Can Linux be banned in .au?

cpt kangarooski writes "Well, an enterrising reporter over at Salon has found that certain blue comments in some Linux source code may make it eligible to be censored in Australia. Take a look here " Mmm...fun with censorship. Congrats go to Jamais Cascio (known as cynical around here), Slashdot reader, and author of the Salon article.

Comments

'Reasonable' is defined

[Anonymous Coward]

> "reasonable effort" is undefined I believe

It is extremely well defined, "reasonable" being
a precise legal term, much like hackers regard
"word" as a precise CPU term. Three clauses of
the legilsation deal with "reasonable".

Essentially, reasonable effort is the blocking of
access to the site using the best available,
commercially viable technology within 6pm of
the next business day after the ABA notifies
you that an overseas site is to be blocked.

More worrying is that the same deadline is
attached to an ABA direction to prevent
access to "all similar material"!

You miss the point with the Linux source. It
will be rated M if it contains the word
"fuck". The guidelines of the Office of
Film and Literature Classificaton are clear
(and on the web at www.oflc.gov.au).

Linux distributors are currently breaching the
law: (1) they are selling M-rated software
on CD without a classification appearing on
the CD and (2) they are selling M-rated
material to people under 16.

When the Broadcast Service Act amendments
pass the House of Reps then major Linux
sites such as mirror.aarnet.edu.au will
also be M-rated. This isn't of much
concern, as the age-verification steps are
only required for R-rated material.

None of the above means that I agree with
the govt's stupidity (and I have been interviewed
on AU TV and radio saying as much). But it is
important to get the facts right, especially
in a forum like slashdot that seems to contain
more emotion than the considered logical
thought that programmers are notorious for.
People sprouting the wrong facts simply undermine
the case for those of us arguing with the
correct facts.

Cheers,
glen.turner@adelaide.edu.au

...and names such as "Pamela"

[Gleef]

According to the article, the filtering software favored by the Ausie censors bans things with "names such as Pamela". Are they completely out of their head?!?

I guess they don't want to hear about the international space station project (one of the Astronauts is Lt. Col. Pamela Ann Melroy).

There goes Australian Women's Lib history, where Pamela Denoon was apparently a major player.

I wonder if it will also filter out info on the PAMELA Magnetic Spectrometer, scheduled for launch two years from now.

Do these censors have any idea how stupid they look when they suggest things like this.

The List of Banned Words

[Chakotay]

it can be found here. they threw a dictionary through the filter... let me list a few of the more stunning ones...

adult
alcohol
amaretto
amateur
anarchy
anus
aryan
available
babe
banging
bangle
bare
bastard
beaver
beer
bikini
binaries
blonde
bloody
bomb
bottom
bra
bud
buxom
chat
cherry
chicks
cigar
circumcise
conception
condom
destined
doom
dynamite
enema
eros
escort
explosive
fantasies
fist
flesh
fondle
free
frigid
geisha
gin
girlie
girls
glamour
gothic
grenade
gun
hack
hacker
heroine [no more female heros?]
hole
homo
incest
intercourse
jenny [???]
kill
killer
kissing
klan
klux
knights [???]
knives
ku
latex
leather
lesbian
lingerie
liquor
lover

well, you get the picture... it's f***ing outrageous.


)O(
the Gods have a sense of humor,

not exactly..

[Admiral]

Don't believe everything you read :)

From what I've read over here in Aus the legislation isn't exactly well put together. An ISP only has to make a "reasonable effort" to block a site when requested. "reasonable effort" is undefined I believe.

Also, for a site to be blocked/taken down (depending if it's overseas or australian), the Australian Broadcasting Authority has to receive a few complaints about the content on a site. It will then ask the Classification Board to give the site a classification - same as used for films. If the site is given R (18+), then some form of adult verification must be installed.. again, undefined. If the site is rated X, or RC (banned), then the site is to be taken down if Australian, or blocked if overseas.

It's fairly obvious that this is unworkable, and I think it will die fairly quickly. All you'd need to do is send the output of an Altavista search on "free XXX" to the ABA and claim it offends you, and the ABA now has a few years of work ahead of them. I don't exactly think they'll appreciate it either..

The filter software mentioned in the article is what was presented to govt to show them that it was all possible.. No one actually has to use that software afaik.

Oh and I don't think the linux sources are in much danger. The ABA is pretty tolerant of swearing in film and tv in Australia - much more than in the US. It would take a fair bit of language alone to get given an R rating here :)

This Salon article has a bit more info..

Glyn.

Maybe not exactly, but think of lawsuits

[Kaa]

Sure the whole thing is unworkable. I wouldn't be so cavalier about its effects, though. I don't know how reasonable the Australian legal system is, but in the US at least the threat of lawsuits does wonders for scaring people into over-compliance. Does an ISP really want to spend time and money (a lot of money) in court arguing that not blocking a site outright was a "reasonable" effort on its part? Probably not. When in doubt, do the safe thing.

This is similar to making a hard car speed limit of 20 mph. Sure, it's unenforceable and will not work, but now the police will have full justification to stop anyone whom they did not like (as in "he didn't look at us with proper respect"). Pissed at an Aussie ISP or just think that sex for pleasure should be banned? Call the police and complain that you searched for "Jenny" and found Jennycam. Why wasn't it blocked? Repeat at will and soon there would be great incentive for the ISPs to block everything but disney.com.

Kaa