ArsTechnica is reporting today that the Australian government’s claims that local Internet users will be able to opt-out of the proposed ISP-level content filtering, is only partially true.

The story is based on a comment made by Mark Newton, an Internode network engineer, to Computerworld that “users are able to opt out of the “additional material” blacklist—which targets content inappropriate for children—but not the main blacklist that filters what the Australian government determines is illegal content.”

Aside from the fact that, according to ISPs, the inadequate technology behind the filtering could “cripple Internet speeds” there is the obvious question of whether or not the Government should be filtering content, irrespective of the nature of it.

For those who believe that illegal content filtering is desirable, the next question is what will define “illegal”? Where there is some debate as to whether or not content “might” be illegal (think about the recent drama surrounding Bill Henson’s photos) will the default position be to filter or to allow? And what about something much more widespread like P2P traffic? Will the common misconception that P2P = copyright infringement hold? And will the government proactively protect copyright independent of whether or not copyright owners identify alleged abuses?

I could go on for quite some time, which confirms in my mind there are too many questions still unanswered for this type of filtering to be put in place just yet, if ever.