The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Australian Government to impose mandatory nationalwide internet filtering
Well, this is most certainly going forward and doesn't seem to be far from deployment unless there are specific actions to can it. So, I wouldn't say that it's not "going anywhere".
Also, I always feel the American 'liberal' is a misnomer.'Social liberal' would be more to the point in this free-market world, as a lot of the American conservatives are actually 'classical liberal'.
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
If no one does, what are you so worried about?
reported for trolling
Seriously, I just responded to a post from you saying this is a case of something by saying that I don't think it is, and you immediately respond by swearing and saying that my point, that this is not a case of something, by saying that nothing is a case of that something, which I'm under the impression should be a point for me.
You misread her post. She is calling bullshit on the idea that those things don't happen, because they do. A lot. Constantly, in fact. Take one drink every time someone blames the victim during rape trials in America, and you'll never survive a court session.
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
Good on the Liberal Party for defending the rights of teenage girls (and boys) everywhere to binge on high-alcoholic sweet drinks. They have their priorities set straight.
I don't really have a problem with the alcopop tax, but the focus on protecting girls explicitly kinda wierds me out. It seems a bit patriarchal: If men are responsible for the vast majority of social problems stemming from binge drinking, why all this talk of protecting girls? Sorry for tangent.
Its pretty closely related; yes the policy was sexist as well. That's a common thread in booze control by government though, the QLD gov't are currently running ads that effectively blame girls for getting raped while drunk. The ads say 'don't give your female children alcohol in case they get raped', when it should logically be 'don't give your sons booze, they might rape someone', since its not like women get raped by fucking elves.
angryangryangry
I was also actually joking here. Really, the alcopop tax itself doesn't bother me, just the way it was presented. Plus the Liberal Party was opposing it for no real good reason.
Glorfindel on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
I was wondering if it was actually true and you just gave me the motivation to realise it's worth learning about.
On the topic though, I'm willing to bet this doesn't make it through in such a restrictive way. We tend to have functioning checks against this kind of stupid. Although they have failed before.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
Well when you have the highest muslim cleric in the country saying that women are responsible for 90% of rape its hardly surprising that people feel that muslims are in fact batshit insane. Its the same phenomenon when the pope says something stupid and everyone else thinks catholics are idiots. While they may not represent all of their religious followers beliefs, the idea that women are responsible for sexual attracting men seems to be a part of many muslim cultures.
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
Well when you have the highest muslim cleric in the country saying that women are responsible for 90% of rape its hardly surprising that people feel that muslims are in fact batshit insane. Its the same phenomenon when the pope says something stupid and everyone else thinks catholics are idiots. While they may not represent all of their religious followers beliefs, the idea that women are responsible for sexual attracting men seems to be a part of many muslim cultures.
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
Well when you have the highest muslim cleric in the country saying that women are responsible for 90% of rape its hardly surprising that people feel that muslims are in fact batshit insane. Its the same phenomenon when the pope says something stupid and everyone else thinks catholics are idiots. While they may not represent all of their religious followers beliefs, the idea that women are responsible for sexual attracting men seems to be a part of many muslim cultures.
Its still part of all cultures, oh naive one. End tangent?
The Cat on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Bullshit no-one blames a rape victim for being drunk, or wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or being nice to a weirdo, or opening the door to someone they thought they could trust, or in sum for being female in public. Certainly no-one does it as you give your statement to police, or while you're in court. That is the difference.
Places that DO that generally are ran by mustacchio'd people. Beards, too. I'm looking at you, Iran. Actually I can name 10 countries where women are oficially blamed for being raped, and that's only because I don't want to look up how many there really are.
Basically, democracy and human rights were a fad in the 20th century, but face it folks, the world is moving on. And women are always the first victims.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
Well when you have the highest muslim cleric in the country saying that women are responsible for 90% of rape its hardly surprising that people feel that muslims are in fact batshit insane. Its the same phenomenon when the pope says something stupid and everyone else thinks catholics are idiots. While they may not represent all of their religious followers beliefs, the idea that women are responsible for sexual attracting men seems to be a part of many muslim cultures.
Oh yes. Most definitely.
You certainly explained a very small part of where it comes from but you didn't in any way justify why such thinking on L*2's part shouldn't be frowned upon. If this wasn't your intent that's fine, like if you just wanted to help explain it, but if you were intending to justify the prejudice being expressed and me criticising it this isn't going to end well.
So we should leave it here unless you want to make a thread about it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
So anyway, I've just emailed the minister in charge about this. Tomorrow I'm going to call his office for the hell of it.
This makes me pretty pissed with labor, but then again I suppose I was pretty much waiting for them to try and do something and then fuck it up.
Better off mailing your local MP then the telecommunications minister because your local member has to reply within two weeks while your non local member can leave it for a month. Also increases the chances of it being raised in parliament if your local member is in the opposition or non-labor.
The Federal Government will introduce compulsory internet filtering to block overseas sites which contain criminal content, including child sex abuse and sexual violence.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the changes today following a controversial trial to filter the internet which was conducted earlier this year.
Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.
"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.
"The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material."
He says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted on the internet in Australia, rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC for refused classification.
Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.
This would include sites containing child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or detailed information about how to use drugs or commit crimes.
The filtering trial attracted criticism from some who said it would not work and would slow internet speeds.
But Senator Conroy says the trial has been successful.
"Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy," he said.
"It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed."
Grants will also be offered to ISPs to voluntarily block other content.
After the legislation is passed the filter will take 12 months to implement.
Criticism
But Electronic Frontiers Australia, which monitors online freedoms and rights, says the Government's plan is flawed.
"Although it may address some technical issues, what it leaves out is far more important," Electronic Frontiers Australia vice chair Colin Jacobs said.
"Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?"
Mr Jacobs says the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish.
"What we're talking about is a filter that can only intercept accidental access to prohibited material," he said.
"Any motivated user will be able to get around it, it will be quite easy, so who is this being targeted at?
"If it's targeted at the people who traffic in illegal material, well, then clearly it's going to be worthless because they'll be able to get around it any time they want to.
"If it's teenagers the same is true unfortunately, and given the types of material that are going to be on the blacklist, younger children are unlikely to be affected one way or the other."
Transparency
Senator Conroy says the Government will take steps to ensure the filter is transparent and people know why material is being blocked.
This may include measures which allow people to appeal the decision to block a page and notifications to websites that they have been blocked.
The Government has been trialling the filter since late May and was due to report in July on the outcomes of the trial.
It has faced fierce criticism that it will strangle free speech on the internet, is open to potential government abuse and will ban sites that should not be coming under scrutiny.
In March, an alleged list of about 1,000 sites already banned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) was leaked online, revealing that harmless sites had also been marked as unacceptable.
Nine ISPs originally agreed to take part but iiNet pulled out of the trial in March, saying the filter would not work and was a dead parrot.
However, Optus joined the trial in April.
In May 2008, the Government said it would spend $125.8 million over four years on several measures to strengthen cyber safety, including the filter.
The Government maintains the filter is not designed to curtail freedom of speech.
Great now I can lag even more in Cod when the host is American. Also I really don't see how this has got to this point, they were giving out filters for parents who wanted them already and there are no advantages to this compared to the previous plan that are not insidious.
Basically just a DNS server which redirects "bad" domains to a "You can't do that" type page from the sound of it. The only limitation I can see is that the solution documented there would prevent you from using a third party DNS server, which I can't imagine would be a huge issue really. From a moral standpoint, the main question which I still haven't seen answered in the press releases is what kind of oversight the list will have, and who will be allowed to audit it. I can understand not wanting the list available on the internet for fear of it becoming some kind of international kiddy porn bookmark site, but presumably there would be some way for people to verify the list is what they say it is.
Don't get me wrong, I think the filter is a dumb idea. I'm just relieved it's not gonna crap all over our internet connections in the process (assuming they can get it through parliament, though I fear the liberals will be inclined to pass it)
the main question which I still haven't seen answered in the press releases is what kind of oversight the list will have, and who will be allowed to audit it.
That's because there is no oversight, no notification for blocked domain owners, no clear chain of command for adding sites, and no means of protest within governmental machinery. Get ready to watch politically unpopular sites disappear - wikileaks will be one of the first.
Don't get me wrong, I think the filter is a dumb idea. I'm just relieved it's not gonna crap all over our internet connections in the process (assuming they can get it through parliament, though I fear the liberals will be inclined to pass it)
Yeah, I call bullshit on that one. Has anyone even heard of the company who ran the 'trial'? They're not even a major ISP.
As much as I love to make fun of New Zealand, it's looking awfully nice over there at the moment.
If you're talking of 'net connections, no, we're still something of a hole. On the other hand, our government did decide that our own crazy copyright law review would be impractical, so we actually can't be disconnected upon accusation, so that's nice.
Our connections still suck royally.
Still, on topic, I really don't see the actual purpose of this law - what content can they possibly want to block which can't, you know, be taken down through existing channels?
Basically just a DNS server which redirects "bad" domains to a "You can't do that" type page from the sound of it. The only limitation I can see is that the solution documented there would prevent you from using a third party DNS server, which I can't imagine would be a huge issue really. From a moral standpoint, the main question which I still haven't seen answered in the press releases is what kind of oversight the list will have, and who will be allowed to audit it. I can understand not wanting the list available on the internet for fear of it becoming some kind of international kiddy porn bookmark site, but presumably there would be some way for people to verify the list is what they say it is.
It's not going to be anything. If you know a website has kiddie porn on it, you shut the fucking website down and prosecute the owners via international law.
It is fucking useless to block the distribution of child pornography in one country. It is counter-intuitive to the very essence of why child porn is illegal to posess in the first place.
EDIT: This is a technology who's sole use seems to be to subvert democracy, and nothing else.
Considering R@ygold was at large for so long despite being as much of a celebrity as a child pornographer can be I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Not to suggest that this filter will help either.
Also, I find it fascinating that this story about a (well overdue) possible move towards an adult classification for videogames in Aus was released in the Fairfax press several hours before the internet censorship one broke, right at the end of the working day.
Also, I find it fascinating that this story about a (well overdue) possible move towards an adult classification for videogames in Aus was released in the Fairfax press several hours before the internet censorship one broke, right at the end of the working day.
Cat head over to the relevant G&T thread for that.
"the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs " what western democracies is he talking about here?
Don't get me wrong, I think the filter is a dumb idea. I'm just relieved it's not gonna crap all over our internet connections in the process (assuming they can get it through parliament, though I fear the liberals will be inclined to pass it)
Yeah, I call bullshit on that one. Has anyone even heard of the company who ran the 'trial'? They're not even a major ISP.
You mean telstra? I linked their report on the trial above.
"the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs " what western democracies is he talking about here?
Finland has one. And I think some other country near there too.
Spoilers: it doesn't work.
Edit: I have little doubt the timing of this is in any way coincidental to Turnbull getting booted from the Liberal leadership. This kind of thing plays perfectly into Abbott's fundie views.
Telstra has released the results of its own trial of ISP side filtering saying it would not work if the number of URLs on the black list exceeded 10,000 or if any were URLs of pages on high traffic sites, such as YouTube.
Don't get me wrong, I think the filter is a dumb idea. I'm just relieved it's not gonna crap all over our internet connections in the process (assuming they can get it through parliament, though I fear the liberals will be inclined to pass it)
Yeah, I call bullshit on that one. Has anyone even heard of the company who ran the 'trial'? They're not even a major ISP.
You mean telstra? I linked their report on the trial above.
This article says the conductors were "Enex Testlab".
I'm sure I read that feedback from testers of the filter was entirely negative except for one person in terms of implementation and it's ability to actually block the sites. I'll see if I can locate a source.
10,000? That's all? There's no way that would even cover all the websites that are truly horrible, much less whatever they want to think should be blocked.
Ah, Finland. Never hear anything from those lake dwellers.
Eh, whether it works is besides the point for me. I wonder what exactly they are going to block that isn't already outlawed by international law. They seem to be terribly eager to use "WONT SOMEONE THink OF THE CHILDREN???" rhetoric, but what exactly is so bad for children that adults also should not see it?
I mean, yes child pornography is terrible and no one should look at it, but if the Australian government can find out which sites exactly host it and find a way to contact their owners to inform them the Australian government is on to them.... Shouldn't their first reaction be "how are we going to catch these people and punish them?" instead of "how are we going to make sure no Australian can watch this?"
Makes the whole 'think of the children' rhetoric slightly ironic.
This is the Government we're speaking of. They excel at making shitty decisions against the advice of the people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
$20 says this will be like work choices. Is implemented, pisses off the vast majority of Australians, barring those few who aren't affected and the government won't can it for whatever ungodly reason that led Howard to practically sacrifice the election.
This is the Government we're speaking of. They excel at making shitty decisions against the advice of the people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
$20 says this will be like work choices. Is implemented, pisses off the vast majority of Australians, barring those few who aren't affected and the government won't can it for whatever ungodly reason that led Howard to practically sacrifice the election.
Sadly enough a poll conducted a year ago found that mandatory internet filtering had 49% support, versus 40% opposition. The figures might have changes since then, but I think you overestimate how much the average person really cares about this.
Relevant and 'mainstream' link from ABC News.
And check out the related story "Green light for internet filter plans", and the comments section for the popular response this has received from the online community.
As far as I'm aware, this filter will attempt to block "Refused Classification" content. Now, Australia's classification system is broken. So as I understand it, although some RC material is illegal, most certainly not all RC material is illegal (such as the much-talked about pornography... most places you can't sell it, but it's not illegal to own/view it).
So you'd be blocking things like trailers for the new Aliens vs Predator game. (Actually, this is a little fib... Apparently it's proposed that games will be exempt for now, as it is kinda [I hope] penetrating some thick skulls that our classification system in this area is FUBAR).
Also, as I understand it, the filtering technology both overblocks (restricts access to non-RC content by mistake) and slows down internet speeds.
Now a large problem I have with this is as follows: the blocking will be conducted by blacklist (a list of sites which cannot be accessed). ...So a list will be created of all this apparently awful stuff, that you're not allowed to know about. However, someone has to know about this list to implement it, right?
So either-
A: The government has created a list of all the worst places on the web, which will eventually be leaked or found out about somehow (I think this is likely)
or
B: The government has created a list of all these (supposedly bad) places, but you won't know if they're the worst places on the web, because it's super-secret and you're not allowed to know what you're not allowed to see. Just trust the government and the Australian Christian Lobby, because, you know, they know best.
Also, the filter applies to internet only (again, as I understand it). So peer to peer networks are unaffected by the filter. And where do you think most illegal stuff is passed around? (If you answered "publically available websites" you'd be wrong.)
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Posts
Just sayin. I'm a Cornucopiist myself.
You misread her post. She is calling bullshit on the idea that those things don't happen, because they do. A lot. Constantly, in fact. Take one drink every time someone blames the victim during rape trials in America, and you'll never survive a court session.
I was also actually joking here. Really, the alcopop tax itself doesn't bother me, just the way it was presented. Plus the Liberal Party was opposing it for no real good reason.
It's funny because I'm doing a report on the increasingly blatant racialisation and prejudice against islamist australians and then you make a blatantly prejudiced and generalised comment that falls within all the tenants of conventional racism on the same day I go to write it up.
I was wondering if it was actually true and you just gave me the motivation to realise it's worth learning about.
On the topic though, I'm willing to bet this doesn't make it through in such a restrictive way. We tend to have functioning checks against this kind of stupid. Although they have failed before.
Well when you have the highest muslim cleric in the country saying that women are responsible for 90% of rape its hardly surprising that people feel that muslims are in fact batshit insane. Its the same phenomenon when the pope says something stupid and everyone else thinks catholics are idiots. While they may not represent all of their religious followers beliefs, the idea that women are responsible for sexual attracting men seems to be a part of many muslim cultures.
I wasn't aware that there was a hierarchy.
edit: It is in fact 'Grand Mufti' which is the head of Sunni Muslims, Ayatollah is the head of Shia Muslims.
Its still part of all cultures, oh naive one. End tangent?
Oh yes. Most definitely.
You certainly explained a very small part of where it comes from but you didn't in any way justify why such thinking on L*2's part shouldn't be frowned upon. If this wasn't your intent that's fine, like if you just wanted to help explain it, but if you were intending to justify the prejudice being expressed and me criticising it this isn't going to end well.
So we should leave it here unless you want to make a thread about it.
That would be correct.
Better off mailing your local MP then the telecommunications minister because your local member has to reply within two weeks while your non local member can leave it for a month. Also increases the chances of it being raised in parliament if your local member is in the opposition or non-labor.
http://exchange.telstra.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TBT-final-report1.pdf
Basically just a DNS server which redirects "bad" domains to a "You can't do that" type page from the sound of it. The only limitation I can see is that the solution documented there would prevent you from using a third party DNS server, which I can't imagine would be a huge issue really. From a moral standpoint, the main question which I still haven't seen answered in the press releases is what kind of oversight the list will have, and who will be allowed to audit it. I can understand not wanting the list available on the internet for fear of it becoming some kind of international kiddy porn bookmark site, but presumably there would be some way for people to verify the list is what they say it is.
That's because there is no oversight, no notification for blocked domain owners, no clear chain of command for adding sites, and no means of protest within governmental machinery. Get ready to watch politically unpopular sites disappear - wikileaks will be one of the first.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that one. Has anyone even heard of the company who ran the 'trial'? They're not even a major ISP.
If you're talking of 'net connections, no, we're still something of a hole. On the other hand, our government did decide that our own crazy copyright law review would be impractical, so we actually can't be disconnected upon accusation, so that's nice.
Our connections still suck royally.
Still, on topic, I really don't see the actual purpose of this law - what content can they possibly want to block which can't, you know, be taken down through existing channels?
Considering R@ygold was at large for so long despite being as much of a celebrity as a child pornographer can be I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Not to suggest that this filter will help either.
Cat head over to the relevant G&T thread for that.
You mean telstra? I linked their report on the trial above.
Finland has one. And I think some other country near there too.
Spoilers: it doesn't work.
Edit: I have little doubt the timing of this is in any way coincidental to Turnbull getting booted from the Liberal leadership. This kind of thing plays perfectly into Abbott's fundie views.
Edit 2: Fuck you, Australian Christian Lobby.
Edit 3: According to Telstra, the filter's heavily flawed already.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
This article says the conductors were "Enex Testlab".
Eh, whether it works is besides the point for me. I wonder what exactly they are going to block that isn't already outlawed by international law. They seem to be terribly eager to use "WONT SOMEONE THink OF THE CHILDREN???" rhetoric, but what exactly is so bad for children that adults also should not see it?
I mean, yes child pornography is terrible and no one should look at it, but if the Australian government can find out which sites exactly host it and find a way to contact their owners to inform them the Australian government is on to them.... Shouldn't their first reaction be "how are we going to catch these people and punish them?" instead of "how are we going to make sure no Australian can watch this?"
Makes the whole 'think of the children' rhetoric slightly ironic.
so basically what ELM said.
$20 says this will be like work choices. Is implemented, pisses off the vast majority of Australians, barring those few who aren't affected and the government won't can it for whatever ungodly reason that led Howard to practically sacrifice the election.
Sadly enough a poll conducted a year ago found that mandatory internet filtering had 49% support, versus 40% opposition. The figures might have changes since then, but I think you overestimate how much the average person really cares about this.
And check out the related story "Green light for internet filter plans", and the comments section for the popular response this has received from the online community.
As far as I'm aware, this filter will attempt to block "Refused Classification" content. Now, Australia's classification system is broken. So as I understand it, although some RC material is illegal, most certainly not all RC material is illegal (such as the much-talked about pornography... most places you can't sell it, but it's not illegal to own/view it).
So you'd be blocking things like trailers for the new Aliens vs Predator game. (Actually, this is a little fib... Apparently it's proposed that games will be exempt for now, as it is kinda [I hope] penetrating some thick skulls that our classification system in this area is FUBAR).
Also, as I understand it, the filtering technology both overblocks (restricts access to non-RC content by mistake) and slows down internet speeds.
Now a large problem I have with this is as follows: the blocking will be conducted by blacklist (a list of sites which cannot be accessed). ...So a list will be created of all this apparently awful stuff, that you're not allowed to know about. However, someone has to know about this list to implement it, right?
So either-
A: The government has created a list of all the worst places on the web, which will eventually be leaked or found out about somehow (I think this is likely)
or
B: The government has created a list of all these (supposedly bad) places, but you won't know if they're the worst places on the web, because it's super-secret and you're not allowed to know what you're not allowed to see. Just trust the government and the Australian Christian Lobby, because, you know, they know best.
Also, the filter applies to internet only (again, as I understand it). So peer to peer networks are unaffected by the filter. And where do you think most illegal stuff is passed around? (If you answered "publically available websites" you'd be wrong.)
http://newnations.bandcamp.com