The Issue

The Australian Federal Government is planning to forcibly censor the Internet for all Australians.

A mandatory system will block websites listed on a blacklist that is maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) or a body to be established for the purpose. This system has been trialled, and the report was predictable.

The blacklist is complaints based. If someone finds an offensive site they can complain to ACMA. The site will then be reviewed to see if it contains illegal or offensive content.

The following is from the Department of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy website:

Illegal and offensive online content is regulated through the Online Content Scheme under Schedule 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 through a complaints-based mechanism. The Scheme is designed to protect consumers, particularly children, from exposure to inappropriate or harmful material.

The Scheme applies to content accessed through the internet, mobile phones and convergent devices, and applies to content delivered through emerging content services such as subscription-based internet portals, chat rooms, live audio-visual streaming, and link services.

Under Schedule 7, prohibited content includes content that has been classified or is likely to be classified:

* RC (refused classification)
* X18+
* R18+ unless it is subject to a restricted access system
* MA15+ and is provided on a commercial basis (i.e. for a fee) unless it is subject to a restricted access system.

Under the current legislation, if an Australian hosted site is deemed to contain illegal or offensive, ACMA can order them to take it down. (Under the proposed mandatory filtering these sites would be blocked.) Sites that have a link to overseas hosted content can be issued with the same 'take down' notice and fined $11,000 a day if they don't.

Ok, what's wrong with that?
There are lots of problems with the proposal. Here's our top 5.

It simply won't work.
The internet is a huge collection of sites that could not possibly be fully classified and filtered. The blacklist of sites is based only on complaints - so someone has to complain about the site before it can be blocked. This means that the vast majority of content you may want to protect your children from will not be blocked.

The biggest dangers to your children are also not on static web pages - they are other users on the internet, and material sent to them by others. By calling it a 'clean feed' and claiming that it makes the internet safe for children, the Government is effectively hoodwinking you to score a few votes.

The likelihood of 'overblocking' is high.
Overblocking is a term used to describe legitimate sites and information being blocked.

The greatest concern around overblocking is the blocking of political sites or commentary. For example, a number of websites that have been discussing the issue of the mandatory clean feed have been issued with 'take down notices' for having a link to an anti-abortion website in the USA that had pictures of aborted foetuses on it.

The Australian Democrats view any blocking or censorship of any political commentary on any media to be unacceptable. However, we also have concerns about commercial and personal sites being unfairly blocked, particularly if they are not notified that their site is being blocked.

There is a lot of confusion and secrecy around it.
The proposal will require a massive expansion to the ACMA blacklist of sites, but the Government is not being clear on what will be blocked. As indicated by the above quote from the Department's website, content down to MA15+ may be blocked - but the Minister is inconsistent in public forums and media interviews on that point.

At a bare minimum, if the Government does push ahead with the proposal it should be very clear what will and won't be blocked. The list of blocked sites should also be available in the interests of transparency.

It is very expensive.
The Government has allocated $44m to the scheme, and it is likely to cost a lot more than that. A Howard Government report found that a minimum of $45 million would be required in the first year alone. Given the recent horror budget and massive deficit, now more than ever we cannot afford to waste tens of millions of dollars on a scheme that simply won't work.

It sets a very bad precedent.
There is a great deal of concern around the secrecy of this plan. The details have not been released and the Government is adamant that it will not publish the list of banned sites. Despite clear outrage from many areas of the community, they are pushing ahead with the overly authoritarian policy anyway.

So what next? There have already been suggestions by politicians that it be extended to cover hate speech and eating disorders - where will it end?

The Australian Democrats share the concerns of civil liberties organisations that this proposal sets a very bad precedent, and any benefit is dramatically outweighed by the costs to all Australians' freedom. It is a tool for tyranny which we must not allow to be established.

Click here to find out what the Australian Democrats want to do instead.

Resources
There is a great deal of information available if you want to further research this topic.

Links
* Stop Internet Censorship
* The Great Australian Internet Blackout
* Amnesty International
* StopTheCleanFeed
* LeaveTheNetAlone
* SomebodyThinkOfTheChildren
* Libertus.net
* Defending Scoundrels
* Broadbanned revolution
* Electronic Frontiers Australia
* NoCleanFeed
* ACMA
* DBCDE
* Stop Internet Censorship in Australia
* Stephen Conroy: Minister for Facism
* Block the Filter
* The Gift of Censorship

Want a link added here? Suggest it in our forums.