In a much more serious and informative format, Conroy and a cast of more appropriate question-askers took to the airwaves at SBS for 60 minutes of gritty filter discussion.

Apart from need for speed addicted emo kids claiming the internet was to blame for unsolicited bluetooth content, self indulgent middle-aged pornaholics and a little boy bearing his nipples on national television the discussion on SBS’ Insight was much more in depth and fleshed out then anything we’ve seen before on the subject matter.

I’ve gone through the footage and highlighted what I thought were the most important points the discussion on the show raised, along with a few of the usual contradictions Conroy attempted to get away with.

Whilst I’m not sure what was going on with Mark Newton’s hair, about thirty seven minutes into the show he basically summarised the entire reason behind the argument against Conroy and his filter;


Now the general argument from the pro-filter side to counter this is that there will be two lists, one mandatory list which only covers “refused classification” content and then a more heavily censored opt-in list for parents who worry about what their kids will access online. This is where the problems start.

Conroy has previously dodged the question of what exactly will be on the mandatory list. He admitted on air tonight that the leaked second list is exactly the same “very much closer” to the ACMA list.


Now he also stated that his department is looking at “exclusively” blocking refused classification;


We already knew the ACMA blacklist was to be the backbone of the filter but just incase there was any confusion;


Now surely it follows then that the ACMA blacklist must therefore exclusively contain refused classification containing “child porn, bestiality, rape, incest sites and those sorts of things”.

Wrong.

I’ve been hosting the confirmed genuine leaked blacklist for a while now and if you open it up and do a quick search for .au websites you can clearly see that a whole host of perfectly legal adult porn sites that do not fall into the categories of “child porn, bestiality, rape, incest sites and those sorts of things”.

If you have a look at the rest of the list and the sheer amount of websites that do not fall into his specific categories, it very quickly becomes apparent that Conroy is again blatantly lying on national television.

Just in case you needed more proof, watch the following clip carefully:


Firstly the classification boards definition of refused classification is wildly different to Conroys’. Secondly Fiona Patten corners Conroy into having to admit that X-rated material amongst other legal content will have to be taken off the ACMA list per his own definition of refused classification. Thirdly when host Jenny Brockie flat out asks Conroy “whether or not x-rated material will be on he blacklist” he just dodges the question and sprouts out crap about people being confused about what’s on the existing blacklist.

I think clearly the only person confused here is Conroy, by viewing the leaked blacklist above you can clearly see that the websites Fiona Patten is talking about (the .au adult sites) are still currently on the blacklist!

The Russian mob made a return, during the FTA broadcast the SBS transmission went off air for about 5 minutes.


Fiona Patten did a good job getting stuck into Conroy, she raised one of the most important points that has not yet been publicly addressed:


This is what he said when asked to directly reply to the question posed;


If i’m hearing correctly he is trying to convince us that a technological trial (which involves no review of the classification process) will somehow explain how the classification board will classify the vast expanses of the internet. This apparently won’t be a problem because we currently run a complaints based system.

It’s embarrassing to see that the Senator hasn’t even considered that there might be a dramatic rise in complaints following the introduction of a mandatory filter and places all his faith on a technological trial when there is little to no technology involved in the determination of classifying complained about content.

Despite what feels now like the daily occurrence of being proven wrong, Stephen Conroy appears stumped as to why people have no confidence in him:


In closing i’d like to state that maybe, just maybe it’s to do with the blatant contradictory statements we are seeing on a week to week, sometimes even on a day to day basis.


Whilst I welcome the more serious format of SBS’ insight it was disappointing to see Conroy get away with lying to the public and saying the complete opposite of what he’d said the previous week on some topics.

I think that Mark Newton and Fiona Patten should be commended for dragging Conroy into at least attempting to answer important technical and practical questions in regards to filter implementation that had up until now not been directly addressed. Conroy was clearly caught out as some important issues were raised;


Well done guys.

The entire episode of Insight can be viewed here.

1. Stephen Conroy admits internet filter is useless
2. Stephen Conroy vs. Google: Who are you going to trust?
3. How Stephen Conroy can protect Australian children
4. The future of Australian internet under Stephen Conroy
5. Wikileaks wages war against ACMA and Conroy