it is subscribing to the standard checks and balances the westminster system is SUPPOSED to have inherent to it, PM. debates about these features of the westminster system are not stupid, they are central to its operation. when you take the blinkers off and realise this and start having a proper discussion with your constituents instead of talking down to us, then we might start getting somewhere in terms of a policy acceptable to all, rather than just the fundamental christian lobby.

i have to give rudd some credit, i didnt think it was possible to burn political capital as fast as he has these last few weeks but with the Conroy and Garrett shenanigans going on its been most educational.

I will not be voting for the Labor Party.

I will not be voting for the Liberals if they have no clear policy rejecting this inane mandatory internet censorship at the time of the election.

I am an adult with no children. Why does Rudd want to treat me as a child? I'm not one of your kiddies, Mr. Rudd!

It is disgraceful what the Rudd government is trying to do to this country. If I wanted to live under a totalitarian regime, I would have moved to China by now.

Please everyone, get involved and do something to help stop this madness. It isn't over yet, and the government hasn't won the right to fascist dictatorship in this country. Go to nocleanfeed.com and sign the petition to block this insanity. There is something you can do about it, but it's going to take everyone taking action right now!!

"“We just see the colliding of the two worlds here, abuse and graphic material online, and businesses legitimately concerned about using the Internet properly,” Rudd said."

Apparently anything not business related is misusing the internet?

To those that haven't already signed the EFA petition against Internet censorship please do.

You can sign online or download the paper version from...

www.efa.org.au/petition

Whynot spend the money be spent on education.

The ads on late night TV are worst than anything I seen on the net.

Maybe the government could pay for some ads to tell children that it is time for bed at 8.00PM.
I don't have kids, but am amazed that young children are allowed to stay up till 10.00PM or later.

Censorship!!!!!!!
1. it's the PARENTS resonsability to teach their kids NOT the government.
2' To those that haven't already signed the EFA petition against Internet censorship please do.

Wonderful information Please keep blogging!!