"Need to reply to Clive myself now. "

I feel that I should drop him a line too. Probably one of the few remotely constructive things that I can do at the moment.

So long as we are courteous and apply the same levels of reason and accuracy that we would expect from him (a round about way of saying no threats, abuse or hysterical ranting), I am all for as many people as possible writing to Hamilton (as an individual, not in his capacity as an employee of CSU) and/or Australian IT to express our disappointment with the quality of the article and Hamilton's use of his supposed academic credentials to back up such an article.

Oh, and make it very clear that we don't want him to shut up so much as lift his game.

I'm happy to listen, if somebody has a better idea or thinks that what I suggest will do more harm than good, but since we opponents of compulsory net-filtering are consistently misrepresented as a bunch of political extremists and/or porn fiends, I would like to do what I can to counter this perception. As others have pointed out, both here and on Somebody Think of The Children, Hamilton's response is quite likely a disingenuous and rather passive-aggressive attempt to portray himself as the victim of persecution. I don't think there is a lot we can do (other than remaining calm and refusing to rise to the bait) to prevent him convincing some people that he isn't, because it is easier for some people to do so than to question their world view. Hopefully others will be more open to new ideas.

I almost did it via snail mail last year. Almost again after reading Kieren's post's yesterday.

Hindsight is wonderful. Really though the response was comical. It wasn't reasoned at all. It looked more like a tactical response where he was itching to use the "they're trying to silence me" line. He's being persecuted for his views!

Really though, like I said…. I don't want him to shut up. I'd be very pleased if he applied the same ammount of critical thought to this government policy as he would any other. To date he just doesn't seem to be able to bring himself to do it.

FWIW, I think you shouldn't beat yourself up over this. You've raised important questions. If Clive – and his comprades – showed a little more self- doubt we wouldn't be wating so much time on this ludicrous proposal to censor the web.

My original intention, as should be painfully clear by now, was not to silence him but to incite him to lift his game. It's more than a shame that someone with the academic profile of Clive Hamilton isn't taking a more in depth and analytical approach to this issue.

I too, would like him to apply the same level of critical thought on this policy as he would any other.

I've taken comments about my methods to heart and can't help but be racked with self doubt. Still, I can't help but feel that the methods by which he inflated his opinion demanded that this course of action was appropriate.

Then again, I'm no professor of ethics.

While I (and others) do believe that the stance he is making in support of government policy in absense of critical thought in relation to that policy is reflecting poorly on CSU, comments by an academic are a bit different to comments of a company CEO.

There is an expectation of an academic to explore ideas and challenge existing accepted ideas. My concern is that Professor Hamilton appears to be hiding behind that academic freedom on this particular issue while flying in the face of

"in a manner consistent with a responsible and honest search for and dissemination of knowledge and truth. Within the ambit of academic freedom lies the traditional role of academics in making informed comment on societal mores and practice, and in challenging held beliefs, policies and structures, within his or her discipline area."

He is making coment in his policy area as is required. Why is he though writing in support of government policy while ignoring the mechanisms and effectiveness of those policies?

Would he endorse the governments current climate change policies based soley on the government declaring it an important issue. He's not applauding them for climate change. Why not based on the standards he has placed on their Internet policy?

Is it not his responsibility to look at mechanisms and effectiveness of policy before appearing to support it?

If the scenario he painted in his AustralianIT article is real and happening all of the time and causing the sort of catastrophic social damage he is claiming, does the government policy address it? (I thought a question we shouldn't need to ask for him)

A serious area of contention is the ACMA blacklist about to be madatory via ISPs. It's a manual intervention blacklist that isn't going to stop johnny from reaching that nasty porn Hamilton often writes about. Hamilton could argue this particular level of filtering is just for the worst of material. Why then are resources being used accepting complaints on MA and R material?

Optional dynamic filtering may help with his scenario, but only if supervision is continued.

It looks like he is being a mouth piece for an agenda while abandoning academic pricipals.

If he was a company director I might direct my complaint to the company. Being a university academic, it's probably reasonable for me to write to him first with my concerns.

If he failed to address any of those concerns with some level of reason then the next step would probably be to write to the University. In this example though there is the political fallout of "trying to silence him"

I don't want him to be silent on this. I would like him to apply the same level of critical thought on this policy as he would any other.

I am glad he took the time to address any concerns that were raised in the initial feedback. </sarcasm>

I had trouble with the javascript in the form enforcing the 100 word limit (more like 100 chars) so it minced the post and I can't recall the exact details. From memory I expressed my disappointment with CSU as IMHO he was representing the Uni.

Need to reply to Clive myself now.

Keep it up Kieran.

He calls for state censorship of the entire internet, yet admits what he has no real knowledge about what it actually will entail. Other than it will be secret. And I’m afraid that secret government censorship is no fit substitute for child rearing. Nor policing any criminal activity. Nor free or political speech.

While those who would give the state a blank cheque to censor may wish otherwise, there is nothing special about their work that puts it beyond community or indeed professional standards. And while ever there is no secret censorhip regime, that work certainly must stand on its own two feet in the free market of ideas.

Kieran, you could always print hardcopy of the article he wrote & send copies of it to every faculty, student group & department within Charles Sturt?

Or maybe he's just collecting more ammo…