1. I really am yet to be convinced of the problem of the new policy/law. they seem no different to the laws we have in place now (for TV/Radio/Paper/Magazines) just being applied to a new medium. I think linking them to taking down people that disagree with the government is just fear mongering and haven’t people been complaining about the Government Fear Mongering when it comes to Terrorism?

    As I yell most Saturdays during winter at AFL Umpires: “Be Consistent!”

    My main worry is that it will effect the speed of the internet. Not worries about them taking down kiddy sites or asking me to prove that I am 18 if (I said if) I want to go to a porn site!


  2. my issue is transparency mainly – a 1000 or so sites is fine, but lets ban Iran? And yes it used to happen ( I remember sites in Libya being blocked at the DNS level in the ’90s for no *good* reason)

    I complain about fear mongering re: terrorism.

    Do you really want Big Brother site banned because of a bit of out-of-focus turkey slapping – I mean, it’s hardly kiddie porn, now is it? Ban it for poor taste yes *laughs* and yep the BB incident is the “Background” to the Content Act.

  3. It is a basic position of liberal democracy that law (or regulation) ought not be imposed which addresses the same issues as existing statute. These regulations do, however, extend censorship in Australia.

    There is, firstly, no clarity or transparency on what will be considered “other inappropriate material” on the one hand nor how the imprecise definition of “commercial MA15+” material identity requirements will be imposed or policed, especially with regard to borderline commercial sites and sites of public interest which may deal with material and issues which could, if classified, carry a MA rating. Not to mention the onus of gaining classification for all published material. Can you imagine a commercial news web site having to gain classification on every story published?

    Oh, and R18+ is a classification which does not just cover porn.

    If classification is self-selected we still have the issue of opt-in or opt-out. As Laurel states it is completely inconsistent to have an opt-out regimen for potential sources of terrorist knowledge and an opt-in for R18+ (and commercial MA15+) classified material.

    In the end the filters will be ineffective. ISP filtering will always be ineffective because encrypted anonymizers can be used as offshore proxies. The regulation is, therefore, mere political window dressing and causes inconvenience without providing any ‘protection’.

    Parents who do not know what their children are doing online should look much closer to home for a solution.

    And one last thing (there is always one last thing). People have been ‘complaining about the Government Fear Mongering (sic) when it comes to Terrorism(sic)’. Many civil liberties, human rights and press freedom organisations make significant representations on exactly these issues.

Comments are closed.