Interesting that I haven't yet seen an Australian reference to the final decision in the US when the courts struck down the Child Online Protection ct for good.
Some of the reasoning was familiar. Most notably that removing net content because kids might see it was infringing adults rights to see what they want. The American Civil Liberties Union also said the act was ineffective because it didn't affect sites not housed in America. That sounds familiar.
Interesting questions are raised by this. What is the implication of the implied freedom of speech found by the High Court in the Theophanous case? Is the existing BSA provision unconstitutional?
Should the battle be over the filtering plan or the higher principle of enacting our own version of the First Amendment?