Online censorship in Australia

Just before Christmas several US based blogs expressed concerns at the approach adopted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to introduce new rules restricting access to MA15+ and R18+ content accessed through the internet or by mobile phones.  This is how the ACMA described these new rules:

The new Restricted Access Systems Declaration places obligations on all content service providers to check that individuals accessing restricted content provided in Australia are at least 15 years of age for MA15+ content or 18 years of age for R18+ content. The new rules, which come into effect on 20 January 2008, arise from legislation passed in July 2007.

Similar to previous obligations relating to stored content, the new rules provide that after receiving a complaint and investigating internet or mobile content, ACMA may require the content service provider to either remove the content or place the content behind specified access restrictions.

Read more here.  This is how Ars Technica described these new rules:

The rules are meant to protect children from online content, but what the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act of 2007 actually does is put a serious burden on adults to self-police, while making it much harder for online publishers to freely share their work. Worse yet, it's another misguided attempt to make the Internet into a playground for children where they won't need supervision.

Read more here.  Mashable was equally unimpressed:

Australia’s getting more regulations for Internet content ... and it doesn’t look pretty. The rule is being enforced to protect children from adult content on the Internet, including mobile devices.

The new rules take effect January 20, 2008, and will apply to anyone who publishes commercial content on the web in Australia. These site owners will be responsible for making sure that minors don’t access any adult-oriented content, including certain language, etc. That moves beyond the typical regulations we see on the web in regards to porn–it’s essentially the culmination of the rules that are used for the content tiers applied to movies ...

Is this the beginning of the end for the Wild West mentality of the web? Are these the old media regulations the inevitable curse of the new media web?

Read more here.

And based upon a report in The Courier Mail this morning, titled NET NANNY, there is now a further reason to be concerned about the level of censorship being imposed upon the internet, this time from the new Rudd Labor Government:

AUSTRALIANS with internet connection could soon have their web content automatically censored.

The restrictions are planned by the Federal Government to give greater protection to children from online pornography and violent websites.

Under the plan, all internet service providers will have to provide a "clean" feed to households and schools, free of pornography and other "inappropriate" material.

Australians who want uncensored access to the web will have to contact their internet service provider and "opt out" of the service.

Read more here.  Although we don't know the exact details of this policy, there appear to be several problems with this approach. 

First, it impossible for ACMA or any other organisation (for example, the Federal Police) to block every single site with "inappropriate" material.  This just gives parents a false impression that the internet is safe for their children and abrogates their responsibility to monitor their child's internet usage.  Parental supervision is the only way to ensure that children do not access offensive or inappropriate material. 

Second, the opt-out approach seems to automatically restrict contents from adults, whose access to online material should not restricted.

Third, it is very difficult to determine what is "inappropriate", even if the same standards that are used for classifying television and movies are adopted.  This is especially so when you consider the sheer volume of internet sites that would need to be classified.

Fourth, there are legitimate concerns that mandatory ISP filtering would further slow internet speeds in Australia.

Again, we do not know the details of this policy, but it appears to me to contain several flaws that would need to be addressed before the Government takes this idea any further.

Update: TechCrunch's Duncan Riley has expressed his dismay in a post titled, Australian Joins China In Censoring The Internet.  Read it here.  And on his personal blog, duncanriley.com, he says Vale Free Speech Online in Australia:

I knew it was coming, but I’m still shocked to see them officially announce it. A little of what I wrote last time still sits very true this very, very dark day in the history of freedom in Australia:

first they blocked the porn sites, and no one said a thing,

next it was the dissenters, and still no one said a thing.

Next it was bloggers, and although I was one of them I said nothing.

Then they blocked me.

Update II: Mashable has a thoughtful post on the proposal:

While some will undoubtedly argue this is a huge infringement of free speech, there are a few important differences between Australia’s proposed policy and those of other countries like China and Iran, who arbitrarily block web sites from being used (for some examples of how other countries censor the Web, check out our round up of the year in censorship). Although Australia’s policy basically gives the government the ability to determine what appropriate is content and what isn’t, the “opt-out” option is an important distinction. It’s similar to public libraries in the US, where filters are often present but can be overridden at your request. On the other hand, the government could track those “opt out” requests, which does create privacy issues.

That said, it is still a fairly significant move when a Western-style democracy imposes censorship on Web access. It could provide impetus for government officials in other parts of the world to say “well, if Australia’s doing it …” and usher in an era of government controlled Web access, which, isn’t in most people’s best interest.

The important thing to track in Australia’s case will be what ultimately constitutes “inappropriate” content. If the country starts using filters to silence opposing views, then it is no better than China, but if it simply blocks out child pornography and articles on how to create bio-chemical weapons and the like (and, still lets those that seek out that sort of content get it if they request it), then there is no great foul here.

Read more here.