INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE DEBATE RAGES ON

The current regulatory framework

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce restrictions on internet content hosted within Australia and to maintain a ‘blacklist’ of overseas websites – a list that it then makes available for use in commercially available filtering software. Content is considered ‘prohibited’ where it is (or in ACMA’s judgement would likely be):

* refused classification, or classified as X 18+

* classified R 18+, and not protected by an adult verification system

* classified MA 15+ and not protected by an adult verification system, where the user has paid to access the content

ACMA can also alert the relevant law enforcement agencies to material that is actually illegal (such as child pornography)

The Suicide Related Materials Offences Act 2006 makes it illegal to use the internet to promote suicide or self-harm. There is also some legislation relating to copyright protection, and some state governments have legislation banning the transmission of material unsuitable for minors.

Currently, internet content is only reviewed in Australia when a complaint is lodged with ACMA. ACMA then applies to the Classification Board for the content to be classified. Content that is refused classification (RC) altogether is discussed further below.

What is being proposed?

In 2003,[..] prominent think tank The Australia Institute proposed the idea of a mandatory internet filter for children [...]3 This sparked some serious debate…

….what is being proposed now by Minister Conroy (the third version of the ALP’s policy since the release of its 2007 ‘Plan for Cyber-safety’) includes a mandatory ISP-level filter.

The government has committed $125.8 million5 over four years to the development of a program that is essentially a two-tiered filter system, backed by other supporting measures.

The mandatory element is an ISP-level filter for all households, based on a new ‘blacklist’ of RC websites (still maintained by ACMA and still based on public complaints, and which will be added to by international agencies).

The second tier of the filter system is a series of grants to encourage ISPs to offer a filter for additional content, such as X-rated pornography and gambling sites; this will not be mandatory (either for the ISP to offer or for a household to implement). The government is also providing increased funding to law enforcement agencies, researchers, working groups and education programs for children, parents and schools.6

Now there is a lack of opt-out for households without children and the scope of content included is narrower – only RC content, rather than the broader concept of ‘prohibited material’ (which includes X-rated material).

What’s all the fuss about?

* It degrades free speech; it’s censorship, not protection

The RC material being caught in the filter may contain information on topics about which adults, and even children, may simply want to engage in some debate – such as euthanasia, safe injecting procedures, abortion or even graffiti. These are the grey areas in what may be considered banned material (such as instructions in self-harm or a crime).9 Many opponents (from individuals posting on discussion sites and senior citizen groups attending lectures on how to bypass the filter to organised protest groups such as Stop the Clean Feed. Libertus.net and No Clean Feed) consider this a potential attack on free speech. However, it is worth remembering that there is no legislation to protect a right to free speech in Australia (other than parliamentary privilege). Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without formal overarching human rights protection.

Opponents of the mandatory filter also believe that Minister Conroy has been using the ‘protect children from pornography’ line to lull Australians into believing that this will be the end result of the filter. Instead, it is argued, it is really a means for ACMA to effectively decide what adults should and shouldn’t see, because a mandatory filter affects everyone in a household, even if there are no children. Moreover, it bans material that it is not illegal for adults to view in other formats simply because the material is on the Web. It also doesn’t ban a lot of the material that parents wouldn’t want their children to see.

Berners-Lee ‘s larger vision, however, was for it to be a social medium, not a technical one: a medium where people could create and share information, not just look at it. [...] ‘Every powerful tool can be used for good or evil. Those things are illegal with or without the Web. 11

* It will block legitimate and legal content

A document purporting to be the ACMA secret blacklist was leaked in March 2010. Approximately half of the websites listed were not related to child pornography. There were various poker websites, YouTube links, regular porn websites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia websites, websites of fringe religions, Christian websites, the website of a tour operator and even the website of a Queensland dentist.13 Minister Conroy issued a statement claiming that the list was not the ACMA list and many websites on it had never been part of any ACMA investigation.14

What constitutes RC content is contained within several legislative instruments15 and is interpreted by ACMA officials. In very short summary, it includes imagery of child sexual abuse, bestiality or sexual violence; detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use; and/or material that advocates committing a terrorist act (as contained in films, publications and computer games).16 Importantly, it also includes material relating to sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty or violence, or the depiction of a child who is, or appears to be, under 1 8 (whether engaged in sex or not) that may cause offence to a reasonable adult or offend against reasonable standards of morality and decency.17

But who is a ‘reasonable adult’ and what causes ‘offence’? While the concept of the objective ‘reasonable person’ is used throughout our legal system – for example, to determine whether someone’s specific conduct has breached the law – the concept of what is ‘offensive’ to someone’s ‘morality’ is a much more loaded and subjective question. It also needs to be noted that in many cases, it is not illegal for adults to possess or privately view RC material in other formats in most states (except for child pornography).’8

* It won’t actually achieve what it sets out to

Obviously, child pornography is not commonly distributed openly via websites (although websites may be hijacked for this purpose). Child pornographers often use other internet tools, such as FTP. instant messaging, chat rooms. Usenet groups and peer-to-peer networks, none of which are covered by the filter. The filter will also not monitor high-traffic websites such as YouTube (because that would essentially prevent the whole system from working), nor will it monitor proxy servers (a common way for those in the know – including school children – to bypass blocking systems).

It seems the filter will do nothing to protect children from what parents are really concerned about, dangers like cyberbullying, online predators, viruses, spam or identity theft – all of which were identified in the 2007 policy. Having said that, the other measures relating to funding for education on cybersafety and more funding for policing of these issues are surely a welcome move.

* The filter itself is flawed

According to anti-filter website Stop the Clean Feed, trials of the filter blocked as many as 7.8 per cent of legitimate websites (close to one in ten); as much as 1 3 per cent of material that should have been blocked was still accessible.20

The government released reports from the latest trials by Enex and Telstra, both of which raised concerns about the ease with which anyone who wishes to will be able to circumvent the filter using proxy websites and virtual private networks. Enex tested thirty-seven different circumvention methods and virtually all of them worked.2′ Both Enex and Telstra reported that the filtering/blocking systems trialled were incapable of preventing circumvention/bypassing of the blocking systems.22

In response to criticism that the filters will be relatively easy to circumvent. Minister Conroy has argued that there are other laws that are relatively easy to get around, like those that deal with under-age smoking, speeding, drinking and driving, and that this does not serve as an argument for not having these laws.

We [...] propose a strategy with three components: a schools-based educational program, an opt-out system of ISP-filtering and some additional measures to protect children from exposure.*5

That the government’s proposal has no opt-out for adults.

* It creates a false sense of security and is paternalistic

The Save the Children Fund believes that the proposed filter will lull parents into a false sense of security, that they may become less vigilant because of a false belief that the filter will absolutely protect their children.26 Many see supervised internet use, including the use of voluntary home-based filters (even those like the Howard government’s NetAlert system, now discontinued), as the best way to protect children. Indeed, the Internet Industry Association’s Peter Coreónos has stated that home-based filters are a more flexible way to protect children than the government’s proposed system:

If it is your intent to provide families with customisab/e solutions and you want to accord to families the right to determine what their children can and can ‘t see, then you’re far better off to implement those user solutions at the user end . . . You couldn ‘t possibly impose that level of control at an ISP end without significantly degrading the network for all users.27

Almost every other Western countries that have some form of internet filtering (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, France and Canada) implement it on a voluntary basis.28 In the UK, for example, ISPs voluntarily agree to block URLs that are on the Internet Watch Foundation’s ‘secret black list’ (these sites are apparently mainly those that contain images of child pornography). The technology used to block the sites is up to the particular ISR It is believed that up to 95 per cent of UK households have their content filtered (because many of the larger providers have agreed to use filtering).

Where to from here?

When Clive Hamilton commissioned his research on access to child pornography by teenagers in 2003, 93 per cent of parents of teenage children said they would support a filter to prevent access to extreme and violent pornography. M However, now that the details are available about what type of filter the government is actually proposing, some of the latest polls indicate a sharp turnaround in opinion. In a recent Fairfax Media online poll, 96 per cent (of 45,154 people who voted) said they did not support the proposed filtering policy.31

Media coverage nationally and internationally has grown particularly negative, while search engine giant Google has also voiced its objections. Google Australia’s head of policy, larla Flynn, has stated that ‘The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.’32

Kids will continue to access inappropriate content . . . and . . . [people] . . . will continue to learn how to bypass the filter when it does eventually become law. One thing can be guaranteed. A debate which has polarised the community will continue to rage.34

This article has been altered for #atec2322 class discussion purposes. Read the full article in its entirety here: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2158039281.html#ixzz16gqZmStO