The government’s plan to introduce an internet filter in an election year is classic populist politics ahead of common sense. The government is aware that parents are genuinely concerned that their kids can access inappropriate material on the internet far too easily. That’s why they promised to do something about it in the lead up to the 2007 election. But rather than a practical response that might take time to have effect they’ve gone for a quick fix to create the illusion of action.

The problem with this quick fix is that it’s likely to do very little, and worse still may actually be counterproductive.  As a number of opponents and the government's own trial have suggested the proposed filter can be circumvented far too easily, is expensive and will slow down internet speeds. By creating a veneer of internet safety there’s also a real chance that some parents will be less vigilant than they might be otherwise.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby makes some interesting points in this piece. It's worth a read.

The bottom line is that the government's recent internet trial has raised many more questions than it’s answered. Greens Communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlum has expressed his concerns on the government’s proposed internet filter for many months now. I’d suggest reading his response to the recent trial if you’ve got any doubts about where the Greens stand.