EFA state that the bill was designed to prevent further public scrutiny of web filtering proposals.
The proposal has always been unpopular, now perhaps the Government is starting to come to grips with what the industry has been saying all along: if your policy objective is to protect children on-line, this is not the way to go about it.
This body, NetAlert, commenced operations in November Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman stopped short of saying Telstra and Optus breached existing contracts, saying the question was "hypothetical one". Initially those dilemmas were limited to protecting the vulnerable members of the community from certain types of pornography and images of extreme violence.
Sorry, this video has expired Video: Turnbull slams Government's net filter 'backflip' ABC News Cyber safety The internet filter had been strongly opposed by the online community because of censorship concerns, but it had the backing of the Australian Christian Lobby.
This list of banned Web pages is then added to filtering software encryptedwhich must be offered to all consumers by their Internet service providers.
The Family First Party released a far stricter policy of mandatory filtering at the Internet service provider level. This consisted of three components: a schools-based educational program to teach high school children to take a more detached and evaluative view of pornographic images and messages an opt-out system of ISP filtering and additional measures to protect children from exposure.
However, these freedoms are not absolute. The fact that our own government will not take into account the opinions of the people that are actually affected by their ideas is extremely alarming. It is doing nothing more than making our internet cumbersome and sluggish.
We can crack down on illegal activity, and we can work with the industry to minimise potential problems, but we can't replace the guardianship role of parents.