Australia's government has taken a step backward by attempting to set up a national censorship system for the Internet.

The government will test the web filter, which would require Australia's Internet service providers to block from view any one of the thousands of sites with illegal content, such as child pornography.

While the aim is noble, the usual objections to such state censorship are the related issues of who decides what sites are on the blacklist, and the ease of extending such controls on information in the future.

The issue does not only concern Australia. Every other democracy is looking on with interest to see how they can regulate the Internet. The non-democracies, such as China, have already figured out how to do so.

Under Australia's proposed system, all ISPs would be required to block access to about 10,000 sites on a list regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The effect would be that Internet users in Australia would not be able to access those sites based on decisions made by a communications regulator. One factor that is not clear on the ACMA's website is how this list is maintained and according to what criteria.

For a start it will block access to sites that would be deemed illegal. These include child pornography and online commercial sites selling of illegal substances such as drugs. But while cases of child pornography and illegal sales would be easy to spot, sites in the hate crime arena would face judgements based on less clear criteria.

That is because it is not as easy to spot when freedom of speech turns into incitement or malice against a group compared to determining when a site shows consenting adults engaging in sex, or is illegally promoting sex with children.

A clear danger also lies in any possible desire to extend the list into other hazy freedom of speech areas. One could say that could never happen. Government has promised it would only be illegal sites, right?

Well, the UK government promised back in 2005 that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 would not be used against those who might be doing something illegal but that something was not related to terrorism.

But despite that promise, the UK police used the act last year to arrest climate change protesters taking part in a peaceful citizen protest at Heathrow airport. The act gives them the flexibility to ignore such niceties as having to give a reason for detention or arrest and what person doesn't want their job to be made easier, even if it is less democratic?

In 2003 a previous version of the anti-terrorism law was used by Scotland Yard to arrest protesters at an arms fair in London.

So I have no doubt that Australia's experimentation will soon end up as a fixed law and with a much wider and arbitrary power to block anything not deemed fit for the public.

Another reason to protest against such a far-reaching censorship system is the removal of most arguments against anti-democratic states that survive on censorship and restricting access to information. Now such governments can simply state that they are only doing what every other one is doing.

Australia is only testing their system this month. Based on the results, government will decide whether to implement the system. I hope they do not implement it, but I also wish that they will make the decision based on principle rather than on practicality.

As one of Australia's ISPs stated, the filter would have a limited effect as it cannot monitor illegal activity on peer-to-peer or file-sharing networks, where the exchange of most child pornography and other illegal content occurs.

Send any of your comments to elamin.ahmed@gmail.com