The federal government’s controversial Online Safety Bill is set to become law, with senators from both major parties supporting legislation that considerably expands Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant’s ability to censor the internet.
Late on Tuesday night the Senate passed the bill with support of Coalition, Labor and One Nation senators.
The bill gives a variety of new powers to the government appointed commissioner, including:
- Ordering websites or apps to take down online abuse, image-based abuse and seriously harmful online content within 24 hours, or face removal from search engines and app stores
- Rapidly blocking websites that are hosting abhorrent violent and terrorist content
- Increasing the maximum penalty for using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence to five years
- Demanding online R18+ content to be removed from platforms
- Implementing a “restricted access system” that could force Australians to prove their age by uploading identifying documents or agreeing to facial recognition.
While stakeholders have generally agreed with the stated aims to reduce online abuse, the bill has been widely criticised for giving to an unelected official broad powers which could — if used to their full extent — seriously limit what Australians can do and see online.
The government has promoted the Online Safety Bill as both proof of its willingness to crack down on tech giants (à la the news media bargaining code) and to bolster its credentials as willing to help women and other marginalised groups who face abuse online.
But privacy advocates and representatives for the sex industry say the law could actually do the opposite: it could encourage tech giants to crack down on the online presence of women and marginsalised groups to avoid the penalties in the bill.
What can’t be ignored is the version of the bill that was left on the floor of the Senate. The Senate voted to reject amendments that included:
- Carve-outs for sex education and harm reduction content, works of art and sexual minority material
- A requirement that platforms shouldn’t unnecessarily remove content (to combat the overzealous censorship to pre-empt takedown notices)
- And a compulsory independent review of the act.
While Labor supported some of these amendments and made its displeasure known about the rushed nature of the bill, it ultimately waved it through all the same.
What we’re left with is a law that relies on the discretion and grace of the government and platforms. That will worry those whose lives and livelihoods depend on the internet freedoms that this bill could curtail.
At first I thought maybe it was a bit of an overreaction to say that Australia was taking a page out of China’s book and slowly amassing power over what its citizens can do online, but here we are.
It started with their blocklist which was originally introduced to block sites hosting dangerous content, until it was abused haphazardly by the music and film industries to block torrent sites.
Then it was the mandatory metadata retention legislation to keep track of and store what people did online, the text messages they sent. Once again, waved through.
Then it was the anti encryption legislation which was again rushed through. Labor briefly tried fighting it, but when the LNP twisted their arm and said any terrorist attacks would be on them, they waved it through.
Now, it’s happening again. Slowly, but surely, Australia is tightening its grip. We allegedly live in a democracy, but for how long? Many countries have secretly admired the way in which China operates, the way in which they police and control their citizens.
Why does Labor keep letting the LNP introduce anti consumer legislation that is not properly thought through under the guise of anti terrorism or protecting people? Furthermore, for an opposition party, why does it feel like they never oppose anything?
Bring back Bill Shorten already. He might have capitulated on certain issues I never agreed with, but at least he wasn’t afraid of a fight and to challenge some of the nonsense of this current government.
Actually closer to how the US operates than China. China, at least, is upfront about what is not permitted with their citizens. The US just uses “National Security” whenever they wish to. As to why the ALP capitulate its simply because of the “populist” views in Australia. To change things in a “liberal Democracy” (another BS term) you first have to win an election.
Just a matter of time when political speech will further be impeded. Just look at the length they already go, Jordies anyone?
At least, in China, they are up front about choking the internet…
Unlike here they have moral standards.
What we’re left with is a law that relies on the discretion and grace of the government and platforms. That will worry those whose lives and livelihoods depend on the internet freedoms that this bill could curtail.
That this bill will curtail ! In case anyone hasn’t noticed the level of censorship on the internet is extremely high already & others are deciding what you will watch & hear. It doesn’t bode well for the future but Australians are so apathetic in general that there is no hope unless there is revolution!
It should worry us all, next progression could be any comments on say facebook which critical of government or says naughty things about a minister would be deleted and if you where lucky a reeducation camp.