It’s hard to argue — after all, he is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby and niether Jesus not Almighty God are commenting on the record.

But a scan through the ACL website causes me to have some doubts. Do a search on ‘Gaza’, for example. Not much sympathy for the bombed Christians (or anyone else) in Gaza. None at all that I could find. It’s as though the Israeli Embassy plays an editorial role (I’m not suggesting that, God forbid!)

Then there’s Jim background (going only on what’s publicly available), which I’ve discussed in a couple of articles on my blog.

The ex-SAS Commander and ‘expert on anti-terrorism’ was quoted on Radio National back in 2003 ticking off other Christian leaders for not giving sufficient support to the Howard Government’s role in the invasion of Iraq.

See Australia’s Holy Man likes a Good War for more. I think when we hear from Jim, we should not necessarily assume all Christians march loyally to his beat. Not all of Christ’s warriors have the same thorough military training.

It’s important to remind those new to the debate that not all RC content is child pornography, especially in terms of RC content online.

With respect to ACMA decisions re online content, their 2007/2008 annual report shows the number of completed investigations in which prohibited or potentially prohibited content was located to be roughly 55% child pornography related. The rest are mainly websites containing ‘actual sexual activity’ (X 18+) material or depictions of ’sexual fantasy’ and ’sexual fetish’ (RC). The ‘rest’ of course being legal to possess and purchase.

If ACMA is tasked with actively cleaning up the web and not just responding to complaints, the percentage of child pornography RC content Vs the percentage of non-child pornography RC content would differ greatly. As in, RC child pornography stats would be a small drop in the ocean compared to all the other RC content.

Fiona Patten from Eros (assuming it’s not an impostor) points out on the ABC Radio National guest book ( http://www2b.abc.net.au/guestbookcentral/list.asp?guestbookID=359 ) that ‘There are literally millions of adult sites on the net now that have “prohibited content” that is legal in all other formats that will be filtered and blacklisted.’

Whether they are filtered and blacklisted I expect will come down to man power and the system used, but in theory I agree.

Also, some RC material like euthanasia instruction manuals go into gray areas depending on your purpose for possessing it.

And of course, prohibited content consists of more than just RC content.

Jim Wallace is certainly extremely well-trained for media appearances: he stuck to his talking points and deflected any difficult questions with easy. My guess is that he’s been closely briefed. Tactically it’s good too. He can present Senator Conroy’s talking points without them being too closely identified with Conroy. If it all turns pear-shaped, Conroy can cut him loose. That may sound cynical, but that’s how the game is played.

I agree that what is and isn’t RC needs a discussion — about computer games for one — and that’s a discussion about what is an isn’t acceptable for which age groups in the 21st Century.

(As a preamble to that, I’d contend that young people are better prepared than they ever have been. They’re exposed to more and more sophisticated concepts earlier thanks to pervasive media. Some parents may see that as a threat. I reckon it allows the human mind to adapt rapidly to the modern world — doing what comes naturally.)

On second reading, yes, I see you were intending to make that point about push polling. However, the first question in the Netscape poll had no preamble. It just asked whether people supported the policy. That question, at least, may well be untainted.

The key issues does seem to be clarifying what the government intends to block. The official documents say “the ACMA blacklist”. But the unofficial ones like media releases, and the Senator’s shock troops like Jim Wallace, say “RC material” and bang on about child pornography. One of them is wrong. I say we watch what the documents say and discount (and deny) the speakers who differ from them.

As for the no R18+ category for computer games, I think that debate needs to be won in the classification space, not by arguing that they should be OK in a different space.

Finally, I did say my question was a “differently biased” one – I wasn’t claiming it was value neutral. But my question did not actually represent anything about the blacklist – it asked what it asked. I didn’t suggest you could conclude from the answer to that question that the blacklist should be blocked, only that the RC list should be blocked.

I’d be happier if you stopped this misrepresentation of the blacklist as being only RC material. It’s not. As you said in Crikey yesterday, we may actually agree about blocking RC material — though it’s possible we may disagree about what should and shouldn’t be on that list.

There’s no R18+ rating category for computer games, for example, so all such material is RC here.

A differently biased survey would start “Do you believe that graphical images that cannot be sold or distributed in Australia in any other form should be available to all over the Internet?”

http://www.netspace.net.au/filtering/results.php

As I mention in another comment, Senator Conroy’s current plan is to filter “the ACMA blacklist”, which contains more than just RC material.

I agree that we need to be discussing what this other stuff should be, or if there should be nothing more blocked at all — but the blacklist is secret and Conroy isn’t exactly forthcoming with what he means by “inappropriate” material.

I haven’t had a chance to get my head around the Victorial ALP’s weekend implosion. However I thought that Conroy was himself part of the socially-conservative hard-right faction? I’m the first to admit I know little about ALP factional politics.

Plus the critique is still based on an assumption that something other than an index-based filter of only RC content is proposed.

As to what the “optional filtering” might be, and whether that is “opt-in” or “opt-out”, that is where the policy focus really ought to be.

By the way do you think the recent turmoil in the ALP in Victoria will be useful? The Right has split and Conroy is in the group that doesn’t include the NUW and the SDA – the allter aka the Shoppies led by de Bruin is the last vestige of a goog old fashioned Santamaria-esque Grouper union in the country. Maybe Conroy being free of them might improve his ability to enunciate his policy.

As long as we keep shining a light on the bastards lies, we’ve got a chance to stop this lunacy.