Some more filter-links:
- Google warns that the Great Firewall is “the first of its kind amongst Western democracies”. Listen to them – after years of caving to China with its Great Firewall, they know what they’re talking about.
- Senator Kate Lundy tries to walk the fine line between letting voters know she isn’t really comfortable with the filter, and admitting that as a Labor senator she’ll vote for it anyway.
- Tea Brennan’s a parent, and she’s sick of fundamentalists and their representatives in Canberra justifying their power grabs in the name of her children.
- And Bernard Keane has some very handy hints for making sure your letter to the Minister is read by as many human beings as possible.
Moved On 
Conroy has a post at The Punch. There are over 200 comments and the clear majority are against the filter.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-about-net-filtering/#comments
Jayzus Effen Chrayst!
“Look what teh Oz sez”, “See what they say at teh Paunch”, “Oh noes, the Hun has a weird view”…
and so on. Murdoch is pretty much the entire problem here and all you want to do is sit around polishing his hubcaps and pondering improvements he could make.
Here is another lot that pretty much miss the point:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8760
Ignore the horrid old fascist bastard, seriously. To him that is like tipping water on the wicked old witch of the west.
PS: that wasn’t aimed at you confessions.
This is an excellent site with a wealth of information on censorship in Australia:
http://libertus.net/
In a discussion about the proposed filter in another place the subject of China’s internet filtering came up. Apparently China has severe penalties for people who circumvent the filter, which begs the question of whether there will have to be fines and so on here? Otherwise what’s the point of the filter being mandatory?
This is a dog of a policy and no person has been able to successfully defend it. Labor should either go back to what they had before (optional) or let the thing go the way of grocerywatch and fuelwatch.
It’s interesting when Lundy’s staffer Pia pops up on that thread… and when she doesn’t.
Check out this quote a commenter left at Lundy’s site (I’ve read every comment there and am yet to find one that favours the censorship):
“When governments start covering the eyes and ears of the whole nation, however, there is a real problem. We only need to look at those governments that have taken it to the extreme and burnt books to understand that. But there are more subtle ways to inhibit the flow of ideas that we need to be just as alert to.” – Kate Lundy, Australian Labor Party Senator
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/29/1059244609141.html
Petter Garret esc flip flop by Landy. Chairman Rudd does not like dissent or individuals in the ALP.
Letter from Sec-General Reporters Without Borders to Rudd re censorship:
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2009/12/19/fighting-australias-impending-web-censorship-farce/
An excellent article on why we don’t need Conroy’s Internet Disaster.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx
Hey
A protest on the 31st January 2010 at 12:00pm State Library in Melbourne is being organised. It is a national protest so you can go along in your State.
You know I really think the best thing for the government to do is to let Conroy’s Internet Disaster die a quiet death, just like grocerywatch and petrolwatch. But that would earn rebuke from the media shockjocks.
OTOH if Conroy wanted to save face all he has to do is revert back to what they promised at the election: optional clean feed. Those who feel they need the government to supervise their children’s web browsing can sign up for it, while those of us who don’t need it don’t need to have it forced on us. Nobody has been able to make a forceful and convincing case for this filter. I wonder why?