David Penberthy, and the rallying of chairman Rupert's vaucuous minions and hacks behind Senator Conroy and his filter ...

Now you might think this piece is just pandering to a few readers, so desperate is loon pond for readers.

Because it starts with Lily Allen's third nipple, a fuss which was sorted long ago in the rest of the world, but which it seems is still causing controversy at The Punch, Australia's dumbest conversation.

Could there be a conspiracy to hide the third nipple phenomenon? Or is it simply a matter of censorship? Why do they fear the truth about the third nipple? Well in best Daily Terror tabloid style, we expose the third nipple for Australia to see by thieving intellectual property - strictly in a fair use way to expose the issue - in the best traditions of Chairman Rupert's The Punch.

Hang on, could the agitation about Lily Allen's third nipple be in any way related to the news that David Penberthy just loves Senator Conroy, thinks his internet scheme is wonderful, and has gone out of his way to diss Conroy's opponents as bird brained members of loon pond?

Or at least that's what I think he means in his half-baked, half-assed, have it both ways, on the one hand on the other hand, bout of illogical thinking and irrational lashing out, assembled under the header Vaucuous critics give censorship a good name.

Vaucuous? What a clever search engine idea. Is Penbo really an SEO? I mean, if you google vaucuous, his column comes right at the top of the google search list, which produces an amazing 236 results. Silly google also asks 'did you mean vacuous', at which point you can cheerfully say, no I meant vaucuous, you goose of a google, now fuck off.

Oh dear, I know the first rule of gotcha typos is that there'll be a gotcha typo in this piece, but really if you're going to deliver mumbo jumbo, you should watch your back.

Because it seems that Penbo is deeply upset, and perhaps was blinded by tears as he pounded in the word vaucuous, upset by the vacuity of his and The Punch's vacuous critics, even if it is the most leaden, insipid, useless, dumb cluck conversation in the land.

Let's start with Penbo's sense of humor:

Tellingly, host Tony Jones got a huge and unsolicited cheer from the audience when he asked Conroy hypothetically if there was anything in the legislation that could prevent Andrew Bolt’s column from being published.

Uh huh. Doesn't seem to have any there. Talk of banning the dolt is like waging a war on Christmas.

'Nuff said. How about defending a particularly egregious and silly piece published by The Punch to stir the possums?

The crowd gave the game away there. They did it again on our website The Punch this week, where we ran a thoughtful piece by journalist Alexandra Carlton suggesting that the need to eliminate child porn was more important than blanket net freedom - only to face attack from anti-censorship campaigners for having the temerity to publish something they disagreed with.

Thoughtful? Well only if you think bubble headed boobies can think. I'm inclined not to pay attention to metallic rattling tin can arguments.

And besides, you goose, you weren't attacked for having the temerity to publish something people disagreed with, you were attacked for publishing a piece of goosery you seemed to think was thoughtful. Because, you goose, people tried to explain in terms of one syllable or less, to avoid spelling problems, that no one was defending child porn, but that the blanket attack on net freedom by Senator Conroy would not stop child porn, or eliminate it, or help track down suppliers and consumers ... nor empower or fund the cops to stop what is already illegal and criminal on the intertubes or anywhere else in the land.

Well it wouldn't be a Penbo rebuttal if it wasn't littered with class and age hatred, and embittered resentment, as he comes out swinging in favour of Senator Conroy, while ignoring the implications of Lily Allen's third nipple:

If you want to get a close look a generation of pampered kids which has never known repression, and knows little of history, open a twitter account and type in the words #cleanfeed.

Earlier this year they were taping their mouths up with black duct tape in protest at what they saw as a blanket attack on their web freedoms. Now they are redoing their avatars (computer headshots) to run “No Clean Feed” under their faces as they casually compare the conduct of the Rudd Government to the dictatorships in China, Iran, Burma, the former Soviet Bloc. It’s like they’re getting off on the idea that this is their Tianenmen moment, the small difference being that at no stage will a tank come crashing through the study that Mum and Dad built at their eastern suburbs bungalow when they did the renovations back in 2006, just as young Hamish was starting his communications degree.

Quel dommage.

Golly, take a look at the chip on the shoulder of Penbo. Does he know how to hate or what? And the funny thing is, he talks about Conroy and the campaign, which he claims has, for some unfathomable reason, become a bitchy personal campaign? Conroy's abstemious Roman Catholicism is unfathomable? And talk of a bitchy personal campaign while scribbling about kids in their eastern suburbs bungalow while a young lad starts out on a communications degree, wanting to emulate his feet of clay idol Penbo? Not to mention the constant tweaking of the twitterers and their tweeting twittery. Huh, young people! What would they know.

What a gold plated goose, with horse feathers. But wait, there's more.

These ahistorical misrepresentations have found a voice beyond the twitter crowd and have been egged on, recklessly, by members of the Coalition, jurists such as Michael Kirby, publishers who should really know more about history than to make such a dumb comparison. It’s not only an absurd distortion of government intent, it’s a rotten insult to those who have actually been tortured and killed in those countries for trying to exercise their freedom of speech.

The thing that helps steer these censorship campaigners towards historical inaccuracy - aside from their strange fantasies of political persecution in their otherwise drab bourgeois existence - is the outright lies that are being told about how the system will work.

Yep, the push is on amongst Chairman Rupert's minions and hacks to dub the anti-censorship crowd as twitterers and apostates, and to explain just how well Senator Conroy's system will work. Never mind the credentialed people who have carefully explained how it won't work.

Because you see everything is going to be alright in the best of all possible worlds, thanks to the careful, considered thinking of Senator Conroy, something his wilfully obscurantist opponents somehow fail to understand:

It’s been said repeatedly that the government will be able to draw up its own list and declare on a whim that a particular website or site must be shut down. This has of course been extrapolated out into any number of worse case scenarios, along the absurdist lines seen with biker gangs or terrorist groups. You know the logic - “If the government can ban the Hells Angels or Al Qaeda, what’s to stop them banning the local Rotary Club?” (apart from of course common sense, constitutionally guaranteed elections, and the small fact that the Rotary Club doesn’t sell speed and didn’t claim responsibility for September 11.)

Oh there's nothing like exaggerated absurdist arguments to diss an opposition by claiming that their arguments are absurdist or extreme. From the tanks of Tiananmen square to Hells Angels and Al Qaeda, Penbo is a dab hand at spreading angel dust, and deploying a good sprinkling of aluminum 'window' or 'chaff' to fool the radar systems.

From everything I have read by people who have actually looked at the proposals, the government will itself have no power to ban any website. Rather, the decisions of the independent classifications board - which already determine which movies, books and magazines we consume - will be extended to include the same content online.

Oh that's okay then, it'll be independent, and only exposed to the lobbying of the Christian right, or the absurdities of state attorney's generals, who thus far have prevented an R classification for video games, or any of the current absurdities, compounded as the clowns try to deal with billions of web pages. And never mind the absurdity of Conroy's list of a thousand plus sites up against the billions out there, or the Bill Henson matter.

As the leaked “blacklist” of banned sites revealed earlier this year, even thought it was only a working draft, some innocent arty sites and some credible journalism about scandals such as the Bill Henson affair had been caught up in the initial version of this system.

See how the quisling lickspittle fellow traveller work his evasive obfuscating magic? Well if you can call the opposition drab bourgeois communications students from the eastern suburbs, or innocent arty types, it's game on.

The list was "only" a working draft, and the Bill Henson affair doesn't tell us anything about the mother Grundys like Jim Wallace of the ACL in our midst, and the government is going forward with the very best intentions:

And it’s squalid stuff - and only squalid stuff - that is being talked about. Child porn, bestiality, rape fantasies, women being beaten up - the sort of stuff which you’d think any self-respecting left-winger should be actively campaigning against.

Well actually I happen to know left-wingers and women who are into bondage, SM, bdsm, such like, call it what you will, and it's once of the most banal conventional stupidities of the mother grundy's that they never bothered to read Alex Comfort's Joy of Sex, even though it's been around for years. I find most of the sexually ignorant come from Adelaide, but I mean no disrespect to Adelaide - perhaps it's better the ignorant fled their drab bourgeois existence in Adelaide in search of brighter lights, so that those who stayed behind might have a richer sexual experience, inspired by their fearless leaders.

I keed. Nevr mind that it's already been well established that it's not just the 'so-called squalid' stuff that will get caught up in the net and the notion that the government, or its lickspittle 'independent' delegates, is capable on a regular on going basis of telling the difference between the Russian mafia and a Brisbane dentist is the kind of socialist nanny state delusionary loonacy the conservative mafia usually warn the left about.

But the capper is the way Penbo celebrates Andrew Bolt up against Louise Adler for making this eminently reasonable and sensible statement:

“What I find reprehensible, you don’t,” Adler said to Bolt. “What you find unpalatable, I don’t. I want to fight you in the public sphere.”

Bolt challenged Adler as to where - or whether - she would ever draw a line.

“So nothing at all should be banned?” he asked.

“May a thousand ideas bloom and let’s contest them, because that’s what tells us that our democracy is robust,” she replied.

Yep, because - newsflash - child pornography is already illegal, and the filter system won't do anything to stop the illegality, so much as sweep it under the carpet, so we can all pretend once again that things are rosy behind the altar.

Meantime, the Murdoch minions and hacks are swinging behind Senator Conroy and his filter, and will stop at nothing to abuse and demean their opposition. Oh sure they'll mount pious platitudes about how they're valiant journalists fighting for truth, justice and freedom. Just like Penbo:

Journalists tend to adopt a natural default position whereby censorship is deemed to be one of the purest forms of evil, and that we should fight any government which tries to curtail the freedom of adults to make up their own minds on what they say, watch and read.

And then they'll fall into line, and march along behind Conroy, shouting Conroy good, drab bourgeois communications students and arty innocents baaad, and offering up specious, deviant excuses for the good Senator's plans, while promoting the kind of sick, tasteless, titillating soft core pornography and gossipy speculation about the sex lives of soap stars that litters their tabloid sites, like the Daily Terror.

Shameless, vile, disreputable muck, but it drags in the hits and the punters, especially when presented in the standard slobbering, slavering, drooling, lip smacking tabloid way.

Oh did I mention Penbo is a Daily Terror star?

Would we ban them or their muck? No way. But will we be outraged at the slobbering frenzy they mount as a way to maintain readership when each new Bill Henson "sex shock scandal in intertubes censorship sensation" comes along? Sure thing.

Yep, I reckon vaucuous summarises it pretty neatly.

Now back to the matter of Lily Allen's third nipple, and a video clip which seems the only kind of retort Penbo might understand, since reason, logic and polite discourse can be swept away so easily by dragging in the tanks of Tiananmen square, Hell's Angels and 9/11, which these days surely requires a variant corollary of Godwin's Law: