Australia’s telecommunications minister has announced that the country will be requiring ISPs to provide filtering tools for blocking pornography and other “inappropriate” material. According to the report, anyone that wants uncensored Internet will still be able to opt-out of the state censors, and the government will not do anything that affects download speeds.

While some will undoubtedly argue this is a huge infringement of free speech, there are a few important differences between Australia’s proposed policy and those of other countries like China and Iran, who arbitrarily block web sites from being used (for some examples of how other countries censor the Web, check out our round up of the year in censorship). Although Australia’s policy basically gives the government the ability to determine what appropriate is content and what isn’t, the “opt-out” option is an important distinction. It’s similar to public libraries in the US, where filters are often present but can be overridden at your request. On the other hand, the government could track those “opt out” requests, which does create privacy issues.

That said, it is still a fairly significant move when a Western-style democracy imposes censorship on Web access. It could provide impetus for government officials in other parts of the world to say “well, if Australia’s doing it …” and usher in an era of government controlled Web access, which, isn’t in most people’s best interest.

The important thing to track in Australia’s case will be what ultimately constitutes “inappropriate” content. If the country starts using filters to silence opposing views, then it is no better than China, but if it simply blocks out child pornography and articles on how to create bio-chemical weapons and the like (and, still lets those that seek out that sort of content get it if they request it), then there is no great foul here.