CreateDebate


Debate Info

57
94
Australia SHOULD... Australia SHOULDN'T...
Debate Score:151
Arguments:97
Total Votes:214
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Australia SHOULD... (44)
 
 Australia SHOULDN'T... (54)

Debate Creator

SMCdeBater(242) pic



Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?

LaughingHey Guys!

I've created this next debate to check out a few extra points for an upcoming interschool competition.

I've managed as much research as possible (though will be doing more) and am eager to see what everyone else thinks about the issue.

Thanks! Happy Debating Everyone!Laughing

Australia SHOULD...

Side Score: 57
VS.

Australia SHOULDN'T...

Side Score: 94
1 point

Hey, I'm doing that same topic for my school's competition!

C-grade! E-hi5! Anyways, I think this debate is kind of one sided and I would hope that you're not on the affirmative. So, the main point that you want to push is about restricting child pornography. But that's only one argument so good luck thinking of more. Also, you might consider bringing up the example of China's internet filter and all the good points about it (if there are any). Good luck in you competition! I've probably been no help anyway -___-

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

Thanks, I've been discussing similar things (and also very different things) in regard to this topic with my team, and yes, we are affirmative.

Is your competition DAV Debating? It is for me.

If you are, then what division are you and what school?

Side: Australia SHOULD...
2 points

Yeps, I'm from Victoria University Secondary College Brimbank Campus (formerly know as Brimbank College before a stupid merge with other crappy school around the district) and in the Essendon region doing C-Grade as well. I don't know what side I'm on yet because they haven't released the Essendon draw yet. SMC? I'm guessing that's your school and I'm going to take a punt and say that's St. Michael's College. Correct me if I'm wrong. Which I probably am.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
NVYN(289) Disputed Banned
1 point

Child pornography? Geez I thought that was the government's approach LOL.

Ok, try and argue this and you might stand a chance at your competitions:

Child porn can be censored simply enough at home with the installation of a censoring software by your parents. This will encourage parents to be responsible parents and not just rely on the government to look after their kids for them!

Spending millions on a censorship system that can be simply circumvented by running a software is just wasteful and naive! What's more, it encourages parents to be lazy and have a false sense of security.

Have you heard of UltraSurf by the way? That's how people circumvent China's Great Fire Wall, chaps! And they spent BILLIONS on that GFW!

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
vincentful(3) Disputed
2 points

Yes, but only sealing it off to children wouldn't help at all. I'm going to make a generalisation here and say that they're all on Facebook or their preferred method of social networking. Adults are free to do anything on the internet so what's to stop them from looking at it? That's right, nothing!

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

Australia should adopt a National internet Filter, because there are certain pages that has illegal materials that you should not see. I know that no one can tell you what to do, but as long as you are living in Australia, you should follow what government is suggesting you. they made you live here to make your happy life, so can't you just trust them on this? It actually gives lots of benefit... no one will learn bad languages from internet and also the child pornography won't be created anymore, because it will be blocked to see it. The certain pages with violence will be blocked by this filter and you won't see what you don't want to see and also no one will become violently after using internet which makes less murdering and makes less crime in Australia.

We strongly should adopt a National Internet Filter to make Australia, the better place, with better people to make Australia, the most happiest country in the world.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
NVYN(289) Disputed Banned
1 point

Ok, do you know exactly:

1 - what will be blocked?

2 - who will decide?

3 - how they will decide?

Until I know the exact answers to the above 3 questions, I'm not going to vote my right to freedom of speech away. And if you're a responsible citizen of a democratic country, you would not vote for something the government has been quite secretive about! The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. Be responsible and vote NO!

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
julie603(3) Disputed
0 points

Yes, I know what exactly will be blocked. The government will be blocking illegal sites that you shouldn't be going on, so when it is blocking than it means they are not good for you and you won't go in there, because even though you try it twice, you could never get in there.. and since government made this, they will be the one who will decide which one is good for Australians. they have rights to do that, because they are oing that, because they care about their people. We elected them. We all elected them, because they gave us lots of help in our society.

They will decided which sites that everyone likes to go in, which sites that everyone doesn't really like to go in.. and they will blocked all the sites that is unwelcome to the people in Australia. I guess that answer all of your three questions:)

Side: Australia SHOULD...
usps(365) Disputed
0 points

"they made you live here to make your happy life, so can't you just trust them on this?'

Is this the Queens English?

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

hello.

My name is Aaron Keeling from Heathdale also competeing in the DAV. I'm in C grade and am doing this topic. i'm affirmative and my main idea is that australia needs to adopt a national internet filter (as aposed to an international filter such as a windows microsoft filter) to help grow australia's local economy and community. The filter could also be more relevant for Australia's culture and needs that could be different from other countries. i would apprieciate any more good ideas but i think it would be wise to steer away from decribing what we should filter because other international filters already filter it.

Hope that this has helped

Side: Australia SHOULD...
NVYN(289) Disputed Banned
0 points

Ok, please help me out:

1 - how does the filter help grow the economy?

2 - how does it help grow the community?

3 - how could it be more relevant for Australia's culture and needs?

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
0 points

I'll fill this one in for him:

1 - Because in the long run, after several thousands of dollars going towards the whole Filtration System, we will find that the Government will be wasting little more dollars in areas such as Internet Police work. I know your immediate response, and that is that 'criminals can work around this'. My point is not aimed at criminals, but towards problems such as cyber bullying. If we continuously need to set up investigations based on this offensive site and that offensive site, then we are just pouring our money into a quick-fix solution that doesn't help in the long run. At least with a National Internet Filter, we would, as I have said in a previous debate, 'hit the problem on the head.' We will also see a decrease in the creation of unnecessary websites that would not even meet the requirements, pouring that money, instead, back into the economy, and not into the bank account of an online nerd. Finally, there will also be a higher and more appropriate use of Internet resources for educational use, which benefits the child, which helps in the long run, etc, etc. Piece it together, its not that hard.

2. A community comes together based on social or cultural similarities (how they can relate to one another), and this may very well assist in that category. If one man finds pornography highly offensive and so does another man, then perhaps they can find a sense of similarity. If one man finds that online gaming is fun and should be kept, and so does another, then again, they share in the joy of similarity, and probably play games together for a long time. OK, immediate response (prediction) would be the question of 'how could they possibly know that they share this similarity?' The answer isn't simple, it actually involves this ability that most people have, I'm sure you've heard of it; it's called talking! People see a percentage of 'agreed-upon' with decisions, they share, compare, and move on with their lives. People will make friends; people will make enemies. the important thing is that it will draw in a community like never before.

3. This is similar to 2, mainly due to the fact that people may see beyond mere cultural similarities and towards social similarities. Australia can define itself as a country that understands what its people want, and can act upon these understandings in further benefit to the nation. Racial hate will drop in one figure or another, and then the progress picks up again. Australia branches out the Filtration choices, decides even further how they will want a National Filter to work in Schools, Homes, Workplaces, etc, etc.

I hope that I've helped you out.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

Ofcoarse! our children are being exploited in this country not only by our government but also by the media, our tv, our advertising, it's all corrupt. No wonder we have violent children who end up in jail. Australia has the highest suicide rate. We have an alcohol problem, we have a divorce problem, we have confused children Why ? Because this government has created its own Monsters>>.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

I'm also in the aforementioned C grade debating competition, from the same school and team as SMCdeBater. I just got back from my debate and , just to let everyone know, we won. We were affirmative and our main arguments were that we need a national internet filter for protection of young people, and that an Australian national internet filter doesn't have to be like China's one because we are a democracy, while in China, the government is in charge of everything. The other team said we would become like china, but I, being second speaker, reinforced the argument that we ae a democracy; if we became the slightest bit like china, we wouldn't elect that government again.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

Okay, starting off, I won my debate, and claimed best speaker, so people like NVYN can take this proof as an example that I actually can debate.

Now, getting on topic, I am going to redirect my arguments to better suit some of the ones that my team used at the debate: we should adopt a national internet filter, though it should differ from that of the governments choice. It should be a national internet filter that promotes the right of choice, and therfore, allows for users to not only be granted a warning for particular sites that shouldn't be completely blocked, but to also leave power in the hands of the Australian citizens.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
1 point

well,, I am here to say in my debate competition we won.My side was Australia should adopt a National Internet Filter.

We won the debate and we really should for everyone's sake. if there is less people who will watch bad things in the internet because of the filter, there will be less people who will commites crimes such as taking Child pornography.. and if there is less crimes.. we will have more peace.. n I think everyone in here, agrees about that we are talkng and arguing about this to have peace and I say if you want peace in Australia, we have to asopt a national internet filter for sure.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
5 points

People should be able to look at whatever they want. The government shouldn't have to create a filter, the citizens are old enough to choose what they want to look at.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
kirsop(1) Disputed
1 point

how can you say we are old enough when children have acess tio the internet

Side: Australia SHOULD...
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
3 points

Because it shouldn't be the governments job to raise children. All computers have parental control. The parents can block sites they feel are inappropriate and are over a certain level

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
anthonyz(5) Disputed
0 points

"People should be able to look at whatever they want." Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home. We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way. Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books? So not to corrupt people. So not to create Monsters and confuse our children. Pedophiles love you to choose what you want to watch on the Internet. How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child. Think about it even before computers came about our governments allowed pornographic magazines on the shelf.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
mentar Disputed
0 points

"Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home"

On the contrary. The parents have the option of disabling the internet/computer when they are not home. The parents have the options of installing a PC-based filter on their pc, which will be far more effective, reliable and won't force their views onto the entire population.

"Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books?"

For the same reason they ban women from showing any skin and women who are raped are stoned because they invited it. Oppression.

"How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child."

Exactly, he was exploited as a child, it has nothing to do with the internet. Unless you're suggesting the internet caused his computer to grow arms and beat him.

plus: An adult pedophile today, would not have had the internet in his house when he was a child. It's a relatively new thing in homes. If he did, it would have been 33.6k/56k dialup.

" So not to corrupt people"

Some of us are capable of making our own morale choices. We're not lemmings who are corrupted by everything we see. When was the last time you saw a porn video and immediately walked outside and thought "boy, i should rape that women". When was the last time you played a first person shooter video game, walked outside and thought "man, it would be cool if i shot that guy in the head".

"We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. "

Yes, we are being exploited by our government and by fringe lobby groups who are trying to force their morale views onto the entire country.

"If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way."

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the government. They're there to run the country on our behalf, the create policies and laws that reflect the will of the public (which has proven to be overwhelmingly against the censor, just fyi). Not to run our lives. If you must compare the government to something, they're the caretaker of the property, not the parent. Hired to serve us and maintain our country, not control us.

The government is not my parent. My parents are 2 people who i call mom and dad. They decided how they wanted to raise me and they raised me to be a well rounded individual who can decide for himself the difference between right and wrong without being told what to think by the government.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
julie603(3) Disputed
-1 points

The governments have rights to create a filter for us. They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. They are actually helping us by doing this. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country with better people. We all needs to put a faith on our government.they are not locking all the sites. They are only blocking the ites, which might horrify other people and to know that they are going to put a vote of which internet sites are good for all of Australians and the sites that everyone hates will be banned to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
4 points

Don't look at sites you believe aren't good, parents can put parental controls on the computers for kids, and people should have the choice to know what sites are out there. If they don't want to see the site, don't go to it.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
mentar Disputed
1 point

"The governments have rights to create a filter for us."

The government has the right the introduce law, They also have the obligation to introduce laws that reflect the will of the public. The entire purpose of the government is to serve the public. We tell the government what we want to have in Australia, the government doesn't tell us what they want us to have in Australia.

"They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country"

We elected them to deliver the policies that they outlined in their election campaign. The internet censor is not one of them. The internet filter was introduced at the last minute of the last hour right before the election. Most people don't even know it exists, so how can you claim that we elected them to do this.

"We all needs to put a faith on our government"

No, we do not. This is the purpose of transparency and accountability. So that we, the people who elected the government can see how they are handling the policies that we elected them for and make a decision about whether we want to elect them again. Simply putting 'faith' in the government and taking it for granted that everything they do is for our own good belies the purpose of a democracy.

"to know that they are going to put a vote of which internet sites are good for all of Australians and the sites that everyone hates will be banned"

This policy involves no voting on what material is banned. In fact, the list of banned materials will not even be available and will be kept secret with no accountability.

"will be banned to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet."

There has never been any link proven between the viewing of violent, sexual or controversial materials and the perpetration of criminal offences. Forgetting that for a moment, the censor will not even stop people from looking at these materials. Most 12 year olds posses the technical knowledge to circumvent these filters.

Home PC based filters have always proven to be a far more reliable and effective method for screening out unwanted materials in a household and do not require infringing on the liberties of those who do not want their information censored.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
sd123(33) Disputed
1 point

The government has done the same thing for the Chinese. Yet when you hear about the citizens they can't even type in 'freedom'. Australia is known as a country to be a free for all to have a say in what they believe in. If the government begins something like this, it will show they distrust us and most off all they will take our freedom away. Even this website could be taken away because of some of the issues brought up in it.

Anyway, we have the choice of going on these sites -a choice - is when someone makes a decision about something. So if they choose to go on a website, they are entitled to see and read what ever is there and suffer any consequences that may arise.

We are on a school team that will be debating this subject tomorrow and we are obviously on the negative team :D

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
4 points

That would be media censorship - a topic of debate I've participated in many times only to find that just about everybody on here is against it.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
2 points

The Rudd government's Censorship regime will attempt to prevent access to web pages that have been Refused Classification.

If it was about illegal material, they'd say it was about illegal material. But they don't: they say "Refused Classification."

Refused Classification does not mean "illegal." It just means that the material does not fit into the MA15+, R18+ or X18+ shoeboxes. Again, if it were truly illegal, they wouldn't be mincing words; they'd just come out and say "illegal." Most Refused Classification material is perfectly legal to possess, and to read/view in the privacy of one's own home, in most parts of Australia.

Child pornography? Sure, that's illegal. In every country in the world. So why in your right mind would you approve of a system whereby our government says "Here's a list of child pornography on the World Wide Web. Let's give that list to ISPs and tell them to prevent people from accessing it."

I'd prefer them to give that list to the police, who can liaise with their international counterparts and have the filth deleted, and the distributors/perpetrators hunted down and brought to justice.

This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not prevent one single child from being raped.

This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not bring one single paedophile one single step closer to a gaol cell.

It should be scrapped once and for all, and the money sent to the Australian Federal Police's High-Technology Crime Unit.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Is Australia following the path of China? Censorship piled over Censorship-----

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
NVYN(289) Banned
1 point

I'm all for law and order, but by George, I'm also for freedom of speech and personal responsibility. So as a responsible member of a democratic nation, I'd like to say that I ain't voting for nothing until I:

1 - know exactly what it is,

2 - how it works and

3 - how it affects our lives.

Voting for anything before you know the answers to these questions is proof that you're not using your brains and so you should give it away and go join a flock of sheep somewhere in China...

The Australian government has been keeping quite a tight lid on the whole thing, so noone knows much about how it works or what exactly will be filltered. Shame on them! I thought Australia was a democracy, oh wait a minute, it is!!! I suggest its citizens use their voting powers and force the government to be transparent about the whole thing and if they refuse, to vote them the hell out of parliament!!!

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

So that people can actually see what the debate is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

http://nocleanfeed.com/

http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/

http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/16/efa-alarmed-at-creeping-clean-feed/

http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/16/conroys-clean-feed-wont-block

We didn't get a choice in this. We don't get a say on what material gets blocked. And the info they've given us suggests that they are even going to block things that aren't illegal here, but are merely things that someone decides are distasteful.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
1 point

I have had a look at all those sites, and clearly, they make strong points. The government can only get away with things for so long, before Australia becomes louder to the point where they are literally screaming in their faces.

You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy. The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia, while in China, things are politically handled without consent from the country and its people. If we want something changed, and we prove how it benefits (or helps) a situation, to further boost our economy and/or help save and secure Australian life, then things get changed. If they are not changed, parliament doesn't last in office for long.

By distasteful, I'm sure that you don't openly refer to simply pornography, but rather, say racial or even other age-appropriate content. I could be here all day and night naming the many different things that people find distasteful. At the end of the day, there are inappropriate things on the Internet, and the whole purpose of a National Internet Filter is to ensure that these key 'things' are not accessible to the nation. If anyone were to think otherwise, then that is just pathetic, because they are basically crying out for content such as pornography to not be taken away. "Oh no, now I can't see topless women anymore." Sounds pathetic doesn't it?

Like I said, bad things don't last forever; if the government goes too far, Australia can call for a change, but when it comes to content such as pornography, well, sometimes its just better to leave things out of reach.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
mentar Disputed
3 points

" The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia,"

We're saying we don't want out internet censored.

Every poll/study/survey done has shown people overwhelmingly against the censor.

We have had no say in this policy.

We've had no say in what gets censored.

The minister responsible continuously cancels media appointments and interviews that involve questions from the public

"You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy."

Are we? we'll see.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

Our tax money is getting wasted on a crappy scheme. If anyone who really thinks this filter is a good idea then please download and install your own PC filter and block out on what you want.

What the government wants is pure censorship don't let our country go down the toilet even more by supporting such a wasteful embarrassing and expensive scheme say NO to the filter "censorship".

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

Australia should not implement national internet censorship because it will not achieve any of the things that the supporters claim it will achieve while at the same time it will cost Australia dearly, both in monetary terms and in non-monetary terms.

It will not protect anyone, adult or child, from accidental exposure to adult material.

It will not prevent anyone, adult or child, from deliberately accessing adult material.

It will not protect children from online predators or online bullying.

It will not protect children by preventing people from sharing images of actual child sex abuse.

The money would be better spent on educating parents and educating children, and on subsidised home-based internet filters for those who really want it.

Most sensible parents understand that technology is not a substitute for locating a PC in a "public" part of the house and supervising children while they are online and educating children about online safety.

http://chairmankrudd.com

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

The proposed filter will only filter normal web-surfing activity more commonly known as "HTTP" websites. Not only will it be completely simple to get around the filter for anyone who wants to, but it won’t be able to stop the distribution of illegal child abuse material on private underground networks, where that sort of material is traded. Filtering this is not an option, instead we could spend the money on possible police investigations that are able to penetrate the secretive groups charge those who are creating and sharing this illegal material.

This policy will not protect Australian families; in fact, it may put parents into a false sense of security. This could possibly lower their caution when it comes to supervising their children's on-line activities. Parents will begin to think there children are safe. The list of pages that will be blocked is only a tiny fraction of the material on the internet that may be thought harmful to children. Now with no careful monitoring and no watchful eyes. Children will be at more of a risk, especially with not all explicit sites being caught in the filter.

What is even more worrying is the fact the biggest risks that children face online are not exposure to inappropriate content, but inappropriate contact with others.

In order to properly protect children online, filtration is no competition against proper education. We need more education for parents about options for voluntary filtering for their computers, that can be tailored to allow a household to control their Internet content and more education for parents and children about the risks that children might face online, and what to do about them. This would be a more radical elimination to child exposure on the internet.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

The internet should be a completely open source of information and nothing should be filtered no matter what country you are in.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

I must oppose such a sweeping act of censorship. Free information is needed for a free society.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
0 points

Exactly. It's plain censorship. And I don't remember the Australian public getting a say before the Government sent the bill to be passes, but correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not sure, after all. So there's the "democracy card" played. This would also have serious economical problems. The Australian branch of Google would be put completely out of business and would be shut down. Putting a blanket censor over our Internet is taking away our freedom of choice, and is the beginnings of an Orwellian disaster.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
1 point

Economical problems as in computer gurus hacking the filter and then selling their services online, which proves that the whole internet barrier was a waste of money? I agree.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
0 points

Censorship? Not entirely. Economically bad? Probably not. Australian branch of Google shutting down as a result? Definantly not!

You define an Internet Filter as something that just blocks out whatever it wants.

This is not enitirely the case.

A National Internet Filter isn't a robotic prison guard, it is a protective software that recommends before it acts!

If you believe that it is a potential disaster, then please demonstrate how so. I would like to see how far you will go with that argument.

Side: Australia SHOULD...
mentar Disputed
1 point

"Censorship? Not entirely"

It's censoring out materials. It includes politically controversial material that people wish to have access to. Please explain to me in what way it does not meet the definition of 'censorship'. Until then, i'll keep calling it censorship.

"You define an Internet Filter as something that just blocks out whatever it wants."

It blocks out whatever materials the politicians who legislate it want it to block and the materials that special interest lobby groups want it to block. Both of which have boundless limits to be modified and expanded and they see fit, with no accountability.

"it is a protective software that recommends before it acts!"

Recommends? I'm not sure you understand what the censor is. It's a piece of software/hardware that will block all materials that somebody else thought was inappropriate for me to see, without giving me any say in the process.

"If you believe that it is a potential disaster, then please demonstrate how so. I would like to see how far you will go with that argument."

Millions of wasted dollars.

Funds diverted away from law enforcement agencies that actually make a difference in preventing child abuse.

Potentially damages the reliability/effectiveness of the internet, a critical tool for our progress.

Provides an opening for increasing censorship.

Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
0 points

I support you. You are right.. The National Internet Filter is here to help us. They are not here to prison us or anything..:)

Side: Australia SHOULD...
0 points

Okay, I'm no expert on the subject (I doubt anyone here is) but here is my understanding:

The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked. This means that it won't be used to block horrifying or distasteful content as 'Julie603' suggested, unless it is illegal (and a lot of it isn't). Ofcourse there's always the possibility that the government will secretely scrap this idea and block whatever they want. As it currently stands, the main things targeted will be child abuse, bestiality, SOME violence and drugs, instructions on eauthansia and exploitative sexual fetishes.

If the filter were to stick to those, then it would be a brilliant idea in theory. The problem is it won't work. As 'NYVN' pointed out, the filter can be circumvented. There will be numerous ways of easily bypassing the filter.

In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...
0 points

I agree with you, but a few points to add:

"The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked."

On the contrary, much of what the filter will block is not illegal to posses in most of Australia. some of it CAN be purchased in stores.

"If the filter were to stick to those,"

It won't. The initial policy called for all 'prohibited content', which was not limited to any particular classification or law. Pretty much anything they didn't like. It's since been scaled back to "RC" because of pressure and criticism. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from expanding it back to 'prohibited content' after installing it and groups such as the ACL are already trying to push them to ban & block any and all pornographic material of any kind.

"In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet."

There are much better reasons to oppose the filter than just the slowdown it will cause.

Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...