Scroll down and read the discussion forum paper, "Child Protection and Freedom of Expression Online". The report aims to open discussion and reframe the debate surrounding child protection by bringing together, rather than isolating, advocates of online child protection and those of freedom of expression. It rejects the current moral panics that dominate the debate, particularly in the media, which over-represents the likelihood of harm to children online. It highlights the unproductive nature of framing online protection as a moral panic because it obscures and undermines the work of both freedom of expression and child protection advocates. Rather than keeping these two parties as diametrically opposed the discussion laid the first steps in finding common ground between the two. From here they can work together to advance both of their agendas and therefore achieving a more desirable balance between defending the rights of children and maintaining freedom of expression.

Rudd's internet filtering proposal is legally flawed. William's outlines simply how our existing classification system has its own problems and is unsuitable to classify internet content .

Watch the live debate from Intelligence squared -Governments should not Censor the Internet? Intelligence Squared uniquely provides a forum for debate on crucial issues within Australia. On the Affirmative Antony Loewnstein- freelance journalist, author and blogger Ross LaJeunesse-head of Public Policy and Government Affairs for Google David Marr- reporter for Fairfax, broadcaster ABC On the Negative ELizabeth Handsley- specialist in media law as it affects children Kaiser Kuo- Beijing-based columnist and commentator on tech and politics. Alastair MacGibbon- founder of the Internet Safety Institute and Manageing Partner of internet consultancy the Surete Group.

The conversation first looked at internet censorship from an international perspective covering issues of internet governance from and internet freedom. Unfortunately one or two members of the panel were prone to regurgitating policy rather than engaging in an actual debate. Towards the end inevitably the discussion was drawn to the proposed filtering laws within Australia. The general consensus from the panel members was that education had to be an essential part of policy when addressing online safety. Interestingly the government representative, the Minister for Home Affairs, was a keen supporter of this policy stance.

The Four Corners report mapped the issue from when internet censorship was bought forward as a policy issue in a report by the Australian Institute in 2003 to how the Howard government and now how the Rudd government has approached the issue of internet censorship. \n\nNot only can you can watch the report you can also read the transcript, watch the extended interviews and there are also links to further resources.\n

Following the government's decision to postpone the internet filtering legislation last week what is the future for this legislation? Post election there is the likelihood of even harsher censorship than that currently proposed. Fitzgerald suggests that the election could be turned in part in to a referendum on the issue? But when it comes down to it which party will actually nominate themselves to lead the charge against the filter in parliament- only the Sex Party??- a party founded on the issue of internet censorship.

A step back- looking at censorship in Australia under the Rudd government. Going back to when the ISP filtering laws were first proposed David Marr observes an underlining level of conservatism in Australia in particular light of the governments pursuit of censorship. He looks at the governments approach to undesired content on the internet by reflecting back on the Bill Henson case.

EFA look at the answers provided Senator Conroy's office to the Questions on Notice asked by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. EFA's summary is accompanied with their comment to each of the Ministry's responses but at the end you are able download the entire exchange.

This offers an overview of how the debate over the proposed mandatory internet filtering law has played out to date. In particular it outlines key voices in the debate and their stance.

In the words of one infamous US President, Australia - "you are either with us or against us". Australia's proposed mandatory filtering laws runs contrary to stated US foreign policy championing an open internet. Read US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's remarks on internet freedom.

The elderly in an effort to uphold their right to freedom of information are undertaking workshops which teach them how to circumvent the internet filters so that they can still access information regarding euthanasia which would otherwise be fettered with the proposed ISP filtering law …..how effective are these filters going to actually be?

Listen to Radio National- Australia Talks. Presenter Paul Barclay mediates a discussion about the proposed mandatory internet filtering system. He talks with Minister Stephen Conroy and Colin Jacobs, Vice President of Electronic Frontiers Australia. Together with two experts, Mark Newton a network engineer and Andrew Graydon Chief Operations Office of Netsweeper, who both provide technical analysis on the efficiency of the filtering system.

The article looks at the growing global trend for net regulation. Our interest is where Australia, as a result of our drafted internet filtering system, fits in this global picture of regulation. Reporters Without Borders has drawn up lists which groups nations in terms of their level of regulation. Appropriately as a democracy Australia is not listed under "Enemies of the Internet" which names China, North Korea, Egypt and Cuba. Yet disconcertingly we are given the label of "Under Surveillance" which lists us alongside Turkey, Russia, South Korea and the UAE.