[edited to add: unlocked - please feel free to link to, repost, retweet, add stuff in the comments, whatever.]

For those who haven't yet heard, the Australia govt, against advice, popular opinion, and common sense, has decided to implement a mandatory ISP-level internet filter for all Australian internet users (that, btw, apparently only censors the web, not other internet services like p2p, and which was apparently hacked inside of half an hour by a 16yo during the trial phase)

This is a huge issue, and the best portal for resources and information is:
http://nocleanfeed.com/
However, three TOP (and i do mean stratospheric) Australian media scholars have released a rather damning report. Just reading the executive summary will rebut a lot of the supposed claims for implementing the filter (the 'oh won't somebody think of the children' arguments, for example)

I'd like to quote a section from the executive summary of the report. The full text can be found here:

In the report we consider some hypothetical examples of material that could well be deemed RC [refused classification] and mandatorily filtered out of the Australian internet. Potential material that could feasibly be deemed RC on the basis of the current Classification Code includes:
• A site devoted to debating the merits of euthanasia in which some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia practices.
• A site set up by a community organisation to promote harm minimisation in recreational drug use.
• A site designed to give a safe space for young gay and lesbians to meet and discuss their sexuality in which some members of the community narrated explicit sexual experiences.
• A site that included dialogue and excerpts from literary classic such as Nabokov’s Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as Dr Alfred Kinsey’s famous Adult Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.
• A site devoted to discussing the geo-political causes of terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist organisations as reference material.

Also, this:

The clear issue at this juncture is whether mandatory internet filtering, via a blacklist, is the most appropriate method to go forward in terms of balancing rights and blocking the worst category of content. There is evidence to suggest that all systems can be evaded by some internet users and that no technical means of filtering can be implemented that prevents such evasion. The question as to whether overfiltering or underfiltering is preferable remains a matter that individual states must decide. While it seems that many states have delegated responsibility to individual ISPs, this question raises two important public policy questions:
• In the case of overfiltering: is the potential of unwittingly restricting the lawful expression of a citizen and their access to information so offensive to fundamental human rights that it conceivably constitutes a breach of Australia’s international obligations?
• In the case of underfiltering: is the inexact implementation of internet filtering satisfactory given that much content which may be deemed grossly offensive to public morals will not be successfully blocked and may also leave parents and teachers with a false sense of security when it comes to children accessing the internet?

The growth of peer-to-peer online networks generates some additional regulatory challenges for the Federal Government. A mandatory filter will not catch illegal material disseminated through these channels. Indeed, one of the key challenges in identifying those who disseminate and consume child pornography is that much of it is not openly displayed on websites but is exchanged in a covert and encrypted manner via bulletin boards. More recently, evidence is emerging that child pornography is also increasingly being covertly housed on third party websites through the use of malware bots. The international evidence clearly suggests that the majority of child abuse prevention resources need to be targeted towards coordinated policing of those who manufacture and share child abuse materials, often in contexts where they are involving their own family members or children known to them.

Whilst online polls do have an element of self-selection, and aren't the most rigourous measure besides, even news polls are still clocking somewhere between 90-99% in favour of scrapping the plan. It seems the only people in favour of the filter are the minister, some extremely conservative religious groups, and I would suppose the company that supplies (at great cost) the filtering software.

So if you have Aussie friends (like me!) and want to keep them on the net and part of the online world, please read up and support the No Clean Feed movement/.

End of political rant :)

Actually, not the end. Collecting links. Comment with any stories, sites or other useful/interesting online bits, and I'll add them here.

IT News: Filter Pilot Did Not Test High Speed Internet The pilot of the filter did not test above 8MPS internet, despite it being a govt goal (core promise, anyone?) to get the country as a whole upgraded to ultrafast broadband well over 8MPS.

Crickey.com: Bernard Keane's Guide To Writing To Ministers Some suggestions on how to write a letter that won't get binned or dealt with a by a form-letter response.

Telegraph UK: Australia Plans Chinese-style Internet Filtering "The Australian government has announced controversial plans for Chinese-style compulsory filtering of the internet, rejecting criticism the measures will strangle free speech. "

another great LJ post, with a more comprehensive linklist

IT Wire: All System's Go For Blacklist Filter as the comment below notes: And this is where the Conservatives cream their jeans over their ability to censor everything we have access to.

Dynamic content and Port 80 comments on the blog of Senator Lundy highlighting the huge flaws in the testing of the filter.

GetUp campaign against the filter including a fact sheet and tips for protesting