Colin Jacobs, Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, has published a very interesting article on the controversial topic of Internet Censorship that includes findings from a study by Brooklyn Law School (Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship) which he has deemed a 'serious embarrassment'.

Outside Eastern countries, if the Internet Censorship plan was to be passed through the legislative process successfully, then Australia would become the first Western democracy to have such communist like controlling laws.

Mr Jacobs has begged to differ with the Government's censorship experiment by questioning it's legitimacy. In a Crikey.com.au blog titled 'The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan' the study has shown, through a process based methodology, that there are serious doubts over the legitimacy of such an experiment.

The study's author applies a process-based methodology to determining censorship’s legitimacy by asking four questions. Is the country open about its censorship plans and the reason behind them? Is it transparent about what is to be restricted? How narrow is the filtering? And finally, are the processes and decision makers behind the scheme accountable? While the Government earns praise for openness (Internet filtering was a central campaign promise), serious issues are highlighted in the other three areas.

The blog is certainly an interested read, so if you aren't up to speed on the whole Internet Censorship uproar, I recommend you check it out.

Furthermore, the 'Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship' study can be downloaded here.