"Yes, there's been an awful lot of vitriol, there's been an awful lot of misinformation, and certainly I think there's been an awful lot of hysteria, and most of that hysteria is not coming from the child protection advocates, but it's coming from all these anonymous bloggers and people that write to you and just call you every name under the sun, and it's not helpful," she said.
Who are the anonymous bloggers of which you speak? Mark Newton? Kieran Salsone? Who are the people who write to you? Me? GeordieGuy? Because you sure as hell haven't responded to me, and I'm pretty polite no matter how pissed at you I am.
What about Clive Hamilton, misusing statistics to push his flimsy arguments? Or Conroy, doing exactly the same thing; while being incredibly disingenuous about the purpose of the filter?
On the misinformation front, the pro filter side is outpacing us by miles. We're quick to self regulate any extreme voices or misinformed people on our side, we assemble factual talking points and research everything.
Calling us a hysterical loud minority is an absolute case of the pot calling the kettle black. To hold any other position means you are either a liar or proactively misinformed. So far, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and stick with my assessment of a fool who is putting their hands over her ears; crying "I can't hear you".
"I think it's really incredibly arrogant to call people and those who support internet filtering stupid and the scheme stupid, and it's a very simplistic approach to something that is in discussion by a lot of different people," she said, later adding that critics seemed to be focused on the business, not human, impact.
You want to protect children. The methods under discussion will not work. You want to spend oodles of my dollars on it; which would be taken away from police who can catch the people who cause the abuse.
How is that anything but stupid?
I am so angry with this rubbish, it's beyond reason.