I wrote her too, focusing on the potential for political censorship:

As reported, your remarks included the comments: “most of the criticisms levelled at the internet filter scheme are founded on misinformation… It’s disturbing that people are getting hysterical about all the misinformation that is being spread about the internet filter.”

Can you please explain to me why this concern is ‘misinformed’? How can you be sure that political censorship will not eventuate from the new proposed censorship system?

Let’s see if she has the ability to engage in intelligent dialogue.

In my limited experience, that would be a first for a proponent of the ‘Clean Feed’.

The usual response seems to be duck, weave and avoid the question.

It was noted quite clearly that most (if not all) of the content was distributed through file sharing, not HTML. There were also grave concerns for the welfare of the children being abused.

‘Think of the children!’ the government cries. Right, so blocking web based content and pretending it’s not there will stop the distribution of content through file sharing and drive funding away from the federal police to investigate and protect these children from abuse is thinking of the children.

With the way the government acts in question time, this logic certainly doesn’t surprise me.

really Ms Mecmenamin?

I guess that means Save The Children one of the world’s largest Child rights groups must be advocating it also?

I guess Amnesty International to?

I think it is clear that Bernadette McMenamin in her position is not used to not getting what she wants.

I believe that 99% of the time most people she talks to find it easier to agree with her rather than be accused of advocating child porn.

WE WILL NOT BE BULLIED!!!!

She has misquoted.

She has lied, both blatantly and by omission.

She has published unsourced and unsubstantiated material as “fact” which was later thoroughly disproved by Libertus.

I would refer you to

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html

106 references, a document that debunks every one of the urban legends and made up figures Ms. McMenamin has used to put forward her case.

Furthermore, her inference that fully informed opposition to this censorship is tantamount to endorsing child pornography is repugnant and offensive.

Closing your eyes to the evidence of the crime does not stop the crime.

Lastly, if Ms. McMenamin truly believed that the anti filter people who understand the situation are in favour of child porn, she wouldn’t have couched the comment so to avoid litigation for slander. A very telling point, she is not confident enough to state, but knows that even the inference is enough to taint the debate in her favour.

I put Ms. McMenamin’s belief in this system on par with the belief that the world is flat. Ill informed and willfully ignorant. As such, I don’t believe she should be cut any slack whatsoever. I put her methods in line with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other dictators who have used the exact same methods to get their way. She should be made to prove her accusations or to publicly retract and apologise for them.

In the meantime, perhaps she can read THE PERVERSE LAW OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY by Amy Adler http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

But consider the fact that the blacklisted URLs would become obsolete in a very short period of time. Essentially, if a URL is found to have child porn, it’s then time for the international police to do their job, track down the perpetrators, shut down the hosting and close the site.

You’re then left with a blacklisted URL without anything on it. The police have essentially done the job of “filtering” already. And it’s possible that being blacklisted will alert the perpetrators before the police have time to act. So the filter makes things harder for the cops.

If we further consider the facts presented by Libertus http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html we’re only talking a very small number of html based sites that are live for a very short amount of time.

Meanwhile, there’s this handy secret blacklist to which any annoying political or sexual content can be added…

Ms McMenamin needs to give a whole lot more thought to what she’s advocating – and leave off with the abusive comments.

I also concur. We (as in those opposed to compulsory filtering) need to keep the debate polite and rational. Hate mail only damages the cause, by making us us look like the very hysterical nitwits that some people accuse us of being.