objectionable material via the Internet. If a publication is categorised as ‘objectionable’
it is automatically banned by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1993.’’ 30 Electronic Frontiers Australia has stated that this act likely covers Internet
materials as well. 31 Under the act, any material that ‘‘describes, depicts, expresses, or
otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a
manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public
good’’ is considered objectionable and is illegal to distribute or possess. 32 Specifically,
any material that promotes or supports ‘‘the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or the use of violence or coercion to compel any
person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or sexual conduct with or upon
the body of a dead person; or the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanizing conduct or sexual conduct; or Bestiality; or acts of torture or the
infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty’’ is banned. 33 There is also a decision
procedure described in the act for any content that might be objectionable but does not
fall within this specific list, including discriminatory and hateful material. 34 This law
has formed the basis of the DIA’s enforcement of Internet censorship in the country.
Like Australia’s ACMA, the DIA ‘‘proactively’’ investigates potentially banned material 35 and submits any such material not already classified to the Office of Film and
Literature Classification for a ruling. 36 This office then classifies the material as ‘‘unrestricted’’ or ‘‘objectionable,’’ except in certain circumstances of restricted access or
for ‘‘educational, professional, scientific, literary, artistic, or technical purposes.’’ 37
There is, however, no explicit legal mechanism for the takedown of objectionable material. Instead, the nonprofit InternetNZ is in the process of establishing an
industry-wide code of conduct that would require its signatories to agree not to host
illegal content. 38 As a result, the government focuses its efforts on prosecuting the distributors or possessors. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Amendment
Act 2005 sets the penalty for distributing objectionable material at a maximum of ten
years in prison (up from a maximum of one year) and for knowingly possessing objectionable materials at a maximum of five years in prison or a NZD 50,000 fine. 39 According to various sources, the DIA has almost completely focused its enforcement of
Internet censorship on child pornography. 40
Hate Speech
Both Australia and New Zealand have legislation addressing hate speech generally, and
both have applied this legislation to the Internet through different means. New Zealand, however, has an institutionalized investigation system, while Australia does not.
Australia addresses hate speech through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which
makes it ‘‘unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is
reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
Australia and New Zealand Overview
395
it is automatically banned by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1993.’’ 30 Electronic Frontiers Australia has stated that this act likely covers Internet
materials as well. 31 Under the act, any material that ‘‘describes, depicts, expresses, or
otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a
manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public
good’’ is considered objectionable and is illegal to distribute or possess. 32 Specifically,
any material that promotes or supports ‘‘the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or the use of violence or coercion to compel any
person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or sexual conduct with or upon
the body of a dead person; or the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanizing conduct or sexual conduct; or Bestiality; or acts of torture or the
infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty’’ is banned. 33 There is also a decision
procedure described in the act for any content that might be objectionable but does not
fall within this specific list, including discriminatory and hateful material. 34 This law
has formed the basis of the DIA’s enforcement of Internet censorship in the country.
Like Australia’s ACMA, the DIA ‘‘proactively’’ investigates potentially banned material 35 and submits any such material not already classified to the Office of Film and
Literature Classification for a ruling. 36 This office then classifies the material as ‘‘unrestricted’’ or ‘‘objectionable,’’ except in certain circumstances of restricted access or
for ‘‘educational, professional, scientific, literary, artistic, or technical purposes.’’ 37
There is, however, no explicit legal mechanism for the takedown of objectionable material. Instead, the nonprofit InternetNZ is in the process of establishing an
industry-wide code of conduct that would require its signatories to agree not to host
illegal content. 38 As a result, the government focuses its efforts on prosecuting the distributors or possessors. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Amendment
Act 2005 sets the penalty for distributing objectionable material at a maximum of ten
years in prison (up from a maximum of one year) and for knowingly possessing objectionable materials at a maximum of five years in prison or a NZD 50,000 fine. 39 According to various sources, the DIA has almost completely focused its enforcement of
Internet censorship on child pornography. 40
Hate Speech
Both Australia and New Zealand have legislation addressing hate speech generally, and
both have applied this legislation to the Internet through different means. New Zealand, however, has an institutionalized investigation system, while Australia does not.
Australia addresses hate speech through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which
makes it ‘‘unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: the act is
reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
Australia and New Zealand Overview
395