By Kevin Meaney
The internet is a far more powerful tool for free speech than mass media, since it allows ordinary users to publish information and express opinions as well as to retrieve information and opinion. The NSW attorney general has
By Kevin Meaney
The internet is a far more powerful tool for free speech than mass media, since it allows ordinary users to publish information and express opinions as well as to retrieve information and opinion.
The NSW attorney general has drafted legislation which he also proposed for use as a national model. The legislation would make it an offence to "transmit; permit access to; retrieve information from; and advertise through on-line connections objectionable material and material that is unsuitable for minors". "Objectionable material" and "material that is unsuitable for minors" have specific definitions which are used for classifying movies and TV programs.
As part of the legislation, industry codes of conduct would be developed in consultation with on-line service users and providers.
The implications of the proposed legislation are that internet service providers (ISPs) will have to read users' e-mail to make sure that it is not objectionable. This is equivalent to Australia Post having to read your mail. ISPs will have to check on what material their users make available to others, and will have to tap into what their users are retrieving.
Users who publish information on the internet will have to stop using hyperlinks which point to material published by other users, since the material pointed to can be changed at any time, and they thus risk advertising objectionable material.
This would have a serious impact. Business users have the resources to comply with codes of conduct, but ordinary users will find it difficult to meet the requirements. This could result in the internet simply becoming another form of mass media, with a few powerful publishers and everybody else as passive users.
The state which implements the most repressive censorship laws will set the conditions for the rest of the country, since the internet does not recognise state boundaries. For example, Germany has passed censorship laws applying to the internet; these laws are now being used to prosecute people in the USA whose material on the internet has been accessed by people in Germany.
Western Australia and Victoria have already passed laws attempting to censor the internet. Queensland has passed laws relating to computer games which have been used to prosecute internet users.
The Australian Broadcasting Authority's report has been far more progressive on the issue of legislating for the internet than the state attorneys general. The ABA report endorses the use of software already developed which allows users to protect themselves and their children from objectionable material. The report does not deal with the issue that ordinary users will find it burdensome to meet the requirements of a code of conduct and a complaints mechanism.
Censorship will result in an invasion of privacy. Requiring compliance with a code of conduct will make the internet become another form of mass media. Pornography on the internet is confined to a tiny handful of locations, and represents one hundredth of one per cent of the information sources on the internet (estimate by the Australian National Library). Pornography and other objectionable material can be obtained elsewhere. The attempt to censor this material will seriously restrict the freedom of speech and privacy of ordinary internet users.
The ministers concerned, at their meeting on July 11-12, agreed to put aside the legislation proposed by the NSW attorney general in order to allow the Commonwealth government, through the Australian Broadcasting Authority, to implement a self-regulation regime based on codes of conduct to be developed in consultation with the industry.