You use any of these same tactics Clive Hamilton used in his opinion article for Australian IT, the Web doesn’t belong to net libertarians. Such as:

  1. You need to spend the first 271 words, or 5 paragraphs, brewing up a completely fictional situation involving a boy looking at “weird-looking vaginas”, upskirts and amputees… golden showers, “black bitches”, scat, facials, “huge penises”…
  2. Your vivid story proves supervision and PC based filtering is actually a more appropriate solution.
  3. You accuse GetUp! of misleading the debate by cherry picking performance results from the Enex test and in the very next paragraph cherry pick your own stats, failing to mention that the filter which degraded performance the least was also one of the least accurate at correctly identifying content.
  4. You accuse those who oppose mandatory ISP filtering as representing the most extreme strand of internet libertarianism, yet fail to respond to any of the actual concerns held by those ‘extremists’. Extremists like Senator Scott Ludlam, ALIA and Save the Children.
  5. You are still unable to point to a single person who has ever said that “people (including children) should be able to view whatever they like”.
  6. You conclude the financial costs of mandatory ISP filtering “will be small” yet fail to point to any report or quote from an ISP which backs up this statement.
  7. You fail to understand why mandatory ISP filtering is different to the existing regulation we already have in place for TV, Films and the Internet.

Care to add? I’m sure Clive will.