<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jim Wallace article on ISP filtering</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.acl.org.au/2010/07/jim-wallace-article-on-isp-filtering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.acl.org.au/2010/07/jim-wallace-article-on-isp-filtering/</link>
	<description>ACL - A Voice for Values</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:11:16 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: david elder</title>
		<link>http://www.acl.org.au/2010/07/jim-wallace-article-on-isp-filtering/#comment-2700</link>
		<dc:creator>david elder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/?p=1618#comment-2700</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t follow the technical arguments about the feasibility of an ISP. But I can easily follow the comments that Jim&#039;s article attracted. Dirty tricks - if these people really think that only pedophiles (all of whom are priests apparently) object to the sort of thing that an ISP aims to block, even a political party&#039;s media spin department wouldn&#039;t hire them. They think &#039;moralism&#039; is a deadly sin - unless of course they feel like moralising about some pet theory of theirs like the wisdom or otherwise of the Iraq war - notice how the second commentator pontificated on this complex issue with high and mighty certitude. This sort of teenager-level screeching about &#039;freedom&#039; - especially theirs - is like a ghastly flashback to the 60s and 70s when it was de rigeur to carry on in this mode.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t follow the technical arguments about the feasibility of an ISP. But I can easily follow the comments that Jim&#8217;s article attracted. Dirty tricks &#8211; if these people really think that only pedophiles (all of whom are priests apparently) object to the sort of thing that an ISP aims to block, even a political party&#8217;s media spin department wouldn&#8217;t hire them. They think &#8216;moralism&#8217; is a deadly sin &#8211; unless of course they feel like moralising about some pet theory of theirs like the wisdom or otherwise of the Iraq war &#8211; notice how the second commentator pontificated on this complex issue with high and mighty certitude. This sort of teenager-level screeching about &#8216;freedom&#8217; &#8211; especially theirs &#8211; is like a ghastly flashback to the 60s and 70s when it was de rigeur to carry on in this mode.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
