If I could actually quote some citizens who have shared their concern, one of them happens to be Jordan Carter of InternetNZ. I believe he was a former candidate of the Labour Party. He says, and I quote, "Past filtering attempts have shown that a dangerous side effect is the unintentional blocking of sites that are not hosting objectionable material, in at least one case blocking access to email and online collaboration tools." This is another example. Thomas Beagle of New Zealand Civil Liberties said, "If you're a bystander, live streaming an event that turns horrific, how quickly do you have to stop before you're liable? What if that event is a policeman choking a man to death? Do you think you could weigh up the merits of a value of a video versus the possible object—objectionable"—I can't pronounce that properly—"objectionableness." And I agree with him. When someone live streams, it could be innocent when they start, but it could completely turn objectionable, and it is the subjective decision of the chief censor. The very fact that the chief censor could actually empower, authorise an inspector—and often it's a police officer. It could be a duty community constable who could decide that a particular thing is objectionable, and that is very subjective. I personally might find something that is objectionable that somebody else, one of the members of Parliament present in this House, would not and that is what I'm actually concerned about. A blanket filtering of things that are subjective is not something that I would feel comfortable about, particularly on the internet.