Electronic Frontiers Australia has today launched a petition against the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy that will be presented to the Senate of the Parliament of Australia.

You can sign the petition electronically by going to the this page and leaving your name, postcode and email address.  Please talk to your friends, family and colleagues about the problems with the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy and encourage them to sign the petition as well.

We are also looking for volunteers to collect printed signatures.  If you are having a meeting or protest against the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy in the coming weeks, we would encourage you to distribute this Senate Internet Censorship Petition to collect as many printed signatures as possible.  There are detailed instructions about collecting signatures, and where to return the printed signatures, here.

Learn more about this petition at https://www.efa.org.au/petition/.

If you have any questions, please email Peter Black: pete.black at efa.org.au.


  1. Stop wasting our money on something that WONT achieve its stated aim and WILL lead to censorship of legal material. If you want to spend the money, spend it on the law enforcement agency that actually chases illegal material.

    Comment by Ryan Booker on 19 January 2010 at 01:00
  2. That's the comment I wish I could have left on the petition.

    Comment by Ryan Booker on 19 January 2010 at 01:01
  3. Unacceptable expense, financially yes, but most importantly too costly on our liberties.

    Comment by Will Furphy on 19 January 2010 at 01:06
  4. Waste of money. Waste of time. Waste of resources. Stop trying to make Australia a nanny state!

    Comment by Alistair on 19 January 2010 at 01:08
  5. apparently freedom of speech isn't one of our rights

    Comment by michael verhoef on 19 January 2010 at 01:20
  6. Kevin Rudd may speak Mandarin fluently, but that's no reason to follow repressive dictatorial regime policies and introduce Internet censorship that will slow everyone's access, be prohibitively expensive for smaller ISPs and curtail personal liberties. Are there no Labour MPs with a conscience?

    Comment by Dan Halford on 19 January 2010 at 01:32
  7. We already have a law enforcement agency which chases illegal content, its called the Australian Federal Police. Another Rudd police is to boost their funding to do more of it. Which speaks even more to the total waste of money trying to filter it. The filter is not for illegal content, its for Refused Classification content which is even broader and by no means illegal by definition.

    And where is the evidence?! How many children are being exposed to child porn via the web. I bet it is vanishingly small if at all. We must get used to asking for the evidence from government. Otherwise we are shadow boxing a spin machine.

    What would be great is to have a printable information pamphlet for signature collectors to show people they are trying to recruit. Otherwise you might get well intentioned people spreading some misinformation that could damage the cause.

    Thanks for fighting the good fight.

    Comment by Adam Meehan on 19 January 2010 at 01:51
  8. Why is the government trying to hide and protect pedophiles? If it is not trying to do this, why is it trying to implement a system that will force pedophiles to learn how to hide, and therefore be protected? What is wrong with letting pedophiles come out into the open, where they can be identified, located, charged and imprisoned?

    Comment by Robert Bray on 19 January 2010 at 02:00
  9. Its my understanding from relatives in the police force that there is more secretive and strategic group than paedophiles. They are already well underground using techniques for distribution which are completely outside the scope of the filter.

    Anyone else using the web for this purpose will easily be caught. So again the filter can make no claim to add anything to the defences of children from paedophiles or exposure to such material.

    Comment by Adam Meehan on 19 January 2010 at 02:06
  10. Given Senator Conroy's blatant disregard for public opposition to censorship, there's no way he can be trusted to administer or oversee any kind of blacklist.

    When the government starts respecting the wishes of mainstream Australia I'll consider changing my mind.

    Comment by Simon on 19 January 2010 at 02:46
  11. This is a complete waste of time and money!

    Comment by Patricia Hannington on 19 January 2010 at 04:36
  12. I oppose the censorship of Australian people under the false pretext of protecting children.

    This is a political decision that is aimed to re-elect Rudd and Conroy and has nothing to do with protection.

    In future it will be used to silence minority groups and anything that the government of the day feel interferes with it's power over the people.

    China, Iran and the like are the example.

    Comment by Aaron Ticehurst on 19 January 2010 at 04:54
  13. While I agree with the stated goal (that of protecting our young and / or helpless) it is, quite simply, a step down the wrong path.
    This is not the path to a safer democracy.
    It is the path to totalitarianism.
    "Wrong Way - Go Back"

    Comment by Terry Carter on 19 January 2010 at 06:53
  14. Comment removed at author's request.

    Comment by redacted on 19 January 2010 at 20:02
  15. The ability to control access to information in a way that is totally unaccountable is a power that no government can be trusted with.

    Comment by Sam from Newcastle on 19 January 2010 at 21:45
  16. The Mandatory Internet filter will waste time, money, resources and anyone who claims it will work effectively has a DEEP and TOTAL ignorance about how data is and can transferred and transmitted across the internet, it WILL be abused.
    The ONLY real purpose for putting it in place is to project a FALSE sense of security to the IGNORANT.

    Comment by Nate Burr on 19 January 2010 at 23:14
  17. The internet in this country is slow enough as it is, and you want to make it even slower by implementing a system which is buggy and can be easily bypassed in a matter of minutes, spend the money on something more worthwhile than a crappy ploy to make the internet a "safer" place, we are not all kids you know, we have the right to look and view at what ever we want, and you can't stop us.

    Comment by Griffin on 19 January 2010 at 23:18
  18. Once you lose freedom of expression you can't defend any other right.

    Comment by Simon on 19 January 2010 at 23:20
  19. I am strongly against this filter proposal and am furious at Senator Conroy's arrogant dismissal of the valid concern raised.

    Comment by Sean Coady on 19 January 2010 at 23:38
  20. Let's preserve our internet access so our grandchildren don't end up researching school assignments on dial-up speeds.

    Let's keep information, technology, and industry flowing with a forward momentum - like the rest of the developed world.

    Let's use our taxes on education and health rather than dictatorship.

    Let's stay democratic.

    Comment by Keira Daley on 19 January 2010 at 23:45
  21. [comment removed - NS]

    Comment by Daniel Burton on 20 January 2010 at 00:33
  22. Flamming on the comment board is taking away from the main point, censorship sucks and clearly doesnt work.

    [partial comment removed - NS]

    Comment by Bryan on 20 January 2010 at 00:38
  23. I am removing certain comments from this thread because they are (a) irrelevant; (b) personal attacks; or (c) offensive. Please keep comments on topic.

    I will actively monitor this thread; as EFA is concerned in maintaining a reasonable and open public discourse, and particularly one that is suited to having our voices heard in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament, I will continue to remove comments that are off-topic or offensive.

    Comment by Nic on 20 January 2010 at 01:36
  24. I will not abide this attack on my civil liberties. This technology is dangerous and it can't be allowed to get any sort of foothold. It has to be abolished now. I reach voting age in less than a month and my first vote was going to be for Labor, but not anymore.

    Comment by Hunter Poelsma on 20 January 2010 at 04:46
  25. While I support this petition 100%, is anyone else dumbfounded by the irony on this page? The moderator is censoring comments on a page that is utterly dedicated to the protection of free speech.

    The Australian goverment is exercising its power to "protect" its citizens from harmful and/or offensive material because it believes it is acting in everyone's best interests.

    The page's moderator is exercising its power to "protect" its visitors from harmful and/or offensive material because it believes it is acting in everyone's best interests.

    But hey man, I'm behind you and I understand your desire to keep this page free of crap. A moment's reflection may be in order though.

    Comment by Simon on 20 January 2010 at 12:59
  26. The author clearly states that's his censoring is merely taking away offensive or off-topic responses, things like 'my cats breath smells like cat food" or a personal attack at the incompetence of our government officials. They do not add to, but distract from the real issue here.
    And the issue here is not how 'slow' the Internet will become, and how we should consider our grandchildren 'doing assignments on dial up' it is that our grandchildren will be given the information to do these assignments by a dictator-like government.
    It is an attack on freedom of speech. We are not a communist dictatorship, we should not be molly-coddled, kept in the dark and forced to be ignorant.
    'To make the Internet safer for our children' , the Internet should not be raising your children, if your child is approached by a predator and agrees to meet with them or post photos of themselves to a stranger, THIS is a parenting issue, stop passing the buck and teach your children morals.
    Although this censorship may have been thought up with good intentions, it is not the solution.

    Comment by Dana on 20 January 2010 at 13:41
  27. @Simon: Believe me, I take freedom of speech very seriously and reflect very carefully on my decisions to remove comments. Whilst my ideal of freedom of speech is not limited to solely state-based censorship -- I do believe there are some important contexts in which private censorship should be restrained -- I do not think that moderating this page in order to better achieve our collective stated goals is alarming.

    Put simply, I have considered this at length, and I make no apology for removing comments by some users that reflect poorly on the other users signing this petition and are likely to, in my judgment, reduce the impact of this petition and this campaign in the public sphere.

    Comment by Nic on 20 January 2010 at 17:04
  28. Waste of time. Waste of resources. Waste of money.

    Comment by Eric on 20 January 2010 at 23:07
  29. You should add an optional link in the email to update someone's twitter - eg http://www.twitter.com/home?status=I've%20si... plus the short URL and a hashtag.

    Comment by James on 21 January 2010 at 04:00
  30. Might be a good idea to have a fixed link to the petition on the side for visitors, that way it won't get lost in the blog history.

    Comment by Spark on 21 January 2010 at 05:07
  31. ...

    Comment by Paul on 23 January 2010 at 18:07
  32. We have a right to have access to every piece of knowledge available! How hard is it to password protect your PC on startup and to sit near your child and help them research their school projects? The internet was initially only intended for people who know computer languages anyway (hackers, not to be confused with 'crackers'). We are all adults... why do we still 'need' supervision? it is an insult to our intelligence and ability to think rationally. Yes there are some sick people in the world who do illegal things, but does EVERYONE have to pay for other people's problems? Just what exactly are the figures for people going mental just from looking up something on the internet? I want figures and I want some proof and I want a better reason as to why this is happening, we are taking a step BACKWARDS in technology if we do this to the information highway.

    Comment by Amy on 27 January 2010 at 05:10
  33. Oh and I don't have kids nor intend to have them... so why should I be affected? It's almost up there with microchipping or barcoding humans. It's up there with taking medicine for an illness you DON'T EVEN HAVE!!!!!!!! The government should just leave us all alone! FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Amy on 27 January 2010 at 05:15
  34. OMG when is the goverment going to act like the peoples government intsead of a communistic regime....we vored you in cRUDD because we thought you'd act for the people with the people....your not my dad you A.R.S.E wipe and who do you think you are telling us what we can and cant do.... I would like to see you voted out immediately....Abbot has got to be a better than you....although he needs to not push his religious views onto us....

    what we really need(and we havent had one of these for about 40 years) is a polition who is there for us...not for his/her material gain... lets have a government that governs by the people through the priminister....not someone who tries to mother us so he can get his shittty position on the united nations....rack off cRUDD you mummies boy and go do another Mr Sheen commercial....

    Comment by Damien on 29 January 2010 at 18:10
  35. Don't punish innocent people.

    Comment by Kate Farquharson on 30 January 2010 at 03:17
  36. I thought I left my Nanny at home, why do I wont her to follow me everywhere I go? The vast majority of us are responsible users and honest citizens, but the Governments of the world are locked into a battle with it's own people all in the name of terrorism, but who are the real terrorists? attacking the heart of it's own self, using, abusing and feeding off of the population, AND WE ARE NOW CIVILIZED AND EDUCATED. as Damien suggests .......... cRUDD!

    Comment by phil page on 30 January 2010 at 04:25
  37. this is bull**** we have our own rights

    Comment by Jacob on 2 February 2010 at 06:34