being abused, beaten, and humiliated by a group of young people. Eight youths have
been charged in connection with the assault. 18 School blocking of YouTube has faced
opposition, notably from Google executive Vint Cerf, who noted his belief that ‘‘many
young people have those skills that may be well beyond those of their parents and
their teachers and will find ways of accessing information.’’ 19
The Commonwealth is also implementing new Internet filtering initiatives. In June
2006, the Australian government announced an AUD 116.6 million initiative, ‘‘Protecting Australian Families Online.’’ The initiative included AUD 93.3 million to be
spent over three years to provide all families with free Web filters. The government
also announced that it would test an ISP-level blocking system in Tasmania. At the
time, Helen Coonan, the minister for communications, information technology, and
the arts, opposed implementing this system on a countrywide basis. 20
However, in December 2007, Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy
announced a strengthened ‘‘clean feed’’ policy, under which all Australian ISPs are
required to provide Internet filtering services that prevent child pornography and other
‘‘inappropriate’’ material from reaching schools and houses. 21 Those who link to
banned sites from their own sites will be fined AUD 11,000 per day. 22 Instead of opting
in to the program, as users did under the 2006 initiative, users who wish to see adult
material must opt out (there is no opt-out for illegal content). In conjunction with
the new policy, the ACMA released a set of updated regulations entitled the Restricted
Access System Declaration of 2007, 23 requiring content service providers to implement
age-verification systems on all Web sites containing mature or adult content. 24 As of
April 2009, ACMA was still conducting trials for ISP-level content filtering; eight ISPs
had agreed to participate. 25
The plan was initially kept under wraps. In October 2008, a policy advisor in Conroy’s office sent an e-mail to the Internet Industry Association (IIA) instructing the IIA
to inform ISPs that they must keep quiet about the country’s filtering scheme. 26 The
incident was widely reported by the Australian press, and several heads of ISPs spoke
out against what they considered to be an attempt at censorship. 27
One concern of those opposed to the scheme is the potential for nonillegal Web sites
to be banned, a fear that has turned out not to be unfounded. In March 2009, ACMA
added pages from the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks to its blacklist of banned URLs
after the site published a secret Internet censorship list for Denmark. 28 In doing so,
Australia became one of only three countries in the world to censor the site—the other
two are China and the United Arab Emirates. In retaliation, a group of anonymous activists published ACMA’s confidential blacklist on Wikileaks. 29
Although New Zealand has not yet instituted a filtering scheme like that which Australia is working to implement, a vaguely worded page on the Department of Internal
Affairs’ (DIA) special censorship page entitled ‘‘Censorship and the Internet’’ states that
the department ‘‘takes a proactive role in prosecuting New Zealanders who trade
394
Australia and New Zealand Overview
been charged in connection with the assault. 18 School blocking of YouTube has faced
opposition, notably from Google executive Vint Cerf, who noted his belief that ‘‘many
young people have those skills that may be well beyond those of their parents and
their teachers and will find ways of accessing information.’’ 19
The Commonwealth is also implementing new Internet filtering initiatives. In June
2006, the Australian government announced an AUD 116.6 million initiative, ‘‘Protecting Australian Families Online.’’ The initiative included AUD 93.3 million to be
spent over three years to provide all families with free Web filters. The government
also announced that it would test an ISP-level blocking system in Tasmania. At the
time, Helen Coonan, the minister for communications, information technology, and
the arts, opposed implementing this system on a countrywide basis. 20
However, in December 2007, Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy
announced a strengthened ‘‘clean feed’’ policy, under which all Australian ISPs are
required to provide Internet filtering services that prevent child pornography and other
‘‘inappropriate’’ material from reaching schools and houses. 21 Those who link to
banned sites from their own sites will be fined AUD 11,000 per day. 22 Instead of opting
in to the program, as users did under the 2006 initiative, users who wish to see adult
material must opt out (there is no opt-out for illegal content). In conjunction with
the new policy, the ACMA released a set of updated regulations entitled the Restricted
Access System Declaration of 2007, 23 requiring content service providers to implement
age-verification systems on all Web sites containing mature or adult content. 24 As of
April 2009, ACMA was still conducting trials for ISP-level content filtering; eight ISPs
had agreed to participate. 25
The plan was initially kept under wraps. In October 2008, a policy advisor in Conroy’s office sent an e-mail to the Internet Industry Association (IIA) instructing the IIA
to inform ISPs that they must keep quiet about the country’s filtering scheme. 26 The
incident was widely reported by the Australian press, and several heads of ISPs spoke
out against what they considered to be an attempt at censorship. 27
One concern of those opposed to the scheme is the potential for nonillegal Web sites
to be banned, a fear that has turned out not to be unfounded. In March 2009, ACMA
added pages from the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks to its blacklist of banned URLs
after the site published a secret Internet censorship list for Denmark. 28 In doing so,
Australia became one of only three countries in the world to censor the site—the other
two are China and the United Arab Emirates. In retaliation, a group of anonymous activists published ACMA’s confidential blacklist on Wikileaks. 29
Although New Zealand has not yet instituted a filtering scheme like that which Australia is working to implement, a vaguely worded page on the Department of Internal
Affairs’ (DIA) special censorship page entitled ‘‘Censorship and the Internet’’ states that
the department ‘‘takes a proactive role in prosecuting New Zealanders who trade
394
Australia and New Zealand Overview