Quick, name the country that plans to impose a mandatory Internet censoring regime that will, among other things, block access to all video games intended for anyone over the age of 15?

Answer: Australia.

The Australian government has pressed ahead with a trial of its proposed Internet filtering system, this despite the fact that—by its own admission—"there are no success criteria as such."

The scheme would involve a mandatory filtering service that would block access to all material "refused classification" by Australia's government-run ratings agency. This includes child pornography, bestiality, truly deviant/abusive sexual behavior... and plenty of video games!

(A second, optional filtering tier was designed to offer families an option for addition filtering of legal pornography on the Web.)

The video games ratings issue stems from a quirk of Australia's content rating system. Movies can be classified as G, PG, M, MA 15+, R 18+, and X 18+, but video games only go as high as MA 15+. There are no additional classifications that might allow violent titles like Fallout 3, which therefore had to alter its content to be sold in the country. Any game that fails to qualify for one of these ratings is "refused classification" and can't be sold in Australia.

All of which means that that the mandatory filtering scheme will block access to downloadable games, Flash games, and even stores that sell physical games which don't qualify for the MA 15+ rating.

The Sydney Morning Herald checked in with a spokesperson for Senator Stephen Conroy, Australia's Communications Minister, to see if the logic here was applicable to the filter. It was.

The government doesn't intend to start rating every website on the Web, but the system will work much as it does now: upon receiving a complaint, the ratings board will examine the link, rate the content, and add it to the database. If it is refused classification, it will be blocked.

While the mandatory Internet filtering system is new, the government already uses legal threats to enforce a similar regime. Back in May, Electronic Frontiers Australia (a group much like the EFF in the US) got in trouble with the government for posting a hyperlink to graphic abortion footage. The site in question was already on Australia's blacklist, and if EFA didn't remove the link, its Web host could be fined AUS$11,000 per day.

"To be clear, EFA published only a link to a page that is hosted overseas and is on ACMA’s prohibited list," said the group. "Viewing the potentially R-rated page itself is not in any way illegal, and no system is yet in place to enforce the blocking of such web pages. One may well wonder why a link to a legally viewable page should draw the threat of legal sanction while the content itself remains visible. Because the link was on a web page hosted in Australia, the hosting provider—not EFA ourselves, who have more control over the content—falls under Australian legal jurisdiction and could be so served. What this accomplishes is uncertain."

The entire system raises troubling questions about freedom of speech, cost, and efficacy—some of which we should have more information about after the trials wrap up in July.

The government's censoring plans are unusual (to put it mildly) when compared to US and European practice, and they have been drawing sharp criticism not just in Australia but in other countries as well.

The UK's Internet Service Provider Association has even included Senator Conroy on its 2009 shortlist of Internet villains "for continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition."

None of that has stopped the plan from going ahead, but it has (perhaps inevitably) lead to the creation of the "Fake Stephen Conroy" Twitter account. Bio: "I boss internets around; just the way you know you like it. You've been a naughty geek, haven't you? Very naughty indeed."