There has been an interesting court case I have been tracking. It has led to the conviction of three former Google executives of violations to Italy's privacy code, due to the uploaded of video by some school kids of themselves bullying another child who suffers with Down Syndrome.

While ISPs are not held accountable, the hosts of material that infringes on such laws are. This seems to cross over into the same territory that led to Anna Bligh to complain about Facebook allowing alleged offensive content to be published onto websites dedicated to two schoolchildren murdered in separate incidents.

One of the big attractions for the internet, hence a catalyst for it's growth was the perceived freedom that allowed individuals to indulge in their fantasies. Whilst the content posted onto the dedication pages was most probably offensive and possibly illegal, we seem to have reached or at least nearing the crossroads of the internet.

If we allow freedom of expression, then prepared to be trolled, and do not be surprised at input that some individuals might provide. If you dislike the input that some individuals provide, then feel free to lock down the interwebs. If you lock down the internet, do not be surprised when your online services are attacked.

While I understand Mrs Bligh's sympathies for the irreverence shown towards the victims, the internet is not the preserve of the political classes for communicating to the population. Rather the internet was developed by individuals to aid communication for academic, social and at times nefarious means, and have, from one perspective, been hijacked for commercial and political benefit. The twitterati should not be surprised when IRL incidents are impacted by Anonymous.

The internet is not regulated, controlled, logical, rational, sociable, ethical, nor civilised. It transcends national boundaries, crosses cultural divides and makes money where none is found physically. Internet users in every single country can be contacted. Chinese dissidents are supplied with the tools to communicate freely from internal and external sources. Russian gangsters acquire identity information. A girl in the US posts her musings about cute Japanese culture. A boy remixes the wav files from Windows to make a song.

The rule about the internet is there are no rules. That is until governments have complete control over it, including content, access and speed. I think governments are starting to realise, that the easiest way to control public opinion is to control what is accessible through the internet. A sanitised, healthy version will appear and I don't think I'm delusional in this opinion; Mr Conroy has the plan going forward, and dangerous websites peddling harm to our children will be excluded from public view.

The thing is, the government doesn't own the internet, so why should they control it?