In answer to the point that I don't explain “How it should be done” guilty as charged. Not the aim of the post and most likely the topic for another post . Also if you had selected the links to Google and Yahoo in this post you would have found they make a number of submissions better solutions.

In reply to your points about the filter being immoral and un-australian,
No where in my post have I said we should open the door to corrupting children,I am a father myself and am totally opposed to any type of child exploitation. Again Peter I reiterate this filter will not resolve these issues in anyway , the solution is incapable of it , the government is unable to resource it. In terms of Un-Australian , I refer to the fact that giving any government the right to censor you only leads to issues, need I point out freedom of information, news and human rights issues that are well documented the counties I have mentioned. Is that where we want Australia to go ?
I wold also like to point out China's filter is not successful from, the point of view of limiting pornography and the like as it suffers the same issues that I have described.

I now draw focus to the statement “Adults who are hardcore users can still access the LEGAL material by other means.” I rest my case I couldn't have put it better , this is why it won't work.

The statistics that you have listed only serve to enforce the fact that trying to filter this at the ISP level won't work , it's reliant on a blacklist that our Government would have to keep updated… not going to happen to big to fast to much for them. I also not that you quote mechanisms such as peer to peer in your stats…. the filter does not include them so again you stats reinforce my point.

Without getting into the whole solution phase Peter , I must disagree with you that parents are responsible for filtering their children. Yes they are , and yes they should and yes I believe it is at that level is should where the responsibility lies.

I do like your naivety children's capability to circumvent this type of mechanism, it is record that a week after the government implemented their school filter , it was hacked by a year seven student.

Now I respect your right to support the filter ,however for you to come out an state that you will exercise the right to use other methods of delivery. You will be breaching the legislation in doing so … therefore you have given up your democratic right of choice.

I would suggest that perhaps you need read and review the actual legislation as it negates much of your argument.

I completely disagree with the immoral and unaustralian thing about the filter. Is it Australian to give an open door to corrupting children? I think not. Do we want a society without respect and decency? I think not. Is it related to each other? Absolutely.

I think what is immoral is the ease of access for children to content that quite literally, should never even be on the internet. In comparison to China, I actually strongly support the chinese filtering as a whole, without the exceptions of political views… it is incredibly effective in eliminating illegal material from the webs. Adults who are hardcore users can still access the LEGAL material by other means.

Some stats for thought:
Pornography Time Statistics

* Every second – $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography.

* Every second – 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography.

* Every second – 372 internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines.

* Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States.

Some more internet statistics to take into consideration

Pornographic websites 4.2 million (12% of total websites)
Pornographic pages 420 million
Daily pornographic search engine requests 68 million (25% of total search engine requests)
Daily pornographic emails 2.5 billion (8% of total emails)
Internet users who view porn 42.7%
Received unwanted exposure to sexual material 34%
Average daily pornographic emails/user 4.5 per Internet user
Monthly Pornographic downloads (Peer-to-peer) 1.5 billion (35% of all downloads)
Daily Gnutella “child pornography” requests 116,000
Websites offering illegal child pornography 100,000
Sexual solicitations of youth made in chat rooms 89%
Youths who received sexual solicitation 1 in 7 (down from 2003 stat of 1 in 3)
Worldwide visitors to pornographic web sites 72 million visitors to pornography: Monthly
Internet Pornography Sales $4.9 billion

What does this tell us? That there is a justified case for the government to introduce filtering on an ISP level. And let's not get into the good parent/bad parent dilemma… No matter how good of a parent you are, if your kid wants to find something, even by accident… chances is they will. If you have a filter at home, their mate down the road may show them something they shouldn't see.

What the filter does NOT do:

It does not stop the hardcore internet users from sharing, downloading, and accessing LEGAL, but also unfortunately illegal material. However, criminal agencies and specialists are cracking down on those other channels, and quite frankly… they should be cracking down harder.

Some more disturbing facts:

Children Internet Pornography Statistics

Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokemon.”

Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography 11 years old
Largest consumer of Internet pornography 35 – 49 age group
15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures 80%
8-16 year olds having viewed porn online 90% (most while doing homework)
7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address 29%
7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address 14%
Children's character names linked to thousands of porn links 26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)

Now, children generally do NOT have the ability to use hardcore technical methods of obtaining such evil material.

But considering the statistics in the real world, and as a parent… I completely support the introduction of a filter, and would gladly sacrifice some browsing speed for it to be enforced. If I want to view LEGAL material that is suitable to my age group, I can go down to my local adult store that is going to check my age and enforce common sense.

Or I can use many other methods of delivery, but the point is… I can still exercise that choice regardless of the filter. I would seriously doubt that a child is able to do that.

Am I happy to “give up my democratic rights” for an internet filter? I dont believe I would be giving up very much at all. Information can still be obtained and is not killed off by an internet filter.

That is my 2c.