ACMA declares anti-abortion site ‘prohibited content’
January 21, 2009 – 9:22 pmUpdate – Friday 13 March, 2009: ACMA forces Whirlpool to remove link to banned anti-abortion web page.
In response to a complaint about an anti-abortion web page showing photographs of what appears to be aborted fetuses, ACMA has declared the page ‘prohibited or potential prohibited content’. The Whirlpool member who made the complaint, presumably to gauge ACMA’s response to such content, has published the department’s email:
Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100
From: online@acma.gov.auComplaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm
Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.
The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.
Information about ACMA’s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMA’s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline
Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMA’s attention.
28 Responses to “ACMA declares anti-abortion site ‘prohibited content’”
Absolutely remarkable isn’t it.
It would appear the slippery slope started early on this one.
By Websinthe on Jan 22, 2009
I think there will be plenty of opportunity to gauge ACMA’s response to other kinds of content. But as a defender of free speech, I’d feel like a hypocrite if I got something blacklisted for the sake of research. It is tempting though.
Imagine the tit-for-tat (no pun intended) that could result if this becomes more commonplace?
One good thing about this is that we now have a site that we know is on the blacklist (don’t we?), so as soon as it disappears, we know we are being filtered. Then, if we are filtered we can test our circumvention teks without fear of stumbling upon something that is actually illegal.
Wait a second, isn’t this all supposed to be secret?
By Sam D on Jan 22, 2009
The word “potentially” prohibited implied that the site still had to go through some further screening… but it’s fairly vague.
It does sound like they’ve already jusged it and deemed it inappropriate, but the wording could be interpreted that they have simply decided to consider it for the blacklist.
Just a thought.
By HTA on Jan 22, 2009
ACMA uses potential prohibited because it has not sent it to the Classification Board for review. It believes the ACB would determine it to be Prohibited should they review it. Therefore, ACMA says it is Prohibited or potential prohibited.
By Mike on Jan 22, 2009
“Potentially Prohibited Content” is defined in Schedule 7 section 21 of the Broadcasting Services Act.
For content hosted overseas, the ACMA has two ways of banning it: They can either send it off to the Classification Board and use the results to determine its status (section 20 – “Prohibited Content”), or they can take a guess about what the classification board would say if they were asked (section 21 – “Potential Prohibited Content”).
For overseas content, the treatment of “prohibited” and “potential prohibited” is identical under the law, with the one exception being that decisions of the Classification Board delivered under section 20 can theoretically be appealed to the Classification Review Board, something that isn’t possible under section 21.
There’s no requirement at all for ACMA to submit overseas content to the Classification Board. They do the whole thing in-house.
– mark
By Mark Newton on Jan 22, 2009
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
By HTA on Jan 23, 2009
Well, I mean, those pictures aren’t even “real” anyway so.
By AileenWuornos on Jan 24, 2009
LoL aparently ACMA have had a shot at Whirlpool because someone posted about it on the forum.
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25181408-15306,00.html
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1161107
By JAB_au on Mar 13, 2009
Has any legislation even been passed giving the ACMA the authority to do this? It seems to me they might be overstepping their authority.
By dave on Mar 19, 2009
@Dave
Yes, The BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 – SCHEDULE 5
By Mike on Mar 19, 2009
Great isnt it we can see dead and blasted to peices bits of bodies everydat on some real news casts but we cant see our own so its not only sex is it Mr faceless its whatr you think is bad and just what makes you the best judge of what I should see Dam little beauracrats should all join the army and go and see the real world of death and destruction bits of bodies get scattered in your name every day you dickheads should be made to look at and pick them up then see if you wish to censor everyone else you pricks
By Patrick on Apr 1, 2009
Good luck. Everyone in Britain with a brain (all 10 of us) is thinking of you. We’re sick of internet stupidity from politicians and we’re not even threatened by the ‘wall yet.
Again, good luck. “We’re all counting on you”
Lawtears
By lawtears on May 7, 2009