Blacklisted

Response from ACMA demonstrates internet censorship moral threshold.

---

By Nathan Davis on 23 January, 2009

When the clean feed comes into play to ‘protect’ us Australians from arbitrary locations on the big, bad internet, it will be the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMA’s) job to maintain the blacklist of such websites.

Right now, we’re told only things such as child pornography will be targeted, but one of the big worries – aside from slowing down Aussie internet or how easily it’ll be skirted – is how far-reaching it’ll end up, no thanks to the power-hungry nature of bureaucracy. It may start out with something as innocent as slipping in a domain or URL here and there to keep special interest groups happy – easy and harmless, right? Slippery slope, more like.

In a bid to gauge the ACMA’s current moral stance on what it sees as inappropriate internet content, a reader on the Whirlpool forums, xFOADx, decided to fire in an email alerting the authority to some random gore. The chosen website is based around anti-abortion activism, and one of its pages contains, unsurprisingly, some very graphic pictures of decapitated foetuses.

What follows is ACMA’s response, in full:

I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm

Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.

Information about ACMA’s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMA’s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline

Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMA’s attention.

Reacting to ACMA’s response, xFOADx says “This mandatory filter can’t be allowed to happen. It is pure censorship and censorship only.”

Mark Newton, a representative of ISP Internode and a vocal supporter of stopping the filter, responds by saying adults should continue to be able to choose for themselves whether to view such content. “Do I wish they’d not post that kind of stuff? Yep. Will I defend them in front of a government who wishes to quash their political expression? Every bloody time,” Newton declares.

“This is the kind of content which Senator Conroy and Prime Minister Rudd thinks Australian adults should not be able to view. They believe it should be an offense (sic) for an ISP to allow an adult to make up their own mind about whether or not such imagery should appear on their computer screens. In their world, these images are inappropriate, perhaps “unwanted,” and hence should be vanquished from Australia.”

“It’s an absolute outrage. How dare they!” concludes Newton.

If the filter goes ahead, and there’s little sign of Senator Stephen Conroy et al backing down, it wouldn’t surprise me if the internet ends up filtered through an MA15+ or under rating scheme, just like our games. And just as ineffectively.

Image credit | Original

• Login to post comments

---