<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nick Minchin&#8217;s opinion piece on filtering</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/</link>
	<description>Australian Censorship Discussion Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:45:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Bain</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3588</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Bain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3588</guid>
		<description>From the United States..

http://www.pcworld.com/article/158131/copa_childporn_law_killed.html

COPA Child-Porn Law Killed
Scott Nichols

Jan 23, 2009 3:00 am

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it &quot;a clear victory for free speech,&quot; having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website&#039;s freedom of speech. 

COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all.

 -------------

 and a personal opinion from the author

&quot;I&#039;ve always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children&#039;s online activity.   There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat&#039;s K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it&#039;s in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the United States..</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/158131/copa_childporn_law_killed.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/article/158131/copa_childporn_law_killed.html</a></p>
<p>COPA Child-Porn Law Killed<br />
Scott Nichols</p>
<p>Jan 23, 2009 3:00 am</p>
<p>Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court announced its refusal to hear appeals against the banning of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), effectively killing the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union called it &#8220;a clear victory for free speech,&#8221; having fought the bill for ten years claiming it infringed on a website&#8217;s freedom of speech. </p>
<p>COPA was first passed in 1998, and made it illegal to display any pornographic material on a Web site without an access code or proof of age message. However, state courts began challenging the bill immediately, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. Instead, it was ruled that parental controls should be used by individual families to block unwanted content, rather than the government determining what can and cannot be seen by all.</p>
<p> &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p> and a personal opinion from the author</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;ve always advocated that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor their children&#8217;s online activity.   There are a ton of Web filtering and parental control applications available, many for free such as Blue Coat&#8217;s K9 Web Protection. Especially with the country in the shape it&#8217;s in now, my personal opinion is that the government has more pressing issues to attend to than babysitting children online.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3587</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3587</guid>
		<description>I did. Cheers Brian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did. Cheers Brian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Houston</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3578</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Houston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3578</guid>
		<description>You spelt &#039;piece&#039; incorrectly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You spelt &#8216;piece&#8217; incorrectly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3573</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3573</guid>
		<description>Not to mention that the prevalence of actual pedophiles chatting to children over the internet isn&#039;t anywhere near what the scaremongers lead us to believe, and the family members who would be monitoring children&#039;s internet usage are statistically much more likely to abuse those children themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to mention that the prevalence of actual pedophiles chatting to children over the internet isn&#8217;t anywhere near what the scaremongers lead us to believe, and the family members who would be monitoring children&#8217;s internet usage are statistically much more likely to abuse those children themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3569</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3569</guid>
		<description>Oops, cheers Eddie. Can&#039;t believe I forgot the link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, cheers Eddie. Can&#8217;t believe I forgot the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddie</title>
		<link>http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/minchins-on-filtering/comment-page-1/#comment-3568</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/?p=2159#comment-3568</guid>
		<description>If anyone missed it in today&#039;s SMH, you can read it here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/big-brother-filter-plan-insults-parents/2009/01/21/1232471392459.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If anyone missed it in today&#8217;s SMH, you can read it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/big-brother-filter-plan-insults-parents/2009/01/21/1232471392459.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/big-brother-filter-plan-insults-parents/2009/01/21/1232471392459.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
