Communications Minister Stephen Conroy went in to bat for the Labor Government's mandatory internet filter again, reaffirming the commitment to the unpopular policy. Nothing has changed since earlier debates; the filter still has the same problems it has always had - it's useless, unworkable and expensive. It still won't help anybody.

The latest line, that the Minister trusts "to the common sense of the Australian public with respect to the classification system", is a little strange. Censorship policy is complicated, especially when it comes to the internet, and it's not clear how pursuing this scheme is somehow leaving the whole matter up to the folksy wisdom of the Australian people. Of course, if you ask people whether they want something done about child pornography (for instance) they are likely to say yes. Who wouldn't? But the more they learn about this particular "something", the more skeptical they become.

Last year, several large ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Primus announced they were voluntarily pursuing a blacklist filter against child pornography. It's disappointing, and a little surprising, that the Government did not use this announcement as a good pretext to put the filter policy out to pasture. The reason is, of course, that they don't believe it goes far enough. The Minister at one point in his remarks at the Estimates hearings commented that: "If you believe a voluntary filter should block child abuse, how would you justify having a voluntary filter not block a bestiality or pro-rape website?" This language will be very familiar to those of you who have followed Senator Conroy's role in the debate.

If, like us, you believe that the word "bestiality" does not automatically end a discussion, you can probably think of a few answers to that question. One reason might be that those forms of content, unsavoury as they may be, are not criminal to possess. Another reason might be that child pornography is defined in the statute books, but something like "pro-rape" is quite vague. Perhaps one calls to mind a website that encourages, and even provides instruction on, attacks against women - something none of us would tolerate. What about a website set up by fetishists to explore power games amongst consenting adults? It might not be popular, but is it a menace to public decency?

Playing the bestiality and "pro-rape" cards also begs some important questions. How many bestiality sites are out there? Is there any evidence that Australians are seeking them out? Would those who do be stopped by the filter? If they aren't stopped, will they be harmed? Of course, these questions are not answered by the Minister. If they were, the answers probably wouldn't add up to a public emergency that could be solved by the proposed blacklist.

We must be resigned to the fact that as long as Senator Conroy remains at the helm of internet policy, we're going to be hearing about this great Bestiality Shield. Luckily, there are others in Parliament who have weighed the policy more thoughtfully, and for now it appears the filter would be unlikely to pass through even the lower house. We still remain resolutely opposed to internet censorship, especially the Labor plan, and we'll work to make sure that those other policymakers don't fall for the moral panic line.

The internet freedom business is doing a roaring trade these days. Things started picking up early last year with Hillary Clinton's landmark speech, "Remarks on internet Freedom," which equated an open internet with human rights and condemned state-sponsored censorship of the net.

Then came the revelations by Wikileaks, starting with the "Collateral Murder" video and escalating to the current batch of diplomatic cables. These leaks severely tested the commitment of governments around the world to the principles of free speech, but have provided an unprecedented lesson in the power of the net and journalism to act in the public interest. The people of the world have taken the lesson to heart.

The protests sweeping the Middle East have highlighted the importance of an open internet even more starkly. For better or worse, revolution in the 21st century almost by definition includes Twitter, Facebook and the rest of the internet's tools. They have proven more effective than a container-load of AK-47s could ever be, because they allow and promote an undeniable expression of the will of the people that robs the violence of repression of any legitimacy.

It's an exciting time for citizens everywhere. We are witnessing, and often participating in, movements that would have been impossible only a few years ago.

Amongst all of this our own government's response has been tepid, confused and contradictory. The response to Clinton's speech, as we have noted before, was cringeworthy in its brazen twisting of her words to support a pro-censorship agenda. The reaction to the Wikileaks developments should have been a principled stand on free speech and the rights of an Australian citizen, but turned into a posturing witch-hunt.

And today, Senator Conroy has was asked about the crisis in Egypt, where a desperate government cut internet access in order to hinder protestors. The minister in response declared his undying love for an Internet free of government control and assured us that such a thing could never happen in Australia.

"…Australia's a vibrant democracy, where the government doesn't control the internet..."

As blogger Michael Wyres notes here, the Minister has tied himself up in knots before, attempting to identify with online freedom of speech while spending most of his time defending the opposite.

Barring a superhuman capacity for doublethink, it's impossible to reconcile this statement with the Government's stated policy of internet censorship. A system that involves a secret, government-controlled blacklist of websites, even well-intentioned, definitely amounts to "government control of the internet".

If censoring and blocking isn't regulating or controlling the internet, what is? No doubt, the minister has no intention of censoring the web sites of protestors or anti-government activists, but he can't escape the fact that he is planning to put just such a tool into the hands of the government that succeeds his.

The double-standard does not suit our leaders well. If the government wishes to place Australia on the wrong side of history by going down the path of internet censorship, then have the courage to say so. Trying to do so while paying lip service to the ideals of free speech that censorship - by definition - contradicts, well, it's not fooling anybody.

(From an opinion piece published on ABC Online).

Before it came along, we were served by a revolving series of moral panics, changing censorship ministers and a patchwork of different state systems. Many books and films were banned that today would hardly warrant a mention - I wonder how many high schools would not allow "The Trial of Lady Chatterley" a place in their libraries? In the sordid history of censorship in Australia, the creation of a national system under the Hawke government in 1984 at least gave us something that was uniform and understandable, and led to a slight loosening of a system that was much more puritanical than the citizens it served.

Our classification code has done its duty for these last 30 years or so. As a reward, it deserves to be given a nice cup of hot chocolate, and wheeled outside to enjoy the sunshine of its retirement.

Recent debates over the classification of computer games and internet content have revolved around the edges of the classification scheme - what content goes into which rating. But these sorts of debates are missing the bigger picture. The future of classification itself must now be doubted.

Continue reading over at the ABC.

The European Internet Services Providers Association (EuroISPA) has spoken out against ISP internet filtering, saying that it is an ineffective band-aid that leaves illegal material online and in the wild.

EuroISPA has called on the European Parliament to focus instead on permanently removing the material at its source. Forcing ISPs to block access to sites, they point out, leaves the material available to abusers - as it is they, who are most interested in such material, that are also the most capable of circumventing such filters.

Malcolm Hutty, President of EuroISPA, said in part:

Blocking, as an inefficient measure, should be avoided. Law enforcement authorities’ procedures for rapid communication to Internet Hosting Providers of such illegal material must be reviewed and bottlenecks eliminated.

The good news is that the European Parliament are already skeptical of mandatory filtering. Will national governments be so sensible?

Well, clearly not ours. We've been making the point for three years that filtering will do nothing to help children, as it will neither shield them from inappropriate material nor in any way combat the spread of child abuse. If Senator Conroy missed those memos, perhaps he should look to Europe?

Much has been written and said about the Labor Government's plan to censor Australia's Internet. The plan, which involves a Government blacklist of web sites that all Australian Internet service providers would be required to block, has been criticised for its ineffectiveness, free speech risks and technical difficulties. However, while there has been some moralising, there has been little serious debate about the filter's moral implications.