Australian Senator, Stephen Conroy, is set to introduce mandatory Internet filtering in 2008. This petition has been organised to put an end to the filtering in Australia, before it begins!

Existing reports (some even conducted by the Australian Government) show that ISPs and customers will be forced to pay if mandatory filtering is introduced.

http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship

It is the saddest of days when the government has to legislate something that individuals should be doing within their own consciences, both moral and ethical.  If people would not make a market for rubbish to view then makers of that same junk would be out of business.  

Society has reached new and absolute lows. No wonder women and children can no longer walk the streets safely, there is no longer anything that is considered 'obscene' or 'immoral' . . just individual freedoms that mean more legislation and law enforcement time.  

Their's plenty that's considered 'obscene' or 'immoral', and parents should take some responsibility for what their kids have access to, that's what this is all over.

I won't be signing the petition.  Perhaps if people had morals and parents monitored their kids, we'd not have to censor the internet?  

Quoted from Paula

Perhaps if people had morals and parents monitored their kids, we'd not have to censor the internet?  

When information is being filtered how do you know where it stops? Information is power remember.

Quoted from aquamonkey

Their's plenty that's considered 'obscene' or 'immoral', and parents should take some responsibility for what their kids have access to, that's what this is all over.

Parents are having their rights undermined more by the day.  

They are 'advised' to protect their children from - drowning in the pool, getting hit by cars on the road, TV shows that have low standards and even that cough medicine is now dangerous. There are now so many dangers that must be dealt with by poor, overworked parents that it is no wonder we have the spectacle of a 16y/o boy who has a party that turns Victoria on its head.  
Look at the media frenzy where that kid is offered contracts for his story, jobs to 'M.C' at parties and media contracts . . all while he is a minor who needs parental consent for everything he does.

If 'filtering' can be done successfully, then it should start with the sites that need pulling down. BUT who will be the judge of such things?  What I view to be porn, somebody else will euphemistically call 'art' . . and it slips through the (moral) cracks. The internet has opened Pandoras Box and it can't be closed now.

Quoted from aquamonkey

Their's plenty that's considered 'obscene' or 'immoral', and parents should take some responsibility for what their kids have access to, that's what this is all over.

So many parents do not act responsibly when it comes to watching/disciplining/ teaching/controlling their kids. They want the 'rest of the world' to do so....
The Police, the Teachers, the Government, the Court System, the Penitentiary their kid eventually gets thrown into (maybe I went too far) but you get my point. Why should all users of the Internet have to be prevented from having full use of the Internet because of what a minority do? I will access my computer several times a day in doing research. Mind you I don't go to 'Adult websites' but feel that if people want to curtail the use of such sites by a member of their family then lock the PC away when you aren't there to watch them, in the boot of the car might be a good place
Don't have a wireless network in the house and only have internet access on PC's in the living areas where everyone can see.  

Aren't are enough FREE internet censorship programs out there that the government's going ahead spending MILLIONS (lord only knows how ) on this ridiculous internet censorship scheme?

OMFG!
It will be hacked anyway what a waste. CENSORING! NOO

I'm angry that they're doing this!!! CENSORSHIP sucks!

But i'll think I'll manage!!  

Quoted from sillygostly

Aren't are enough FREE internet censorship programs out there that the government's going ahead spending MILLIONS (lord only knows how ) on this ridiculous internet censorship scheme?

Thats exactly right. It just fluffy totalitarianism. Governments job shouldn't be censorship of free speech. It slowly erodes the fabric of a healthy democracy.

I really hadn't thought about the expense involved.  I had originally thought that the debate about this issue came down to weather or not it should be implemented as something that people have to call their ISP to opt out of, or something that people have to call their ISP to opt in to... and then of course if it should be done at all as Aquamonkey mentioned for the obvious reason of what gets censored and by who and can we ever trust that process not to be abused.

It's much less of a problem for people when they hear that they can call their ISP and opt out of the filtering, though on that particular matter I think that if we are going to use it despite having, as mentioned by Silly, very good free and even open source filtering software that can be implemented at home, then there's no questiong that IF we MUST have filtering AT ALL, then it should be something people have to opt in to.  I understand there's good argument that lots of people are not skilled enough to install or maintain software that does it on their home computer, and I agree with from some very frustrating first hand experiences, but it isn't really something that I have put on my connection at my ISP unless I want it.

My personal opinion on it is that... I think it should be consumer based, such that ISP's would offer it out of a supply and demand based scenario and not by government regulation.  I think it's crap that I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read about it from other people on the internet, and information being power perhaps this sort of thread we are in right now discussing it will be filtered one day, much like the United States allegedly changing the Wikipedia.  On the forum where I first read about this, someone threw into the discussion that a user from the UK who used the forum from school had entire pages blocked, and they get built on the fly as new posts are made so it happens quicker than they can get indexed by not so intelligent software, because of words like 'sex' and 'vagina' and whatnot.  Ultimately we're dealing with a combination of software that makes mistakes and people who have agendas.

What happens when a site is blacklisted?  How long does it take for it to get reviewed by a person?  Is there compensation that will be owed as the result of an unwarranted blacklisting?  If not, is that fair if my business is an online store?
More questions that aren't addressed but very real problems.  It should be an opt in agreement, and consumers should be made aware of possible mistakes.  That covers all the bases except for the whole TAMPERING WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION issue, not to mention the enormous possibility for abuse.  We have to protect ourselves from terrorists afterall  

The bottom line for me is that if you aren't capbable of setting up software on your own computer to do this and you want to then you can pay someone else, and if your ISP offers it then you can pay them... but why the hell should I have to pay for you?  If you ask nicely I might set it up for you though  

I should also point out that there's really nothing at all suggesting that filtering methods employed by ISP's will be any more or less effective than any software any other consumer can use.

Visit http://www.nocleanfeed.com for more info on what you can do.

Now there's talk of blocking sites like youtube, facebook, myspace and other video or social networking sites as the content can't be controlled. Also senators representing special interest groups want porn, online gambling, sites with information on things like anorexia, politically active sites etc banned.

They haven't even started the trials and they're talking of this!!

Quoted from Social Justice

politically active sites etc banned.

Shouldn't be long now before the pinkos are locking people up for speaking out

Quoted from Social Justice

Now there's talk of blocking sites like youtube, facebook, myspace and other video or social networking sites as the content can't be controlled. Also senators representing special interest groups want porn, online gambling, sites with information on things like anorexia, politically active sites etc banned.

They haven't even started the trials and they're talking of this!!

WHAT!
They can't block youtube! I'm moving to England >:C

Jessi Slaughter and the 4chan trolls - the case for censoring the internet
By Peter Farquhar, Technology Editor
From: news.com.au
July 20, 2010 8:19AM

THE case of a US girl who was hounded by internet stalkers into police protection highlights the need for content filtering, an Australian academic says.

Eleven-year-old Jessi Slaughter has been targeted with death threats after her address and phone number were shared on internet forums by pranksters in response to a YouTube video she posted from her bedroom.

Her mother said she hasn't seen her daughter's video and told Gawker she "doesn't go on the computer".

If she had, she would have seen her daughter become something of a minor celebrity on tween gossip site StickyDrama, where she was linked to a relationship with the lead singer of Blood on the Dancefloor and made an overnight YouTube star for her foul-mouthed tirade against her "haters".

It attracted the attention of trollers - internet users who deliberately provoke reactions - who then promoted Jessi as a target for hate mail and prank calls.

Professor Matt Warren, the head of Deakin University's School of Information Systems, said as long as parents who don't understand the internet kept giving their children access to it, there needed to be ways to control its use.
"You simply can't have free access to the internet," he said.
"It has to be controlled, censored and people have to be held accountable for their actions on it.
"We punish people who drink, we punish people who speed and we have to implement laws to that effect when it comes to the internet."

Prof Warren said that parents might think allowing children to access the internet in their bedroom was a way of helping them do their schoolwork, but the reality was, a lot of parents simply didn't understand the medium.

"The child isn't ethically aware of what they're doing," he said.
"It's also an education issue with that person and the parents aren't necessarily the ones that should be giving that training, because they don't understand it either.

"Parents will be concerned about their child going out all hours, but they don't care about them staying on the internet all hours."
Prof Warren said educating children about the dangers of the internet should be part of the national curriculum and that cybersafety should be an election issue.

Both major parties have shelved their plans for filtering the internet until after the election, which Prof Warren said was an oversight.
"Governments still don't understand the huge impact of the information age on our society," he said.

"Five hundred million people using Facebook has huge implications.
"Cybersafety and cyberbullying ties into censorship and control, so it should be an election issue. But does it win votes?

"It will just need a government to make a hard decision to say this has to stop."
A pilot study into teaching ethical behaviour on the net has been under way in 150 schools nationwide since last year.

Recommendations on how it fits into the national curriculum will be put forward after the election.
One proposal would see schools given the right to respond to student's activities on the net outside school hours.

Dr Helen McGrath - also a Deakin colleague of Prof Warren's - was a contributor to the Commonwealth Government’s Cybersafety Joint Committee in June last year.
She said it was unrealistic to expect parents to monitor their children around the clock and that the onus was on schools to give kids the tools to protect themselves.
"It's all very well telling an 11-year-old they can't have a computer in their bedroom, but when they get to 14, it's like saying you have to make all your phone calls in front of us," she said.

Unlike her colleague, Dr McGrath doesn't believe content filtering has any role in educating children about the dangers of the internet.
"It really comes back down to making sure they understand what they're getting into," she said.
"You don't take the keys off them when you teach them to drive - we talk about what's safe and what's legal."

Parents concerned about cybersafety and cyberbullying can access a wide range of information and tools at the Government's online safety initiative Cybersmart

http://www.news.com.au/technol.....369199#ixzz0uCdcbaYx

This is definitely down to the parents. This girl is a child and did not act in a way I believe an eleven year old should act like. Something Conroy will jump on the bandwagon for

I am a 50+ year old adult.... leave my Internet alone!

Apple's and oranges (not to mention a big pile of dog sh1t)! Kids being bullied and censoring the internet........... seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot??