Stephen Conroy has moved to take the heat out of the internet filtering debate by delaying the introduction of the filter until the conclusion of a review of the Refused Classification category, expected to take at least twelve months.
Conroy announced a package of measures this morning aimed at heading off persistent criticism of the filter proposal as the Government heads into the election:
- the Classification Board will determine whether sites are added to the blacklist that will form the basis of the filter, rather than ACMA, assessing complaints about sites against the Refused Classification guidelines;
- site owners will be told they are to be added to the blacklist;
- it will be clear sites have been blocked, with “block notices” to be displayed;
- assessments that sites are RC will be appealable like other Classification Board decisions;
- there will be an annual non-government review of the list; and
- the blacklist will not be made public.
However, the key announcement is that an eminent figure will be asked to conduct a review of the RC category to ensure it is in accordance with community standards. The filter will not, Conroy said, proceed until that review is completed, which is expected to be in 12 months.
The review will be conducted under the auspices of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which next meets in Perth in two weeks on 22-23 July. Assuming the proposed review is an agenda item for that meeting and approved by Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General, it would not be completed by late 2011, as an inquiry head, a stakeholder reference group and community panels will need to be appointed and terms of reference developed.
Conroy was joined at the announcement by representatives from Optus, Primus and Telstra, who announced their respective ISPs would be putting in place voluntary filters of child p-rnography material as identified by local and overseas law enforcement authorities.
While the filter remains a flawed and deeply concerning proposal, Conroy’s announcement today is intended to take the heat out of the filter issue and that is what it is likely to do. Hardcore libertarians will continue to object to the proposal anyway, but much of the concern about the filter arises from concerns that the RC category is a poor fit for online filtering and is both too restrictive and a tool for politicians in the future to block other types of content they deem inappropriate for political purposes.
The proposed review — a standard tactic under this Government — won’t allay some of these fears and could be used by reactionary groups like the Australian Christian Lobby to demand even greater censorship on the community. But it does put the onus on the opponents of the filter to articulate their key concerns beyond blanket opposition, and of course delays the introduction of the filter well beyond the election.
It has been clear since March, when the first deadline for introduction of filter legislation passed with no word from the Government, that the filter was not going to be considered by Parliament before the election. Now however, it has been pushed well beyond the election and in fact, depending on how long the RC review takes, may not be up and running until the end of next year.
Conroy’s announcements about the process of blacklisting sites does provide some reassurance about transparency. He will be criticised for continuing to insist that the blacklist remains confidential, but the process he outlined this morning, in which the Classification Board will handle complaints about sites, site owners will be told if they’re to be blacklisted, and internet users will clearly see that a site has been blacklisted, addresses many concerns about the process, particularly for businesses or individuals who might find, through no fault of their own, that they’ve been blacklisted.
The proposed process is also something of a ministerial backhander to ACMA, which was humiliated in 2009 when it was revealed it bungled the current blacklist by adding innocuous sites of domestic businesses. ACMA can currently add sites to the blacklist of its own volition, based on a suspicion a site may contain RC material, and may retain this power under the net filter legislation (which remains unseen), but its primary source of blacklist material other than law enforcement authorities — public complaints — will all be handled by the Classification Board.
This won’t silence opponents of mandatory filtering — and nor should it, because it remains a fundamentally flawed idea. Nevertheless, Conroy’s review of the RC category ends his point-blank refusal to engage on this issue — often accompanied by the basest abuse about the motives of his opponents — and offers a process that will at least enable critics to be heard by an independent party.
Filter opponents should take up Conroy’s offer and start organising their input to the review.
“But it does put the onus on the opponents of the filter to articulate their key concerns beyond blanket opposition”
Tosh. No articulation is required beyond saying non-transparent censorship is unacceptable in a free society. I can quite imagine Conroy doesn’t want to come out right before an election and tell us again that everyone who doesn’t want the government secretly blacklisting dentists and travel agents must be an enthusiastic child pornographer.
The real problem with Conroy’s ongoing proposal is that it provides an enabling facility for politicians to suppress access to information. Such subjects which spring to mind could include access to information on birth control, dying with dignity and other preoccupations of the lunatic religious right.
Notwithstanding ACMA’s bungling of banned sites, the real problem is that corrupt politicians in the future can use these filtering tools to suppress access to information which they find unpleasant or difficult to deal with.
One only has to look at the use of these tools in jurisdictions such as Iran, China, North Korea and Myanmar to see how oppressive these tools can be in the hands of disingenuous politicians. Of course no Australian politician would use such tools, they are all so honest and trustworthy!
Gosh. Really? Is there an election coming up?
Conroy is the epitome of the nanny state. The 2009 leak of the alleged ACMA blacklist caused him to immediately reach for the hot-button rejoinder, that the leak is “irresponsible and undermines efforts to improve cyber safety and create a safe online environment for children.”
What bollocks. It seems every reference to internet content filtering is contextualised as preventing the sexual exploitation of children. Indeed, in the debate it is implied that those who are against internet content censorship are somehow pedophiles or at least in some way morally suspect. It is parents’ responsibility to ensure the safety of their children. Removing this responsibility through government function is the thin edge of a very socially destructive wedge. Surely it is not the function of government to usurp a parent’s role.
The bitter irony is that far and away the huge majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by a family member.
The plan still provides a vehicle for future governments to censor speech. That is not something that any free democracy should contemplate.
I predict that any review of the RC category will see plenty of rabid conservatives and anti-porn pundits happily demanding that even more things be banned. Hopefully there will also be loud voices arguing the opposite; that adults should be free to see, read and hear what they wish and that the government should not have the ability to prevent adults from making their own decisions with regards to films, books, TV and yes, the internet.
The idea that blacklisted sites will be able to appeal sounds nice enough, but you can bet it will be the same onerous and expensive process faced by other content producers like adult video distributors. They ban you, you appeal. You then have to pay excessive fees for the privilege, with no guarantee that your appeal will be successful. Nice little earner. How much will it cost to classify a website with thousands of pages? Most won’t bother. Censorship via exorbitant fees is just as effective as a ban.
Big Brother.