Australian Internet Censorship Laws

The internet censorship regime was implemented in relatively recent years and has been the topic of many heated debates. The Australian internet censorship regime is comprised of both law and regulation. These are implemented at both commonwealth and State and Territory level. This is because the Constitution does not have the power to issue this regime independently.

The Commonwealth part of this regime applies to the any “objectionable” material or anything that is deemed unsuitable for children. If there is anything on the internet that falls into these two categories the sites will be issued with a “Take Down” notice. This will be issued by the government regulator OFLC. They will be given a time frame in which they are to remove the content.

The State and Territorial side of this regime then tag team with the Commonwealth and can prosecute the providers or creators of the “objectionable” material. The procedures however vary from state to state and territory to territory.

The Censorship regarding the internet has raised many questions about the restrictions and the impact that these have on free speech. In relation to any other parts of the western worlds, the internet censorship laws are the most restrictive. They operate in secrecy and withhold some information about how categories are judged. This has raised more that a few eyebrows with not only activists, but also the general public.

Having it in the law that the internet is restricted, filtered and monitored, creates some issues with the people who brought this regime in.

The Australian internet censorship laws consist of two filters. One of which is mandatory and prevents any “Unwanted” material to be viewed by the general public, along with filtering any illegal material as decreed by the internet laws. These laws are comprised of: The Protection of Children Act, 1978; Civil Government Act, 1982; Sexual Offences Act, 2003; Memorandum of Understanding, 2003.

No one is questioning the filter preventing the illegal content coming through; in fact this can only be a positive thing helping to squash such internet sites. The public, however, have an issue with the “Unwanted” aspect of the legislation. This has never been defined by the Telecommunications Minister and this dictates what the filter prevents the country from seeing. However there was no survey or vote taken place as to what the general public feel is “Unwanted”.

The law is there to safe guard the vulnerable and young, and ministers argue that it has been successful in this, although there is yet to be any formal evidence of this.

The Internet Censorship Debate

As with most things are life, there are always positive and negatives. This is especially the case with the net, the internet censorship debate has many different views.

It is inarguable that the internet has changed the world. It has made the way we research easier; we have the wonders of the world at our finger tips; delight and desires realised at the touch of a button and it has revolutionised the way we shop and keep in touch with one another. This is especially helpful for those in remote places who long to keep connected to the rest of the world.

But there are negatives to the World Wide Web. It is now easier to access inappropriate material and the internet is a scouring ground for criminals to prey on the young and vulnerable.

As the internet has become more mainstream and embraced by society, the powers that be have censored the internet. All countries have some form of censorship imposed upon them; some may be rather lax whilst others take firm control over what can be viewed over the World Wide Web.

No one is disputing that the internet can be a dangerous place full of uncertainties. But the level of censorship that government applies can be questioned.

Within certain countries the internet is totally restricted, the government decides what can and can not be viewed. Impossible, I hear you cry! But it is true. In these countries the government control all computers that have internet connection capability. Now, this obviously is the extreme of internet censorship.

But the government will obviously always argue that censorship is for the good and the welfare of the public. Protecting the young and the vulnerable is the reason for censorship. Yet, when there are no clear definitions of what is offensive or harmful, and then the debate flares.

The reason that there is such a debate over internet safety is down to the impact that this censorship has over the basic human right of Free Speech.

Some argue that censorship of the internet limits free speech and this goes against basic human rights. This is true, however there are laws relating to Free Speech that concern speech when it id classed as harmful, offensive or insights hate.

The problem arises, however, when considering what is classed as offensive. Everyone has a different view point built up by their own beliefs and experiences. If the internet was censored due to what every person found offensive, I doubt that there would be anything left.

This is where the internet censorship debate begins to get stuck. Depending on the individual’s viewpoint depends on whether internet censorship is a positive or negative regime.

UK Internet Censorship

The United Kingdom has a quiet relaxed approach to the internet and censorship compared with other countries.

The main area of censorship within the United Kingdom related to images of child abuse. This clearly is something that the general public do not want to see and so there are not a lot of problems with this side of censorship. If a site has been blocked for containing these images, rather than a warning sign being displayed, there will just simply be a sign saying “error”.

So how does UK Internet Censorship Work?

The United Kingdom is censored through a filter called “cleanfeed” which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to ensure that any banned sites are inaccessible.

The Internet Watch Foundation is a nongovernmental charitable body which offers an online service for the general public.

The role of the Internet Watch Foundation is to report any materials found on the net that are offensive. The group work in conjunction with the police to ensure that the filter and the people responsible for such violations are stopped.

The Internet Watch Foundation was originally set up to focus on the organisations that produce and post child pornography. Recently they have had their remit expanded to cover any posts on the internet that were deemed racist or criminally obscene.

The Internet Watch Foundation are run independently and mostly by volunteers. This is to reduce the possibility of corruption. The Internet Watch Foundation collates all websites that have any material that fall into the aforementioned areas and put them on a blacklist, preventing them from being viewed in the United Kingdom.

In recent years there have been some incidents of UK Internet censorship that have had implications upon the Internet.

One of which being the murder case of Baby Peter, a 17 month old baby. In 2008 and 2009, the media was barred from publishing the names of the people involved in the case, both those accused of his murder and those who should have spotted the neglect. The explanation behind this was to protect the case and the witnesses as fears of reprisals from the general public who were outraged to learn of the murder.

Any websites found to be publishing the names of defendants and the child was subjected to a police investigation for trying to initiate a hate campaign.

This made some of the media, and general public, question just how free speech is in the United Kingdom, and whether the true reason was to protect the case or to protect those who were neglectful of their duty of care towards the child. The presumption is that the UK is a fairly liberal society but maybe UK Internet Censorship is not as relaxed as we imagine.

The Internet Censorship Debate

As with most things are life, there are always positive and negatives. This is especially the case with the Internet and leads almost inevitably to the Internet Censorship Debate.

But there are negatives to the World Wide Web. It is now easier to access inappropriate material and the internet is a scouring ground for criminals to prey on the young and vulnerable.

No one is disputing that the internet can be a dangerous place full of uncertainties. But the level of censorship that government applies can be questioned.

The reason that there is such a debate over internet safety is down to the impact that this censorship has over the basic human right of Free Speech.

This is where the internet debate begins to get stuck. Depending on the individual’s viewpoint depends on whether internet censorship is a positive or negative regime.

Month: June 2009

So how does UK Internet Censorship Work?