Australia Continues Down The Slippery Slope Of Censorship... 'For The Children,' Of Course
from the politicians-are-idiots dept
Australia has a long history of trying to censor the internet. As far back as 2002, we were talking about the infamous list of banned websites that absolutely no one but the government censors were allowed to know about. Australia required ISPs to block those sites, and there was no review process or appeals process to make sure those sites weren't legitimate sites. Since then, the Australian gov't has pushed for ISPs to be responsible for blocking all porn, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on porn filters that are easily cracked. More recently, the Australian government pushed to allow the police to add websites to the banned list, again without any sort of due process. Instead, the police could simply tell ISPs they had to block any site that the police feel potentially "encourages, incites or induces," "facilitate(s)" or "has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating" a crime. A fairly broad description.That's why it's a bit weird to see the fuss being kicked up over the latest policy to force all ISPs to put in place mandatory filters that can only be surpassed by officially opting-out (the equivalent of making someone go register to get a "porn license." There really isn't that much new or different here, but it does have the standard politician pandering about how this is all to "protect the children."
What's most bothersome about this story, however, is the response from politicians to those who oppose this kind of censorship: "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree." That's not just misleading and wrong, it's obnoxiously incorrect. In one single move, the politicians brush off anyone concerned about this program as being supporters of child porn. That's a pretty good way to kill a rather important debate. The people who are opposed to this kind of plan aren't "equating freedom of speech with watching child porn," and it's an outright fabrication for any politician to suggest such a thing. What they're complaining about is the idea that the government can force private companies to block access to certain pages on the internet itself. For those who point out that these sites are illegal in themselves, then shouldn't the government be going after those who are responsible for the sites? That's the problem that people have with this. The government is effectively blocking sites without any due process, while failing to actually go after those who may be doing something illegal. Yet, rather than deal with that issue, the politicians brush off all criticism by suggesting all criticism comes from people who want to look at child porn.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, filters, porn, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Censorship Argument
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why should the web be any different? Just because its hard doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Can kids see R or X rated movies? Sure, but why not make it more difficult?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
??
Wouldn't that depend entirely on where this site is hosted? If it's in Australia sure - go after them, but what about every other country?
If its content is legal in the country it's hosted in then what can they do, aside from blocking at the ISP's?
Not saying that blocking is right, or would work (look at the failure of the Great Firewall of China) but thought I'd like a clarification on what that point was supposed to be suggesting.
If kiddie porn is illegal (as it should be) then I can't argue against blocking such things to Australians, but there has to be some due process involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My mistake
I thought parents were responisble for their children not society. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've noticed that any time politicians claim to be do something about technology "for the children" -- say, trying to regulate video games, or censor the Internet -- that this is nearly a 100% reliable indicator that they're about to specify something stupid, impossible, counter-productive, pandering, or all of the above.
This Australian move is of course "all of the above", and therefore will be aped as soon as possible by grandstanding politicians elsewhere. (Has anyone informed Ted "Tubes" Stevens yet? Surely someone of his jaw-dropping idiocy would want to be in the vanguard of pushing similar legislation here in the US.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taking a page from American politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For the Children
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, at least they are not citing terrorists as the motivation for raping freedoms...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You cannot seriously be comparing a movie theater with the Internet. The internet allows ideas and news to be shared - and while this time they might be blocking kiddie, next time they might be banning sites that are for an opposing political party. Who would know?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Children First
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Children First or the Toilet
While here in America, trash assaults our ears on the radio, and television and the internet invite you to stick your head in the toilet.
We need to Clean Up America's Airwaves! Those who need porn and crap can always find it.....we don't need to put it onto the front page for them......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
And that's your first mistake. This won't make the internet safer for children. If anything, it will do the opposite. Right now, you know that the internet is not safe, so I hope you teach your kids right from wrong and how to avoid dangerous sites. However, once you think the gov't is doing that for you, your children won't have the necessary instruction to avoid bad sites -- and, trust me, they will still be out there.
It is not a violation of freedom of speech to want to collectively protect children from pornographic and violent web sites.
No, it's not. But it is a violation of freedom of speech to make such blocking mandatory on the part of an ISP.
Besides, as a parent, you have every right to install filters for your children. No one is trying to take that away from you. The problem is that this is now mandatory for ISPs to act as parents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First or the Toilet
Er, but they're not actually doing anything about the actual *problem*. They're trying to sweep the problem under the rug by not dealing with it.
We need to Clean Up America's Airwaves! Those who need porn and crap can always find it.....we don't need to put it onto the front page for them......
Um. There's a HUGE difference between forcing ISPs to become mandatory filters and putting content you don't happen to like on the front page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
Don't you think it's the parents' responsibility to monitor what their own children are viewing on the Internet?
Don't you see that any system that is put in place to filter out sites that "incite or induce crime" can be easilly abused to filter out political dissent too?
Instead of forcing everyone in Australia to live with these filters, would you have been OK with them funding free filtering software to its citizens so it would be voluntary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A country with guts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First or the Toilet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If I had children I would ensure that any computers in my house were setup so that I could control what they accessed and where on the net they surfed. Being a linux user I can attest to the fact it is not that difficult with linux and I would imagine both OSX and windows have the means to institute some sort of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A country with guts
So if having a camera follow every person around 27X7 recording every moment is what it would take to stop child porn you would be fine with it?
It will not stop child porn anyway the people that want to find it still will and most likely are using proxies to hide them selves and this alone would allow for them to get around the filters. People have been taking advantage of kids since the beginning of civilization and will not stop any time soon if ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Score 1 for faulty reasoning! 0 for real debates!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Children First
How about you worry about something that might happen like your kid might get hit walking down the middle of the road. That's something I would like to see drilled into peoples heads. Or maybe we could concentrate on getting the assholes who put the child porn up in the first place or maybe the people who look at it. Sounds like a novel idea to me.
Watch what you say with that crap about "Free speech does not mean freedom to offend and corrupt." Define offend and corrupt? I'm all for stopping pedophiles but stopping offending material is not only impossible but will do much more harm than good. Some people find all porn offending. Some find Victoria Secret catalogs offending. I find them offending. How douse that fit into "PC"?
We need to stop putting a bandaid over a broken bone, we need to get to the core of the problem and mend it. Find the assholes doing the crime (happened long before the Internet), don't just try and hide the crime from society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Children First
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
Which we clearly stated in the post above, so I'm not sure why you think we're unfamiliar with it.
However, the point of free speech is that you should have to "apply" for permission to speak freely. Besides, you do understand what a huge chilling effect it will have when you need to "apply" just to read the website about breast cancer because someone thought it was problematic? People aren't going to want to "apply" to get past this filter, because it will brand them as just wanting to look at porn.
The important point is that Australian citizens are wanting the status quo to filter first as an effective means to make the internet family friendly, rather than the other way around.
Again, this makes the false assumption that filters actually make the web family friendly.
It also makes the false assumption that because *some* people want this, all need to live with it -- especially when the some who want it already have plenty of filter options they can freely choose to use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Children First
This is an important statement that I felt the need to highlight reinforcing the point that this debate is not about free speech, but about who is responsible for making the internet safer for children.
Yes there are plenty of end user internet filters that parents can use and these have been freely available and advertised in Australia for some time now. I must then ask the question: why is it that the current Australian government, who recently enjoyed a windfall victory at the polls, used 'cleaning up the internet' as one of it's selling points. The answer: Families are still struggling to keep the internet clean for their children and are looking to the Australian government for help.
As to whether the proposed internet filter will work or not, I think that is the greatest assumption that has been made in this debate. I think it will be a work in progress and I wholeheartedly support the Australian government in its efforts to serve the interests of the Australian people, by trying to make the internet a safer place for children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
There is so much which is wrong about this latest proposed erosion of freedom that one hardly knows where to start. One could argue that it should be "opt in" rather than "opt out"; that it should only be implemented once our broadband system is brought up to developed-world standards and cost; that filtering does not work but merely makes life difficult for legitimate users; that it will do nothing to stop child porn; that it is a new populist government pandering to the far right which is spreading like a cancer through this country; that there is a muddle in the argument between kids' access to porn and kiddie porn itself etc. etc. But that would be to accept that our government has any business being involved in this sort of censorship in the first place. It does not!
Further, happy Aussie Citizen has no right to pretend to represent the views of Australian citizens, particularly since it is probable that he / she is actually a right wing American stooge and not Australian at all. The "family first" jargon strongly suggests that is the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unhappy Aussie Citizen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unhappy Aussie Citizen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An old argument
1) What is the definition of "porn"? Yes, we can probably all agree on some definitions, but what about tasteful nudes? Is Playboy "porn"? Is Michaelangelo's David "porn" because it's nude?
2) The fallout:
Will the Louvre and other museums be blocked because they have nude, and therefore "porn", images?
Will medical sites be blocked because they talk about "naughty" parts?
Will a site about breast cancer be blocked because it has the word "breast"? Will Australians need a permit to look at cancer research sites when their mother (or daughter) has breast cancer?? How does that "protect the children"?
3) Who decides what sites should be blocked?
In the US, the debate continues over "community standards"- one community may be more accepting than another one. Should a site get put on a black list because the stricter community standards view it as "porn"?
Today it may the Australian government that decides, but what happens when they decide to outsource the decision to a private company? What happens when that company decides to block a site due to bribery, political, or other reasons?
Suppose they don't like a presidential candidate? Will they block his site, issue a "protecting the children" statement, and equate looking at his site with looking at porn? After all, people shouldn't be looking at sites on the black list.
With no appeals process, anyone could end up on their list of blocked sites... without any good reason and without the company being accountable to anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unhappy Aussie Citizen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First or the Toilet
It's your choice.
If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. But don't force your ideas on everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A country with guts
It's blocking "all inappropriate material", which includes ALL adult sites, violent sites, etc. Anything that isn't suitable for a child will be blocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Children First
And you only get access to one list. You don't get access to the totally banned list which supposedly only contains child porn sites, etc. but the Government doesn't make that list available.
And you say Australian's support this? Have you actually read any letters to the editor, looked at polls, etc? More than 90% of Australians oppose this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
wrong...
1) in Australia, "the government" can (or would be able to) pretty much add any website they want to the ban list without any due process, so don't even start with that comparison
2) you don't need jack shit in the US to go see an R rated movie. There's no law that requires you to be 17 to see an R or NC-17 (actually that has been upped to 18) rated movie (without being accompanied), it's a voluntary (civil) system that is not being enforced that strongly/widely. In fact, if you would go to a theater, see a 15 y/o be admitted by him/herself to a R-rated movie, calling the cops wouldn't do much since by the act of admitting in itself, no law has been broken
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ??
one could argue that, even though the server/site is abroad, the server/site is still sending the information/webpages/... into Australia and hence would still be subject to Australian law. Or could be made to still be subject to Australian law. (As is the case for "physical" goods).
Furthermore, since IP addresses are known, it would be just as feasible for any company/server/website to block requests from an IP-address originating in whatever country (yes, yes, I know one could bypass this with proxies, but seriously, that's a minority), hence putting the responsibility where it belongs: with the content-provider (as in maker), not the ISPs who do nothing but transfer the data
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You've hit the nail on the head
Geez I hate politicians sometimes - "please won't somebody think of the children!"
I notice they still sell porn movies and magazines here, btw
Australia? You're standing in it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A country with guts
Anything that isn't suitable for will be blocked.
God people are stupid sometimes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A country with guts
(oops, blog edited that bit out from above post)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't agree, I think bringing up your children and educating them is better and safer in the long run, and makes for a more open and honest relationship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protecting children on the internet with WiHood
Technology like what we use at WiHood protects children from inappropriate web pages and is updated daily. It is astonishing that every day over 100,000 pedophile, sex, and gambling web sites are created. Parents don't have the time to find and block all these sites but they do have the time to learn with their children what good habits to have while using the internet.
The internet is a wonderful development and children should be allowed to use it but in a safe and secure environment. We have done this but we also emphasize that the role of the parent is the most important role of a child's life...today and tomorrow.
Thomas F. Anglero, Father and CEO
WiHood
(http://www.WiHood.com)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the Children
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
preparing to handle their own finances
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
**********
joelvincent111
camper trailers Sydney
[ link to this | view in thread ]
camper trailers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]