Internet censorship in Australia

Internet censorship in Australia is largely the province of the Federal Government and it's laws on internet censorship are, theoretically, amongst the most restrictive in the Western world. However, the restrictive nature of the laws has been combined with almost complete disinterest in enforcement from the agencies responsible for doing so. Some of the interesting exceptions include an attempt by then NSW Police Minister Michael Costa to shut down Melbourne Indymedia, a case in 2001, involving the US Secret Service that was eventually pleaded out and an attempt by the FBI using the Australian Federal Police to censor a Victorian they alleged was posting threats to the USA.

A collection of both federal and state laws apply, but the most important is the federal legislation which came into effect on January 1, 2000. Under this regime, if a complaint is issued about material "on the internet" the Australian Broadcasting Authority is empowered to examine the material under the guidelines for film and video. If the material would be classified R or X and the site does not have an adult verification system, or would be refused classification, and is hosted in Australia, the ABA is empowered to issue a "takedown notice" under which the material must be removed from the site. If the site is hosted outside Australia, the site is added to a list of banned sites. This list of banned sites is then added to filtering software, which must be offered to all consumers by their Internet Service Providers. Consumers are not required to install such filtering software.

A number (but reputedly very few) takedown notices have been issued to some Australian-hosted websites. According to Electronic Frontiers Australia in at least one documented case, the hosting was merely shifted to a server in the United States, and the DNS records updated so that consumers may never have noticed the change. As far as foreign-hosted content goes, small numbers of complaints have reportedly been issued. Consumer takeup of filtering software has been minimal, and pornography of all kinds remains freely available on the World Wide Web from foreign sites. The Internet outside the World Wide Web also continues unaffected, with Usenet binaries continuing to be hosted locally.

Various state governments have laws that theoretically ban the transmission of any material "unsuitable for minors". They have never been enforced, and in the opinion of EFA are completely unenforceable.

Recent actions

Shortly before the 2004 federal election, two political parties issued new policies on internet censorship. The Australian Labor Party's policy involved voluntary adherence by users. The Pentecostal influenced Family First party released a far stricter policy of mandatory filtering at the internet service provider level. [1](PDF)

The Family Association of Australia petitioned the Australian Federal Government in 2004 to further restrict access by children to pornographic material via the Internet. The petition was submitted in December 2004. Opponents of this petition claim that given the outcomes of censorship in cyberspace it is possible that further restrictions on Internet usage will not have outcome desired by this conservative organisation, but will, rather, further restrict freedom of other usages of the Internet.

Tough new copyright laws were passed on December 9, 2004 by the Australian Senate, going even further than the Australian-US FTA. The impact will be felt most heavily on Internet service providers. The Internet Industry Association and EFA are actively opposing these efforts

See also

• Censorship in Australia - The Internet
• Censorship in cyberspace
• censorship
• International Freedom of Expression Exchange

External links

• Reference
• Virtual Nation. The History of the Internet In Australia.
• Cyber Rights
• Internet content filters may be bad for one's health
• The Censorware project. Exposing the secrets of censorware since 1997.
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/ispblocking.html