The names may change but the essential qualities of all three expressions remain the same; the unfettered movement of ideas in society.

From a campaign perspective, I would suggest using the term ‘Freedom of Speech’ (with Caps) instead of, or along side, the other two because ‘Freedom of Speech’ is more loaded and sensational - in the same manner you employ the word PROHIBITION instead of CENSORSHIP - it will prick the ears of even the staunchest conservative. The same cannot be said of ‘freedom of expression and/or information’ (which conjure up images of hippies searching google for tips on how to grow weed)

Yes, this is pure politiking but we should, at least on one flank, be fighting fire with fire (note: the U.S. Gov uses the term (f.o.speech) when commenting on China’s censorship but falls back to the other two terms (expression/information) when discussing it’s own domestic censorship intentions).

As for the debate diagram: the arguments presented are, on the whole, moderate and sound (in political speak: soft) The fed Labor machine will happily dispose of them before breakfast on any given day.

We are up against both major parties here and they will run a serious scare campaign on serveral fronts - illegal porn, rec drug manufacturing, bomb making, terrorist activities - and if we cannot wage a similar war based on sensationalist humbug then we have no chance of stopping this legislation.

On the whole, I don’t believe we have any hope of thwarting this book- burning legislation unless we turn it into a political football (think climate change/border protection). We must muddy the waters of right and wrong so that the policy gets stuck in no-mans land.

Information Prohibition must, at the very least, stand in direct opposition to Freedom of Speech. Idea’s must be allowed their own Due Process. Internet Prohibition must be seen as un-democratic and downright un-Australian.

And so the question remains; can we get Warnie on the bandwagon before they do?

Actually I believe there are already OPT-IN choices available. At least one Australian ISP has spotted the potential market and is already offering a “cleaned feed” using one of the commercially available filtering packages. This offers both advantages of no local configuration required PLUS no cost to the taxpayer.

You mention the threat to free speech and others have done this too. I don’t so much see the filter as a block on what we can SAY. Rather it is a block on what we can READ. It infringes our ability to read ALL the information available on a censored topic. We as a nation will then make poor decisions based on only what our government wants us to read.

Many people will value the filter as a service that blocks undesirable content without the concern (and direct cost) of configuring the filter themselves. This argument itself may be good policy politically.

Recommending a policy that mandates the filter is provided by all Aus ISP’s as an OPT-IN service may be worth consideration. This is an opposing argument to “the filter is a waste of taxpayer funds” and should be considered in that context. It is a political solution that would satisfy those who stand to profit (40-50m) from developing the filter and more importantly, the non-technical majority who see the filter as a commoditised government service that resolves the complex technical problem of how to filter content considered unacceptable by an authority whom they trust.

I’d also like to see some reference to the risks that a mandatory filter would introduce to free speech included. Possibly related to the proposition that “its PROHIBITION”. Free speech is a right that most people recognise, value and are likely to support. Even with a high level of ignorance for the other technical details of the debate.

The betrayal by Labor of one of the key demographics (intelligent internet users) that got them elected, is unconscionable.

That should read “He has INSTRUCTED Senator Conroy…”

Rudd has not _allowed_ Conroy to do anything, and I doubt Conroy could reach his **** with either hand on a good day, especially when it comes to IT or social matters.