Stephen Conroy, the internet filter scheme, and copping a jail term for watching an MA+ video

(Above: a neat illustration from Purple Hat Munchkin, here).

Bondage for beginners. Anal for straights. The illustrated guide to oral sexual pleasure, by Slick Willy.

Just some of the wild ideas we're tossing around in a desperate bid to get listed on Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's intertubes blacklist.

There's a possible hitch. If we get frisky and raunchy, blogger might suggest we hide behind a wall with a warning of adult content and an opt in opt out button. If we go over the top in depravity, it might be deemed a breach of terms of service, and then we'd disappear off into the void, trudging around in the basement in search of of a new service provider.

Of course you have an alternative. Cruise around with the safe filter switched on in your browser, and you will remain blissfully unaware of Slick Willy's advice, if that's your choice.

I usually search with the safe filter off. I don't mind the sex that bobs up along the way, though I do get a little consternated by the hate and the eternal pop ups for online casinos and poker games. If you go to porn sites, you're likely to get porn pop ups but most of the time they're quarantined to that area, and provide the cash flow for the free porn some like to consume. You select your poison, and it's your choice.

And if you care enough, you can avoid the poison altogether, and make sure your brood are also on a leash (though you can never underestimate the skill level of teenage nerds in search of a porn fix).

Last I heard the results of Conroy's trial into his network wide filtering system were to be released in August and here we are in September, though as they were started last December with a supposed six week time frame, the concept of time now stretches into the fourth dimension.

Asher Moses' story Conroy urged to 'end net censorship farce' is a couple of days old now, and it doesn't seem to have dislodged any response from the government.

The main point of the story is that there's still no news and no results, and he provides a re-hash of some of the sorrier low points in the never-ending saga, along with another dig from Nick Minchin demanding the results be produced.

Well it's a fair bet that there's trouble in mill, if the endless, protracted delays are any guide, perhaps more related to effectiveness than the effect on internet speed. After all, China has shown how you can put a clamp on the intertubes and it will nonetheless amble along and grow, and if the new broadband network ever gets going, it might provide enough speed to compensate for any inefficiencies induced along the way by an ISP level filter.

A more important question is why we are contemplating a system which puts us right up there with the likes of China, North Korea and Iran. And what's the bet that once it's in place, there will be demands from everywhere about its uses, like banning on line gambling, pornography, the promotion of binge drinking, smoking, eating junk food and any other social vice that we're heir to.

It's hard not to get repetitive in this phony war phase, with the statis producing a kind of disbelieving inertia. Conroy himself just keeps on repeating the same old mantra, perhaps on the basis that if he clicks his heels three times he might find himself in Kansas and all will be well. According to Moses:

... Senator Conroy has so far refused to enter the debate about the freedom of speech issues associated with his internet censorship plan. Today, he continued to paint people who oppose his policy as child abuse supporters.

"Nick Minchin and the Liberal Party should explain why they don't support using the latest technology to restrict access to child abuse content and other Refused Classification material," Senator Conroy said this morning.

Well the likely result of the Conroy plan is a big increase in business for proxy providers, and other alternative methods of distribution of content on the intertubes. And zilch impact on those intent on supplying or consuming kiddie porn, especially those who know about alternative mechanisms. And by definition, since kiddie porn is illegal almost everywhere, they're already in the know, below the surface, need winkling out, and will keep on evading the clumsy sledgehammer Conroy proposes to deploy.

Money spent on effective cyber policing would be much more to the point - get cops to infiltrate porn rings, track consumers who make the mistake of using credit cards to purchase material (some amazingly do), and otherwise use standard policing techniques to catch paedophiles, and it would have a lot more impact than pious mouthings about reducing child abuse content.

If Conroy thinks that Canute-like Australia on its own can hold back the flow of more mainstream pornography, he's seriously deluded.

Meantime, we await the end of the farce, with the battlelines clearly drawn and Conroy, having painted himself into a corner, now surely in search of a solution which will enable any egg to be smoothly wiped from face. Which is not to say he'll give up the game, because he's shown a remarkable stubborn streak throughout the saga.

In the interim, what fresh bizarreness can we find? Well Asher Moses strikes once again with his story Over the top: 'child-abuse' video rated MA15+.

The story involves a man who uploaded a video of a man swinging around a baby like a rag doll:

Despite having no involvement in the creation of the three-minute clip, he was committed to a trial by jury in the District Court on July 8. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for each of the two charges.

Illingworth's solicitor, Chelsea Emery, of Ryan and Bosccher Lawyers, has said that, if the case goes ahead, every Australian who surfs the net could be vulnerable to police prosecution.

But the Australian Communications and Media Authority, responding to a complaint about the video on July 9, sent the clip to the Classification Board, which classified the content MA15+.

Under the Classification Board's guidelines, the impact of MA15+ material "should be no higher than strong" and violence and strong themes "should be justified by context". MA15+ material is considered unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age.

"As a result of the Classification Board's decision, the content is not prohibited under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992," read a letter from ACMA, seen by this website.

Queensland Police has said any Australians who simply view the clip could face a maximum of 10 years in jail but today it refused to comment on the apparent disparity between its and the Classification Board's definition of child-abuse material.

By golly, I know they're strange in Queensland, but go read the story in detail. And contemplate the fact that. as a result of this new moral panic, in Stephen Conroy's brave new world you could theoretically cop a ten year jail sentence for uploading or watching a video rated MA+.

(Below: cartoon by Nicholson as seen in The Australian. More Nicholson here).