dedicated to protecting online freedoms, reports
that at least one site taken down has moved to
the United States, even keeping its URL and
“.au” domain. It is not known how many sites
have moved overseas in this fashion. 12
States and territories have instituted a variety of laws that criminalize the downloading of
illegal content and the distribution of content that
is “objectionable” or “unsuitable for minors.” 13
The state of Victoria, for example, in §57 of its
Classification (Publication, Films and Computer
Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, makes it illegal
to “use an on-line information service to publish
or transmit, or make available for transmission,
objectionable material.” 14 There is not complete
uniformity between the states, however. In
Western Australia, for example, it is not illegal to
distribute R18 and X18 to adults online (though
the ACMA can still issue takedown notices), but
the possession of any RC content (not just
child pornography as is the case in other states)
is illegal. 15
Beyond its regulation of online content, the
Commonwealth is implementing new Internet
filtering initiatives. In June 2006 the Australian
government announced an AU$116.6 million
initiative called “Protecting Australian Families
Online.” Of this, AU$93.3 million will be spent
over three years to provide all families with free
Web filters, though they will still be optional.
Further, the National Library of Australia is now
required to use Web filters on all of its computers.
All other libraries are to be provided with free
Web filters and encouraged to use them on their
computers as well. 16 Finally, perhaps in a nod to
elements of the government—especially members of the Labor Party—pushing for a system
like Cleanfeed in the United Kingdom, the
government will be testing an ISP-level blocking
system in Tasmania. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
Helen Coonan, however, remains opposed to
implementing this system on a countrywide
basis. 17
In a related development, all mainland
states in Australia recently banned access to
YouTube over school networks because of a
video uploaded depicting a seventeen-year-old
Australian girl being abused, beaten up, and
humiliated by a group of young people. Eight
youths have been charged in connection with the
assault. 18 The blocking has continued to worsen
rifts between state schools and some nonstate
schools, such as Melbourne Grammar School,
which have chosen to protect free speech and
allow unfiltered access to the Internet. 19
New Zealand, on the other hand, does not
have any government legislation directly regulating Internet content. 20 Officials have claimed,
however, that the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classification Act of 1993, which defines “objectionable” material, covers Internet materials as
well. 21 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. 22 Specifically
listed is 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 dehumanising conduct or sexual
conduct; or bestiality; or acts of torture or the
infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.” 23
There is also a decision-making 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. 24 This law has formed the basis of the
Department of Internal Affairs’ (DIA) enforcement
of Internet censorship in the country.
Like Australia’s ACMA, the DIA “proactively”
investigates potentially banned material 25 and
168
Regional Overviews
that at least one site taken down has moved to
the United States, even keeping its URL and
“.au” domain. It is not known how many sites
have moved overseas in this fashion. 12
States and territories have instituted a variety of laws that criminalize the downloading of
illegal content and the distribution of content that
is “objectionable” or “unsuitable for minors.” 13
The state of Victoria, for example, in §57 of its
Classification (Publication, Films and Computer
Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, makes it illegal
to “use an on-line information service to publish
or transmit, or make available for transmission,
objectionable material.” 14 There is not complete
uniformity between the states, however. In
Western Australia, for example, it is not illegal to
distribute R18 and X18 to adults online (though
the ACMA can still issue takedown notices), but
the possession of any RC content (not just
child pornography as is the case in other states)
is illegal. 15
Beyond its regulation of online content, the
Commonwealth is implementing new Internet
filtering initiatives. In June 2006 the Australian
government announced an AU$116.6 million
initiative called “Protecting Australian Families
Online.” Of this, AU$93.3 million will be spent
over three years to provide all families with free
Web filters, though they will still be optional.
Further, the National Library of Australia is now
required to use Web filters on all of its computers.
All other libraries are to be provided with free
Web filters and encouraged to use them on their
computers as well. 16 Finally, perhaps in a nod to
elements of the government—especially members of the Labor Party—pushing for a system
like Cleanfeed in the United Kingdom, the
government will be testing an ISP-level blocking
system in Tasmania. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
Helen Coonan, however, remains opposed to
implementing this system on a countrywide
basis. 17
In a related development, all mainland
states in Australia recently banned access to
YouTube over school networks because of a
video uploaded depicting a seventeen-year-old
Australian girl being abused, beaten up, and
humiliated by a group of young people. Eight
youths have been charged in connection with the
assault. 18 The blocking has continued to worsen
rifts between state schools and some nonstate
schools, such as Melbourne Grammar School,
which have chosen to protect free speech and
allow unfiltered access to the Internet. 19
New Zealand, on the other hand, does not
have any government legislation directly regulating Internet content. 20 Officials have claimed,
however, that the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classification Act of 1993, which defines “objectionable” material, covers Internet materials as
well. 21 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. 22 Specifically
listed is 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 dehumanising conduct or sexual
conduct; or bestiality; or acts of torture or the
infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.” 23
There is also a decision-making 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. 24 This law has formed the basis of the
Department of Internal Affairs’ (DIA) enforcement
of Internet censorship in the country.
Like Australia’s ACMA, the DIA “proactively”
investigates potentially banned material 25 and
168
Regional Overviews