All arguments against the introduction of ISP Internet Filtering seem to revolve around the idea that the system will be insufficient and ineffective as peer to peer protocols could not possibly be managed  not to mention that the ‘freedom’ of internet use is under threat and not address more serious issues. Is it worth risking safety simply to obtain freedom, how is this justifiable?

The Australian government has previously and currently uses a combination of legislation, filtering and educational laws to protect Australians from harmful content on the internet. This combination means that Australians are made aware of the content that they are restricted from viewing, which differs from censorship laws in other countries such as China. The initiative for this filter is to further develop the already in place regulatory measures that most members of the Australian public are unaware of, for an example currently Google is filtering more websites and packets than any other company in the world. The product covers a wide range of protocols filtering the web content, identifying and blocking prohibited and potentially prohibited content reducing the rates of over blocking.  The ISP Level of filtering is justified due to the fact that the direct aim is attempting to limit and stop issues such as child pornography and controversial topics such as euthanasia, internet filtering isn’t designed to monitor psychological issues or protect people’s financial assets; it’s designed to restrict content.