On the plus side, the government seems fairly restrained about it; rather then taking a whole site down, it ordered specific pages down. Fairly enlightened, I think. I daresay the US government would have simply confiscated all equipment used in the manufacture and serving of the site.
The Aussies Went and Done It: Cultural decency laws are a sore spot for those worried about the future of the internet, and for good reason. They boil down to exceptions on free speech, and that worries people. It's fairly well understood that there must be exceptions on free speech, such as preventing libel and slander, but how fine the line between "decency" and true 
Slo-Mo Justice Against Hate: This is bad news. Yes, Ryan Wilson appears to be in violation of the law. But using the Fair Housing Act to shut down a web site? I think this case summarizes how law is practiced, and why this site is probably a futile endeavor; instead of saying "What laws has this man broken?", the question being asked is "How can we nail this guy we want to nail?" Right answer, wrong reason doesn't count for much in this arena; in fact, I'd rather let the guy go then add yet another law to the list of speech restrictors. Aren't current laws and interpretations good enough to get this guy (assuming that the Wired article is correct), without twisting things further?
I had an epiphany of sorts last night... the Purpose of this site has been completely re-written to reflect it.
Jon Katz evokes a lot of different opinions from people; I tolerate him, there is a place for people who state what seems blindingly obvious. (That place probably isn't Slashdot, but that's another story.) His recent bit, Raising Creative Jerks, had an interesting quote: "Only certain groups are really free; everybody else has the appearance of freedom but if their views diverge from the norm they are assaulted, harassed, driven off." Point to ponder: Is this a form of
DVD Hearing: Suits Meet Geeks: "'They are about censorship of speech critical to science, education, and innovation,' said EFF executive director Tara Lemmey. 'Reverse engineering of DVD security is legitimate and important for systems' interoperability, and a right that we must preserve for a healthy, open, and democratic society in the information age.'" Yeah, that sounds about right.
Of course, that's too difficult... easier to hang a scapegoat.
How this is finally decided in court will be reflected in later findings; if the media companies are successful in possessing this level of control, it will be much easier for web sites to clamp down on sites like CallTheShots.com... but I feel this is for the wrong reason. It should not be illegal to own or possess things capable of copying other things any more then it is illegal to own a copy machine. There are legitimate uses to this software. Don't go after the software, go after the people making and distributing actual copies!
These people truly are trying to extend copyright into a realm it has not gone in before; copyright does not give the owner total control, it is an agreement of sorts, where the end user still has certain rights that could not previously be taken away, like the right to quote in certain ways. Now the media conglomerates want to make that impossible, because to do so involves bypassing a copyright protection scheme.
Digital Copyright Law on Trial: Interesting point: There is no question being asked about intent, instead the media conglomerates want it to be totally illegal to bypass copy protection, at all. Reverse engineering? No. Want to engage in well-established Fair Use? Can't.