CENSORSHIP ON THE NET
June 1999 |
|
What’s
it about?
Some of you will love it, and some will be using words that the Government will ensure
you cannot publish on the net.
Senator Alston, the Federal Minister for Communications and
Information Technology, certainly seems to think he has your vote for online censorship in
his pocket. His office delivered a press release that welcomed the "extensive
community, industry and political support for its proposed Internet content regulation
regime". He's talking about you, our faithful Law Spot readers, and as far as the
professional internet community is concerned, he was certainly stretching the truth. He
assumes you will be overjoyed that governmental censorship has come to the internet. He
may be right, he may be wrong, or perhaps it's all a matter of "spin". Maybe
that's why the issue of online gambling, certainly a pastime that requires regulation in
the offline world, has not been touched. And unfortunately you may be the ones he's
spinning like a top. Let's look at the issues.
The
law
We're talking about the Broadcasting Services Amendment
(Online Services) Bill 1999. There's no point trying to put a spin on this piece of
legislation, because like all "spin", beauty will be in the eyes of the
beholder. For instance, the Australian Computer Society told a Senate Committee that it
will make Australia "the laughing stock of the world". So what's in it?
- There will be a hotline for complaints about internet content.
- A classification similar to film and video will be introduced.
- No more X-rated material, sometimes called non-violent erotica. And
access to R-rated material will be by "adult verification".
- An Australian internet service provider (ISP) can be compelled to
take down the banned content within 24 hours or be fined up to $27,000 a day.
- If the ISP is overseas, all reasonable steps must be taken to prevent
Australian access.
- ISP accounts cannot be provided to children without parental
approval.
What 's the problem?
Ah, you say, this all sounds like decent, publicly-minded action that is precisely what
Governments should undertake on behalf of their citizenry. But do you constantly find
yourself complaining that the law makes no sense? Do you also want your Governments to be
consistent in their application of laws? Well, here's yet another example.
There will be plenty of books available in bookstores that
will not be available on the net. You'll be able to see things at your local library that
will not be available on the net. It's going to cost a fortune (your money) for the
Broadcasting Authority to keep up with the regime, and don't forget, web sites (unlike
films and books) can be altered at the push of a button. But never fear, the Authority is
going to get five (yes, five!) new employees to deal with the millions of sites that might
be suspect. And by the way, the ISPs don't think it can be done at all, at least not in a
way that won't seriously affect the operation of the net as a whole. The CSIRO has made it
clear that there is no real technological solution to these problems, at least not one
that can't be circumvented by savvy operators. In fact, there is deep suspicion amongst
industry operators that the legislation will achieve anything worthwhile.
This may explain why no other Western country has attempted this
sort of thing - unless of course you live in China, where the Government gets to tell you
what you can and can't see.
What
the Senator says
Here's what our Senator Alston has to say:
"Any move to make the internet safer, cleaner and more
secure helps us to usher in the information economy…setting a legal and regulatory
framework is a vital step in building the confidence of business and consumers that online
information and transactions are authentic, private, secure, legally sound and that there
are redress mechanisms available…. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online
Services) Bill 1999 (the Bill) will enact a regime which balances the need for the
Government to meet legitimate community concerns about the publication of illegal and
offensive material online, that is commensurate with the regulation of conventional media,
while ensuring that regulation does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry
and inhibit the development of the online economy…The use of online services is
growing rapidly in Australia. There are now over 650 online service providers providing
access to the Internet and other online services. The ABS estimates that more than 3.6
million Australians have accessed the Internet at some time. It is clear that the
information accessed through this is increasingly influential in the community…If in
the course of an investigation, the ABA is satisfied that Internet content hosted in
Australia is prohibited content, the ABA will be required to give the relevant Internet
content host a written notice directing the host not to host the prohibited content. This
notice is called a final take-down notice and is intended to have ongoing effect…In
relation to investigation of complaints about Internet content hosted overseas determined
to be prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ABA will be required to
notify Australian police authorities if the ABA considers the content is of a sufficiently
serious nature. The ABA will be able to notify overseas regulatory and other bodies
directly, such as hot line services, if it is authorised to do so under arrangements with
Australian police."
More
politics
Okay, we can't avoid it forever, so let's mention the "H" word. In the days
before he had decided to scuttle the GST, when he was being wooed like the only daughter
of an oil sheikh, Senator Harradine was a vociferous supporter of online censorship (he
even wanted more of it).
It is facile to say, as the Chair of the Senate Select
Committee on Information Technologies, Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris did, that
"…there was no evidence presented to the committee that paedophilia or sexually
explicit or violent material should be freely available on the Internet." Well, isn't
that a shock! And hardly the issue - it is the way the legislation deals with it that is
the problem.
As Democrat's Natasha Stott Despoja stated, "…we want to
make it quite clear that we believe the regime envisaged by this bill is both unworkable
and undesirable…We have two broad areas of concern with this legislation as it has
been presented to the Senate. The first of these relates to the significant technical and
operational concerns with the proposal which could render the regime unworkable The second
concern relates to undesirable aspects of the legislation. These include the failure to
address civil liberties concerning privacy and the freedom of speech and expression, the
creation of broad discretions and uncertain law enforcement provisions, the different
treatment of material in different media, the almost certain adverse impact on the
Internet industry in Australia, the likely impact on the growth of the information economy
in Australia, and the failure to address concerns about the likelihood of inappropriate
and inadvertent blocking of materials and related issues."
But aren't we concerned?
Of course we are. In fact, we're so concerned that we can't support
a system that does little more than place a coat of paint over the reality of offensive
online material, but allows the voting public to believe something has been done to set
things right.
First, you can't avoid one obvious fact - adults, by the truckloads,
want to visit sites that offer non violent erotica. But internet sites have to be
deliberately and manually accessed - and that's more difficult than switching on the
television and catching a glimpse of something you don't want to see. So the real issues
is kids, and their ability to get online without adult supervision. Can parents obtain
software that blocks these sorts of sites? Yes, of course, and they are widely available.
And more importantly they block the sites at the family computer, rather than
unsuccessfully at the ISP.
CSIRO consultant Phil McCrea said the censorship was best done in
the home than by ISPs. "It is more effective at home because it takes away the risk
of taking away part of the legitimate electronic commerce infrastructure which we are
developing globally," he said. The Government could also do a lot by funding a
worthwhile, and effective education programme that alerted parents to the problem and
offered real solutions, not ineffective means that may in fact deceive parents into
believing the problem is under control.
In the U.S
Unlike Australia, the U.S. has a Bill of Rights that guarantees
free-speech, so legislation like the one introduced by Alston would not pass muster. They
have looked far more to self-regulation, including a preface page on most sites that will
tell parents how to follow, and restrict, their children's' access to the web.
Recently the U.S Senate approved a measure requiring Internet
service providers to begin providing free software filters to help parents block their
children's access to such sites within three years.
Solutions
This legislation is not the way to go, even if you believe (as we
do) that there is a case for greater protection of children from offensive material on the
net. If you are a parent, and you want your children to use the endless benefits of the
net, then check out the software solutions that will allow you to control what your child
sees.
If you're an adult, and you don't want to access some types of
material, don't do it! Believe us, there is plenty out there on the superhighway to keep
you busy from now until doomsday, and that would apply even if you limited yourself to
only one narrow area of interest, let's say butterflies of South America.
Unfortunately this legislation may injure the domestic internet
industry, in an era when Australia is hoping to make information technology an enterprise
of the future.
Read this: The legal information contained above is
intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and
other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for
loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.
Want us to
tell you when we put out another news item?
|