(CNSNews.com) – An Australian group campaigning against government Internet filtering proposals has been ordered by the government to remove a link to a U.S.-hosted Web site showing graphic pictures of aborted babies.
Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) says the government order to remove a link to a page on the AbortionTV Web site reinforces its concerns that Internet filtering will lead to the blocking of political content.
But some supporters of the government proposals, which aim to prevent access to child pornography sites, view the censorship argument as a smokescreen and part of a misinformation campaign.
The Australian non-profit group, which says it represents “Internet users concerned with online freedoms and rights,” complied with the “link-deletion notice” issued by the government’s Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
Had EFA not done so, it said its hosting Internet service provider (ISP) would have faced a daily fine of around $8,300 (11,000 Australian dollars) for as long as the link remained available.
EFA said the content of the linked page was described as “gratuitous, exploitative and offensive depictions of violence, which have a very high degree of impact.”
The link to the abortion information site appeared in an article on EFA’s site about an earlier ACMA notice, sent to a popular Australian technology news site and ordering it to remove the same link.
The EFA article had raised concerns that a planned ISP-level content filtering system, designed to block material relating to child sexual abuse, may also limit political speech.
Nic Suzor, who chairs the EFA board, explained that the group had not carried the link to the AbortionTV page because it supported the view that abortion should be criminalized, but “as an example of over-blocking of political speech by the current and proposed censorship regimes.”
“We are extremely concerned that Australian Web sites are currently being required to remove links to what we believe is legitimate political speech, even where that speech is offensive.”
Suzor said the EFA was worried that government plans for mandatory ISP-level filtering would lead to such sites being blocked.
The proposed filtering system, which is now being trialed by some Australian ISPs, aims to require ISPs to block overseas-hosted sites that are included on a blacklist maintained by the ACMA.
The blacklist has not been made available to the wider public, but ACMA annual reports show that the authority has added around 2,000 URLs (Web page addresses) to the list since 2005. A little over half of those are described as “illegal material,” defined as relating to child pornography.
The rest include sites whose content, under Australia’s ratings system for movies, games and online content, would either be banned (“refused classification”) or carry 18+ restrictions.
Last March, a lengthy list of URLs – purportedly the leaked ACMA blacklist – was posted online. Apart from child pornography and other explicit sex sites, it included several that did not fall into that category, including at least two graphic sites relating to abortion, one pro-euthanasia site and numerous online poker sites.
When the list appeared online, the government minister responsible for broadband and communication issues, Senator Stephen Conroy, disputed its authenticity.
Nonetheless, he called the posting of the URLs “grossly irresponsible” and said it would undermine attempts to create a safe online environment for children.
“Under existing laws the ACMA blacklist includes URLs relating to child sexual abuse, rape, incest, bestiality, sexual violence and detailed instruction in crime,” Conroy said. “No-one interested in cyber-safety would condone the leaking of these addresses.”
‘Ideological’
Apart from the censorship concerns, critics of the filtering plans say they will be costly for consumers, may affect speed, and are technically unfeasible, given the nature of the Internet.
The country’s third-largest ISP, iiNet, which recently withdrew from the government’s filtering trial, called the plan “fundamentally flawed [and] a waste of taxpayers’ money” and said it would not work.
Opponents of the scheme also held protest rallies in several cities.
Organizations concerned about the impact of online pornography on children are supportive of the filtering proposals and view some of the arguments being used by opposing ISPs and advocacy groups as intentional distractions.
Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace on Friday dismissed claims that the filtering initiative would censor political speech, saying the government had made it “crystal clear that it this was not on the agenda and that it has no plans to prevent adults from viewing legal material.”
The EFA’s actions relating to the AbortionTV link, he said, were “part of a campaign of misinformation against Internet filtering being mainly led by Internet civil libertarians who have an ideological commitment to having no restrictions on the Internet and the pornography industry which is worried filtering illegal porn will hit its profits.”
In an era when children were growing up using the Internet for both education and entertainment, Wallace said, their protection needed to be prioritized.
“Many parents are deeply concerned about the pornographic and abusive material children can too easily access on the Internet and it is crucial that the government provides safeguards from this material,” he said, recalling that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Labor party had pledged to do so while campaigning for election in 2007.
“If we don’t address this issue with the Internet at this stage in its development than we’ll never be able to,” Wallace said.
Who decides?
Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at the Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics in Canberra, took issue with EFA’s approach, saying that the organization evidently “believes that it should be the arbiter of what is acceptable content in Australia.”
He noted that Suzor explained his decision to post the link to AbortionTV by saying that he believed the initial classification had been incorrect.
“So these issues are ones for his own personal judgment,” Hamilton said Friday. “Presumably he believes it is his prerogative, rather than that of representatives appointed by a democratically elected government, to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Well, sorry, I believe in democracy, and object to the Internet warriors at EFA undermining the will of the people.”
Hamilton said EFA was taking “an absolutist position on the complex question of rights and responsibilities that have been debated by philosophers for centuries.
“EFA would have a little more credibility if it listed the types of content they believe should legitimately be censored, and the principles on which they make their judgment.”