Basically, what author John Scalzi calls McKean's Inversion

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but aren't you kind of making the previous poster's point?

Exactly. Just ask Penny Arcade:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/

Senator Conroy has been hugely inconsistent about the content of the blacklist. First it was "child porn", then he added "unwanted content" without clarifying what that actually meant and then he changed tack to "Refused Classification", which he then proceeded to repeatedly mention in conjunction with "child porn" in order to fool the public into thinking that the two were synonymous.

Also worth considering is the security of the blacklist. The Australian Communications & Media Authority's blacklist (upon which the filter's will be based) has been leaked several times before and it appears that the Government has done nothing to avoid repeating the experience besides threaten any local sites that host or link to it with $10,000 per day fines. So given the number of ways in which the blacklist can be leaked, it's practically inevitable that it will happen again.

If the ACMA blacklist is what Conroy says it is (ie. child porn), then the Australian Government will be directly responsible for providing pedophiles with a choice list of child porn on the Web. If the blacklist isn't what Conroy says it is, then the Government will have flat out lied to the public about what it is they're being "protected" from (in addition to the lies that they've told already).

Neither outcome makes the Government look good.