elmer said:W3bbo said:*snip*
Yes, I agree with most of that, and I’m certainly not arguing a case for censorship or trying to be an apologist for the Govt/Conroy.
However, many of the claims made about the proposal, and the subsequent perceptions held, are based on misinformation, and I believe that the only way you can wage an effective campaign against something, is if you know he facts and base your arguments on them.
The only point I would make is that the proposed mandatory filters don't actually set out to make "morality" judgments, and only propose to filter "illegal" material... i.e. stuff that you would otherwise be arrested and penalised for if found in possession of.
However, as you say, the effectiveness is so questionable, that it's hard to see how it's going to be anything more than an appeasement of the wowser groups... and it's such a slippery slope to be stepping on to, that you really have to ask if we should be going there at all.
I don't personally support any form of prior restraint on speech, regardless of it's legal status.