Speaking Out Against Australian Internet Censorship

edo-01 writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting opinion column up that details some of the opposition to the federal government's net censorship laws, most notably from the government of Australia's most populous state, New South Wales. An interesting quote from the article: 'Essentially, [the federal government] does not see that the Internet in Australia has much of a future as a forum for adults.'"

Comments

Australia is noce, but...

[sroddy]

I used to think I would like to live in Australia one day. I liked the idea of traveling there sometime and visiting to see all of the unique things that Australia has to offer. Now I believe that I will stay here in the United States. No matter how frustrated I get over the things that our money grubbing polititians do, I have only to look "down under" to see a government that is full of raving lunatics.

When Australia decided to ban guns, you know what happened? the crime skyrocketed.

http://www.mindconnection.com/library/personal/g un ban_aus.htm
http://www.ninety-eight.net/ksa/underfacts.htm
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302. ht ml
http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm
http://www.co-freedom.com/2000/03/ausie.html

It is time for the Aussies to get their heads out of their asses and do something about all of this. I don't know much about Australia's style of government and whether or not the people have very much power, but I would be leaving Australia if there was nothing I could do about it.

Now I think I will take my tourism dollars elsewhere. Until Australia starts respecting it's citizens rights, I don't have much faith in whether or not they would respect a tourist.

How about a techinological compromise

[Twylite]

Every time censorship of the Internet is brought up, the geek community shoots it down in flames as being impossible or impractical. But what if technology was to meet legislation half-way?

Here's the proposal (although to some extent it only works with global-treaty buy-in):

Every ISP is legally obliged to distinguish between Adult and Non-adult accounts. They are also obliged to run a transparent proxy service through which all connections must pass.

An extension is made to HTTP (and other relevant protocols) which includes an Adult/Non-adult content flag. This allows the proxy to block connections to inappropriate sites.

The further legal obligation is on all site owners and maintainers (and hopefully not the hosts!) to ensure that their sites comply with the rating they claim.

There is also a legal obligation on all adults NOT to make their account (password) accessible to minors; and only to allow minors access through their account if they are a legal guardian (or acting on behalf of one) and the minor is under constant supervision.

This is very much like existing censorship systems, but with three major differences: it is more transparent, there is legal recourse if the site fails to live up to its claimed rating, and there is an onus on adults to protect children (while not denying parents the right to allow their children access to material as they see fit).

Yes, there are ways around this. There are always going to be some sites that evade the law, just like there are porn shop owners that ignore the age of their patrons. There will be kids who "steal" adult accounts, just like they sneak into R movies.

But it is a great improvement on any system that is currently in place, and could be a suitable middle ground for all parties.

Re:How about a techinological compromise

[TheAJofOZ]

but it comes down to having reasonable guards in place, and law to deal with offenders.

No, it comes down to supervising your kids like you would if they were in any other possibly dangerous/subverse/damaging situation. I'm not a "free speech nut" that wants all information, images, etc to be available to everyone. I think restricting underage access to things is a good idea. I also think that restricting things altogether is okay if used carefully.

What I really have a problem with is people who think that the internet should be made safe so that they can let their kids roam free and not have to watch them. What parents should be doing is spending time with their kids while they surf the internet. Not only do they then make sure their child isn't being damaged but they strengthen their relationship with their child.

Parents obviously can't watch their kids all the time, so they have to take the time to sit down and discuss with their child why they should or shouldn't do things. Why there is "bad stuff" on the internet, why they shouldn't experience it just yet and talk through the issues so the child understands.

Then let them roam free on the net with you checking the history and web cache (or proxy logs for the really geeky) or just walking in from time to time to check on them. (Few people can hide their panic when their parents walk in and few parents fail to pick up on this eventually.) After a period of time, your child will have demonstrated that they have earnt your trust and that they do understand so you don't have to check up on them deliberately. If they later do get up to something the chances are that you will happen to walk in at an inopportune time for them eventually. This way the child is aware that the content exists (without having to experience it first hand) and explains why it is considered objectionable. If they go ahead and choose to view the content you can challenge them to justify it. If they can't they have demonstrated that a) they cannot yet be trusted and b) are not yet mature enough to make an informed discussion about the issue. If they do justify it you have to respect their justification, but may wish to put your foot down anyway because you find it offensive - whatever reason, but justify it.

It is horrific to see a child who is exposed to graphic material (or worse, experiences it) before they are mature enough to deal with it so we do need to avoid this. However, just as bad as this is someone who is overly sheltered and doesn't gain the maturity to deal with this before they are thrust out into the world and confronted with it. Then not only are they confronted with the material before they are mature enough to deal with it, they are expected to be mature enough and have lost a large part of their support network by moving away from their parents/family etc.

The only way you can balance these two extremes properly is with a knowledge of the child involved, so enough flexibility has to be present to allow parents to make the decisions. However, some safe-guards have to be in place for parents who are negligent or simply make really bad decisions for the child and the latter is exceptionally hard to judge. There is no perfect system that can make all this work and make everyone happy, but the solution is very definitely not a technological one because we are dealing with people, not technology.

R vs. X in Australia

[eekDude]

I thought the article failed to outline the key differences between R and X rated material that is confusing the "save the children" moralists. So here goes:

R: generally anything that has very high levels of violence, language, drug use (which does come under the broad "strong adult themes", unfortunately), and simulated sexual activity (soft porn only --no erections allowed). Films can have all of the above in one scene, provided there is context for each "adult theme" within the scene. The print publication equivalent of this type of material is "R rating category 1".

X: this is only for sexually explicit films/video (uncensored/"hardcore" pornography). It allows for real sex scenes. It cannot contain any sexual violence, cohersion, or "fetishes which are deemed offensive" (I won't go into details of what is deemed offensive as some people in here might be offended. *g*). The print publication equivalent of this classification is "R rated category 2".

RC: refused classification. Basically, includes anything that is so abhorent that it cannot be included in either the R and X classication (for example, snuff films, poo eating, animal loving works, etc.). The print publication equivalent is the same.

As the article pointed out, most conservatives and/or moralists have lumped all three classifications into the "R" category without realising the strict restrictions between each rating and the allowed context that these ratings must adhere to. Ignorance is bliss when you've been blinded, I guess.

What I thought was interesting about NSW's hesitance towards approving their censorship legislation was their interest in protecting adults rights to access adult natured material on the internet. However, this is from a state where it is illegal to sell X-rated videos (not that has stopped retailers of adult erotica from doing so), although for print publications, R-rating category 2 material is perfectly legal. And people wonder why our politicians are so ignorant about what is allowed within each classification -- it's inconsistent across mediums!. So for the internet where people mostly "read" or "view" material (rather than watch video), the medium is being classified using the classification system for videos, which will confuse people even more. But either way, I hope at least one state as *some* commonsense left in what is becoming Playground Australia.

Re:Whoa there boy!

[AgTiger]

> What most people seem to misunderstand about Australia is that while our politicians are
> very keen on making laws, enforcing those laws in another thing altogether.

Correct, but that only speaks of the current situation. The problem with bad laws on the books is twofold:

1. Laws are rarely enforced at the "never" end of the scale, unless they've become completely defunct (such as laws regarding placement of hitching posts for horses in modern cities). Instead, they're enforced selectively against people that are thorns in the side of the current power base. Selective justice is often injustice. Though people often flaunt 'stupid' laws, they do so at their own risk.

2. The level of enforcement is subject to change. If enforcement is suddenly deemed "the thing to do", all those bad or stupid laws on the books suddenly have a much greater effect on the people they apply to. This is why many countries, including the United States, attempted to set up a constitution that binds the hands of the government both at the time, and into the distant future. The people founding a given government may have the best of intentions, but they would be fools to assume that someone with dictatorial aspirations would not at some point attempt to sieze power within the constraints of the existing system, rather than overthrowing it completely.

On another related issue:

I've long wondered why it is that people haven't slapped their politicians around until they understand that it is not necessarily their job to keep passing more and more laws. Sometimes, effectiveness and "good government" could be equally measured by the review of and quite possibly repeal of existing laws that do NOT serve the public good.

It is my own personal opinion that complex laws serve only the legal _system_ and the people that work within its structure, rather than the people that must _use_ the legal system (us, the mere mortals who on occasion have the unhappy desire or need to get ground up in the system's gears).