Chinese firewall could be erected in Australia
28 November 2008, 04:47PM
The Australian Government is proposing an Internet filtering system that would apply to every single home Internet user in Australia. Involvement of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be compulsory and as Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communication and Digital Economy has stated, so-called “unwanted” materials would be blocked. The Government states that its aim is to block access to websites involving child pornography, X-rated and violent material Euthanasia content has also been discussed as possible “unwanted” material. Already, other Parliamentarians are calling for additions to the suggested bans, including material on gambling and anorexia.
Reports indicate that under the Government’s current internet proposal a “black list'” of sites would be created and ISPs would have to compulsorily block their users from accessing these sites. This is akin to the situation in China, where the Government decides what is censored and does not tell the public. As in China, the proposed Australian model does not allow for public debate or input over what would included on any “black list”.
Amnesty International recognises that there are some limits to freedom of expression and that this includes blocking access to certain content; for example, child pornography or content that incites violence. What is essential, however, is transparency -- a clear communication of what is to be blocked, and why this is in the broader social interest, and under what legislation.
It is stated that this proposal will protect children. However, there are already technical options available for ensuring that harmful content is not accessible to minors - Government-developed software has been made available free of charge for such purposes. The proposal for blanket censorship makes decisions for all web users regardless of their age.
No other Western democracy operates a system such as the one proposed by the Australian Government. When the Government refers to other nations having such systems, it omits the fact that elsewhere the involvement of the ISPs is completely voluntary and take-up is very low. In those other countries, the ISP has a choice and so, therefore, does the Internet user. The Australian proposal effectively makes the Internet Service Provider a tool of censorship and would decide for each Internet user what they can or cannot read and discuss online.
Features and analysis
Healthy homelands
An Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory is showing the government how to close the health gap.
Obama’s broken promises
The ongoing wait for justice and leadership from the US administration, for Guantánamo Bay detainees.
Crowded Christmas Island
In early December 2009, Amnesty International staff were granted rare access to the detention facilities on Christmas Island.
These features are taken from our Human Rights Defender magazine - subscribe free now
By Category
By month
Make an impact
You can make a difference right now. Your action will help shine the light of hope into people's lives across the world.
Check out what 110,760 people are doing right now to support human rights.
Stay Informed
Get Involved
Amnesty International relies on your support to continue our vital work protecting human rights. Please help us keep governments accountable, bring the guilty to justice, and save lives.
Sitewide information
- Copyright © Amnesty International Australia
- ABN: 640 0280 6233
- Phone: 1300 300 920
Comments
Comments are submitted by members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Amnesty International Australia. If you find a comment objectionable please contact the web editor.
James
1 December 2008, 02:12PM
Hi Chris, contrary to what you’re saying, I believe that paying an extra charge to avoid internet censorship would constitute “standing for it”, rather than standing up against it. I agree that if development of anti-censorship software in Australia benefits those living under repressive regimes overseas, that would be a good thing. I strongly feel however that I shouldn’t have to pay an extra charge to avoid internet censorship - it creates an unnecessary censorship software market that shouldn’t have to exist in Australia.
To take it back to the crux of this article, there are certain situations - such as child pornography - where censorship is necessary. What Amnesty is saying that the decisions on what is censored must be made through a transparent process so that censorship is not vulnerable to abuse by political interests.
Chris
1 December 2008, 12:30PM
There is a profound difference between censoring defenseless Chinese/Iranian/Pakistani citizens and Australians - we wont stand for it and we will pay to avoid it (http://vpnfeed.com).
As a side-effect our commercial anti-filters may help those in less fortunate circumstances.
Liz Williams
1 December 2008, 08:25AM
This is a dangerous assault on free speech and our intelligence. Australia has very harsh anti-terror laws, which violate our civil liberties. Will it be illegal to view information on the campaign to close Guantanamo Bay, or to challenge the local anti-terror laws online? This censorship regime can be used to quash online dissent, especially as there is no way of knowing what websites have been blacklisted. I applaud Amnesty International for taking a bold stance against censorship.
Many things in society aren’t suitable for children - that’s why you have to be an adult to drive, drink, get a credit card, see horror movies, and visit porn shops! It’s a parent’s responsibility to shield their children, a blanket ban is useless. We are not a nation of perverts, our children don’t need to be protected from us! Just supervise your kids on the net! Install software that stops them viewing inappropriate material, the same way you stop them watching porn on DVD.
Jason
30 November 2008, 09:00PM
in case you didnt know Solomon Australians have no rights.
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2002/08/chappell.html
that is the shame of Australia
Jason
29 November 2008, 11:41PM
to those whom think this is abot child abuse think again, that is merely the pretext for introducing repression in Australia. As a parent of 5 kids i can not think of a worse crime than child abuse. However a government that uses child abuse as a means to introduce repression based on false data is what??
I would prefer to supervise my children online as i do.. the data supplied by the govt so far has being debunked
and this is nothing more than a farce. AI should rightly condemn this repressive filter as do most credible child groups .
Nik
29 November 2008, 11:38PM
Heather, this proposed filter will do NOTHING to prevent the spread of child pornography. All it will do is clumsily and ineffectually attempt to sweep a few web pages (NOT all of which are CP-related) under the rug, and pretend they don’t exist.
The ONLY correct way to deal with CP on the World Wide Web is to notify the Australian Federal Police of its presence: it is THEY who are properly equipped to deal with such material, NOT some faceless beaurocrat hiding in an office somewhere.
John
29 November 2008, 11:00PM
Heather 10:38pm
If the proposed filter could be proven to do ANYTHING to deter or reduce Child Pornography then I would be right behind it ... but it’s blatantly obvious that not one Pornographer will be detected or detained by this ill-considered legislation.
Heather
29 November 2008, 10:38PM
Although an Amnesty member for many years I support any measure that helps prevent the spread of child porn. Seriously, there are limits to freedom. I hope we never see AI indirectly supporting child abusers - I thought the opposite would be true.
Jason Geddes
29 November 2008, 09:15PM
Australia has no bill of rights, while it preaches democracy to the world. A truly shameful trait of Australia.
we need true democracy not just a fictitious disguised democracy that fools most of the population.
Jasmine
29 November 2008, 11:10AM
Hi,
I’m the main coordinator for the upcoming rallies to be held nationally on the 13th of December.
Brisbane:
11am - 3pm
Brisbane Square
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601
Sydney:
11am-4pm
Town Hall
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=49916537640
www.nocensorship.info<—Sydney base
Melbourne:
12pm-5pm
State Library
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931
Adelaide:
12pm - 4pm
Parliament
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=37658542634
Hobart:
11am-1:30pm
Parliament Lawns
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995
Perth:
12pm-3:00pm
Stirling Gardens
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=45738419714
There are currently still volunteer opportunities avaible for NT and ACT as state coordinator. Please email, qld-organiser@nocensorship.info or MSN, jas.anticensorship@gmail.com if you are interested in helping.
Hope to see everyone at their closest rally!
Kind regards,
Jasmine
Anti Censorship Direct Action Coordinator
www.nocensorship.info
Elena
28 November 2008, 10:19PM
Protests against this proposal are being organised nationwide on the 13th of December. See www.stopthecleanfeed.com for protest locations in your city.
Ben
28 November 2008, 09:22PM
>we have had a long history of defending our rights.
What rights? Australian citizens have no Bill of Rights. You have no Right to Freedom of Speech, Solomon. If the Australia Government made laws tonight that banned people called “Solomon” posting messages online, you would have no legal recourse. Also, I think you’re underestimating the power of “She’ll be right mate! No worries!” - poeple will add their names to a Facebook group, then promptly forget about it - except to whinge about it later, of course.
Dianne
28 November 2008, 07:01PM
Precisely the reason I no belong to AI
Solomon
28 November 2008, 07:00PM
Australia will not become China, because we have had a long history of defending our rights. Remember the story of the Eureka Flag? The people would not tolerate such a blanket censorship if we all knew what it involves.
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2