In contrast, New Zealand has less strict Internet regulations. The government maintains a more limited definition of offensive content that can be investigated by a designated government entity, although—unlike in Australia—the definition includes hate
speech (despite its being illegal in both countries). Furthermore, the government of
New Zealand has not passed legislation to allow issuance of takedown notices for such
content, and its enforcement of Internet content regulation by prosecution almost
solely focuses on child pornography. New Zealand has not yet formalized its copyright
laws and has rejected multiple proposals to do so, most recently scrapping proposed
Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act. 5 The country’s defamation and surveillance laws are similar to those of Australia. Overall, Australian
Internet regulations are significantly stricter than those of New Zealand and much of
the Western world.
Offensive Content
Australia’s and New Zealand’s approaches to offensive content on the Internet both
rely on government-run content-classification systems. However, their approaches
differ in terms of what is considered offensive and what is done about the offending
content.
Australian laws relating to the censorship of offensive content are based on the
powers delineated in and protections omitted from the Australian constitution. Section
51(v) of the document gives Parliament power to ‘‘make laws for the peace, order, and
good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.’’ 6 With no explicit protection of free speech in the
constitution, the Australian government has invoked its ‘‘communications power’’ to
institute a restrictive regime of Internet content regulation.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, an amendment to
the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, establishes the authority of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 7 to regulate Internet content. The ACMA is
empowered to look into complaints from Australians about offensive content on the
Internet and issue takedown notices. The ACMA is not mandated to scour the Internet
for potentially prohibited content, but it is allowed to begin investigations without an
outside complaint. 8
Web content that is hosted in Australia may be subject to a takedown request from
the ACMA if the Office of Film and Literature Classification finds that it falls within
certain categories as defined by the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films
and Computer Games) Act 1995, a cooperative classification system agreed to by the
national, state, and territorial governments.
392
Australia and New Zealand Overview
speech (despite its being illegal in both countries). Furthermore, the government of
New Zealand has not passed legislation to allow issuance of takedown notices for such
content, and its enforcement of Internet content regulation by prosecution almost
solely focuses on child pornography. New Zealand has not yet formalized its copyright
laws and has rejected multiple proposals to do so, most recently scrapping proposed
Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act. 5 The country’s defamation and surveillance laws are similar to those of Australia. Overall, Australian
Internet regulations are significantly stricter than those of New Zealand and much of
the Western world.
Offensive Content
Australia’s and New Zealand’s approaches to offensive content on the Internet both
rely on government-run content-classification systems. However, their approaches
differ in terms of what is considered offensive and what is done about the offending
content.
Australian laws relating to the censorship of offensive content are based on the
powers delineated in and protections omitted from the Australian constitution. Section
51(v) of the document gives Parliament power to ‘‘make laws for the peace, order, and
good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.’’ 6 With no explicit protection of free speech in the
constitution, the Australian government has invoked its ‘‘communications power’’ to
institute a restrictive regime of Internet content regulation.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, an amendment to
the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, establishes the authority of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 7 to regulate Internet content. The ACMA is
empowered to look into complaints from Australians about offensive content on the
Internet and issue takedown notices. The ACMA is not mandated to scour the Internet
for potentially prohibited content, but it is allowed to begin investigations without an
outside complaint. 8
Web content that is hosted in Australia may be subject to a takedown request from
the ACMA if the Office of Film and Literature Classification finds that it falls within
certain categories as defined by the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films
and Computer Games) Act 1995, a cooperative classification system agreed to by the
national, state, and territorial governments.
392
Australia and New Zealand Overview