Joining Iran, China and Burma in Joyous Information Purity!

December 16, 2009 10:15 AM

The Australian Federal Government has decided to implement legislation filtering web content at the ISP level, despite ongoing criticism that the filter will do nothing to protect children and is diversion of funds from more fruitful policies, and is fairly simple to circumvent, and ignores peer-to-peer traffic completely. In light of March's leaked ACMA blacklist, many are understandably concerned about the list becoming a political tool.

Predictably ongoing online protest is reaching a head, with the standard array of web activism, tweetfest and the inevitable Facebook groups.

The trial itself is facing tough scrutiny, with its small test group, short blacklist, shallow scope and flexible definitions of impact coming under fire. Despite its flaws, the legislation is due to be introduced to parliament August 2010, leaving many to wonder what exactly they're trying to achieve.

Full report from pilot trial here. Chronology of the debate here

Previously on Metafilter.

posted by Jilder (23 comments total)

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Really, one of the best things ever done for the United States was that single line of the Constitution. It's really too bad that Australia has never taken the opportunity to enact something similar.

I really hate this "protect the children" crap. Whatever happened to parenting your child?
posted by PhillC at 10:22 AM on December 16, 2009

Fuck your children.
posted by autodidact at 10:24 AM on December 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

I blame their queen.
posted by b1tr0t at 10:25 AM on December 16, 2009

It seems like the democratic nations of the world miss the old communist-authoritarian powers so much that they're trying to become them.

As for the USA and that whole "Freedom of Speech" bit, it doesn't really matter when everything you say can and will be recorded and distributed without your knowledge.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:22 AM on December 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

Changing the Australian constitution is not a simple process, and Australian voters are reluctant to do it.

There was a referendum to introduce a few basic rights to the Constitution in 1988, and it was defeated by 75% of the vote. Opposition to an Australian Bill of Rights is generally on the basis that our rights should be protected by those who were elected, not those who were appointed.

And so we end up with this.
posted by PercyByssheShelley at 1:08 PM on December 16, 2009

It baffles me that this government is so blindly devoted to this policy.
It was a last minute footnote before the election, so there is no particular public desire for the censorship.
Indeed, the last government gave a way free netnanny style software to 'protect the children' but almost nobody downloaded it.
Why the insistence of driving through legislation which is unpopular with those that understand it, when they could easily fund an optional filter list for ISPs, upsetting no one.
posted by bystander at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2009

It baffles me that this government is so blindly devoted to this policy.

They are doing it for a reason, knowing it won't work, it gives them the ability to say that they are socially conservative when it might matter.

This government does nothing lightly. Every decision, utterance, message is thoroughly stage managed and "handled"- they take no chances.
posted by mattoxic at 1:41 PM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

They are doing it for a reason, knowing it won't work, it gives them the ability to say that they are socially conservative when it might matter.

I have real difficulty understanding their "strategy", since anyone who's even slightly socially conservative is going to vote for Tony Fucking Abbott.
posted by Jimbob at 2:29 PM on December 16, 2009

I'm against this, and Conroy's either an idiot or simply disingenuous (or, as I suspect is actually the case, a bit of both), but just say no to fucking with the constitution. I didn't trust Howard to do it, and I similarly don't trust Rudd's mob.
posted by pompomtom at 3:46 PM on December 16, 2009

It seems like the democratic nations of the world miss the old communist-authoritarian powers so much that they're trying to become them.

Oh come on. It's not like this is a new development anywhere. "Democracies" were plenty authoritarian when the communists were around. Also, Australia banned witchcraft until 2005.
posted by delmoi at 4:06 PM on December 16, 2009

I have real difficulty understanding their "strategy", since anyone who's even slightly socially conservative is going to vote for Tony Fucking Abbott


It's about broadening the appeal, to try and cater for as many points of view as possible - and since they don't really stand for anything apart from staying in government- it makes sense. Why give teh social conservatives any ammunition at all?

Delmoi, there are lots of old statutes that exist in Australian law - which was essentially Control+C British law, Control+V Australian law, but sadly Australia did ban Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses - and in Queensland The Last Temptation of Christ... but to its vast credit- not the communist party
posted by mattoxic at 4:13 PM on December 16, 2009

Delmoi, the Australian politicians supporting the filter still think sewing machines and penicillin are witchcraft.
posted by No-sword at 4:31 PM on December 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

They're just setting up a scapegoat, for when the National Broadband Network fails to deliver faster browsing:

"The NBN is heaps fast, but the ISPs have to take their time to properly filter out teh kiddyporn..."
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:31 PM on December 16, 2009

Really, one of the best things ever done for the United States was that single line of the Constitution. It's really too bad that Australia has never taken the opportunity to enact something similar.

If constitutionally-protected freedom of speech comes packaged with a right for nutjobs to own assault rifles, I'll very happily stick with what we've got, thanks.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:39 PM on December 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

On the other hand, the New Zealand government has a more enlightened stance on things Internet. Draft proposals to reform Section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 relating to Internet piracy/P2P copying, etc. include the following:

- Three notices needed within 9 months to go to Tribunal

- Users can stay anonymous and send response via ISP

- Users remain anonymous at Tribunal stage unless they lose

- Notices must be sent to ISPs within 20 days of alleged infringement, so a huge number can not be collated over months and then piled into an ISP

- Rights holders will have to pay a fee per notice, to cover their admin costs in issuing the notices

- Termination/Suspension is an option only for courts, not the tribunal (or ISPs)
Termination is defined as suspension of that account for up to six months so law is clear

- A new definition of ISP to be drafted for S92A only, which will be narrower then current definition which includes employers, bloggers etc.

- ISP given statutory protection where they comply with the Act and any court orders

- Law not to come into effect until six months after amendments passed

See official media release for more details, and Kiwiblog for comments.
posted by vac2003 at 6:07 PM on December 16, 2009

kiddyporn!?? What! they aren't really going to filter kiddyporn!

no seriously, they're not
posted by mattoxic at 7:19 PM on December 16, 2009

Jimbob I have real difficulty understanding their "strategy", since anyone who's even slightly socially conservative is going to vote for Tony Fucking Abbott.

The social conservatives got tired of Johnny Howard and they'll be equally tired of Tony Abbott's warmed-over Howard-ism. I know a few social conservatives who voted for Labor and are happy to continue to do so, because even if Abbott is somewhat more socially conservative, he's a hell of a lot more economically irresponsible.

It's the same reason that American racist rednecks held their noses and voted for Obama, except that we have compulsory voting so Australians are strongly encouraged to spend a moment thinking about their vote. People, even stupid people, have multiple principles that they organize into some kind of a priority order. "Decent working conditions" > "denying funding to 'faggotty arts rubbish' like the ABC and so on".
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:40 PM on December 16, 2009

Not forgetting that Rudd is a social conservative to rival both Howard and Abbot.
posted by mattoxic at 7:45 PM on December 16, 2009

PhillC Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... Really, one of the best things ever done for the United States was that single line of the Constitution. It's really too bad that Australia has never taken the opportunity to enact something similar.

No it isn't and yes we do. The US Congress can't pass laws abridging freedom of speech. On the other hand, employers, venue owners, website moderators etc have near-absolute free reign to abridge the freedom of speech of anyone who to that extent is under their control. In the USA you have freedom of speech unless and until there is some possibility that your speech may cost someone with power over you money or cause them some inconvenience.

While we don't pretend to the same extent that we have freedom of speech, we do have stronger anti-discrimination laws and employment protection, there is that "implied right of freedom of political discourse" thing, and the very same government that is trying to censor the internet is also working on drafting a Bill of Rights.

In other news, they also unbanned nail clippers from airports this week, which is a fucking triumph of common sense unique in the western world. So I'm a bit conflicted over this whole "trying to censor the internet" kerfuffle, and am inclined to agree with mattoxic above. It's not so much about doing it, as it is about being seen trying to do it and showing that it can't be done.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:50 PM on December 16, 2009

they also unbanned nail clippers from airports this week, which is a fucking triumph of common sense

The hell it is!

Before you know it, I'll be in prison for air rage, after having been seated on a flight next to one of those obnoxious people who think it's OK to clip their nails on public transport. Even worse, they'll probably slip their shoes off on the flight...
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2009

vac2003, that's really interesting about the NZ law. Seems much more sensible, not to mention recognising the fact that corporations might abuse the laws to silence people or shut down ISPs.

Google, Greens and Labor MP oppose it (the Labor MP is Penny Sharp from NSW). Have also heard that Xenophon opposes it. I'm going to guess that Steve Fielding thinks it doesn't go far enough. Now would be a good time for Abbott's "oppose everything Labor suggests" policy to kick in.
posted by harriet vane at 8:44 PM on December 16, 2009

If constitutionally-protected freedom of speech comes packaged with a right for nutjobs to own assault rifles...

...which of course it doesn't. Plenty of countries have constitutionally protected free speech but no constitutionally protected right to own firearms.

Dunno why people are bringing up Howard and Abbott here either, it was entirely predictable that this crap would come from a Labor government and not from the Liberals. I'm just surprised they are playing the kiddie porn hyteria card to get it passed and not going after "hate speech".
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 12:42 AM on December 17, 2009

Fuck your children.
posted by autodidact at 10:24 AM on December 16 [2 favorites +] [!]

No, no, no. That won't be allowed any more once the censorship comes online.
posted by atrazine at 2:34 AM on December 17, 2009 [1 favorite]