-Caveat Lector-
from - http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,50177,00.html?tw=wn20020202
Oz Censor Law Still Confuses
By Stewart Taggart
2:00 a.m. Feb. 2, 2002 PST
SYDNEY, Australia -- Two years after online censorship laws took effect here, no
one -- apart from the censors themselves -- has much of an idea what's being
taken offline.
Opponents say the regime is becoming unaccountable. The censors say secrecy is
vital to fighting child pornography.
On Jan. 1, 2000, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) gained powers to
order Australian Internet content hosts to remove material deemed overly
sexually explicit or violent.
In February 2000, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) filed a Freedom of
Information Act seeking details of the Internet content "take-down" orders
issued in Australia, among other things. Five months later, the EFA received
partially blacked-out documents providing little information about the specific
sites taken down, or their content, said EFA Executive Director Irene Graham.
The EFA has asked Australia's Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an independent
review board, to evaluate the ABA's use of the black pen. The tribunal heard
EFA's appeal last July, but a decision has yet to be issued. Meanwhile, the
online censorship system continues with virtually no outside checks or balances,
Graham said.
"This is an unaccountable regime," Graham said. "Unless it is made more
accountable, there is no way to know whether the ABA is implementing the law
properly."
The purpose of the online content law was to create a uniform system under which
Internet content joined offline content such as movies, books and computer games
in being subject to a rating system administered by the government's Office of
Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).
Under the online content law, the ABA -- responding to complaints -- can order
the removal from Internet servers in Australia of any content that the OLFC
rates "X" (sexually explicit) or "RC" ("refused classification" -- usually
applied to excessively violent material). Access to Internet content housed in
Australia rated "R" (restricted to adults over 18) must require some form of
adult verification for access.
For content hosted overseas, the ABA can do little but tell content-filtering
software makers about it.
For films, publications and video games, the OFLC routinely makes available
details of decisions. But the ABA, in keeping details of removed content
confidential, is treating online material different than offline material,
Graham said. That's in conflict with the intent of the law, she added.
But David Flint, chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, defends the
ABA's position. He says that when it comes to child pornography, the Internet is
indeed different from other media.
"While there are obvious practical and legal difficulties in obtaining access to
a censored film, an Internet access allows and even invites access," Flint said.
"Many of these proscribed sites show the most appalling abuse of children,
sometimes very young."
By making such URLs public, the ABA would jeopardize cooperation with
organizations in other countries that currently cooperate with the ABA, since
the ABA would be seen as promoting access to the sites, he says.
"They would not be prepared to share information with an organization that
publishes and therefore promotes sites which depict activity, which is clearly
in breach of their criminal laws," Flint said.
But Graham says the ABA is using child pornography as an all-encompassing cloak.
For instance, regarding Internet content hosted in Australia, disclosing a
defunct URL could hardly be deemed a "promotion" because the material no longer
exists there, she said. And even if clamping down on child pornography is the
primary goal of the ABA's censorship, that doesn't explain the ABA's refusal to
provide information about sites that appear to have nothing to do with child
porn, she says.
"For instance, they've refused to even give us information about materials
classified 'R,' which is not illegal for adults to access," she said.
Without any system of checks or balances or challenges from outside, the EFA
worries that the ABA may engage in overzealous actions.
"At this point, the public is not even being allowed to know what the ABA is
censoring," she said. "If no one tries to make them accountable, they could
become more and more draconian."
Andre Wright, director of industry performance and review for the ABA, said the
EFA has a right to raise the issues it has.
But she said focusing exclusively on take-down notices obscures the other
successes of the online content law over the past two years, including the
creation of an Internet industry code of conduct, the encouragement of home
installation of content filters and their public awareness campaigns.
These elements of the online content regulations in Australia have meant the
ABA's "second-level" powers (such as take-down notices) largely haven't been
needed. But Wright wouldn't comment directly on the EFA's Freedom of Information
Act efforts, saying it was ABA policy not to comment upon pending legal actions.
Therefore, the next move is likely to occur when the appeals tribunal issues its
decision, which could come at any time.
Meanwhile, Communications Minister Richard Alston is now long overdue to release
the latest biannual report on the online content efforts, promised as part of
legislative efforts in 1999 to get the new law passed. The last report he issued
was in mid-2001.
Alston's spokesman, Sascha Grebe, acknowledges a new report is overdue. But
Grebe said the recent Australian federal election -- held in November -- has
held up release of the report.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
