ACMA declares anti-abortion site ‘prohibited content’

January 21, 2009 – 9:22 pm

Update – 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.au

Complaint 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.

Subscribe to RSS FEEDStay up to date with censorship issues affecting Australia by subscribing to my RSS feed. Click here.

You can also be notified of updates by email. Simply enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  1. 28 Responses to “ACMA declares anti-abortion site ‘prohibited content’”

  2. Absolutely remarkable isn’t it.

    It would appear the slippery slope started early on this one.

    By Websinthe on Jan 22, 2009

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. “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

  7. Ah, thanks for the clarification.

    By HTA on Jan 23, 2009

  8. Well, I mean, those pictures aren’t even “real” anyway so.

    By AileenWuornos on Jan 24, 2009

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. @Dave

    Yes, The BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 – SCHEDULE 5

    By Mike on Mar 19, 2009

  12. 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

  13. 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

  1. 16 Trackback(s)

  2. Jan 22, 2009: Anti-abortion website blacklisted by ACMA! « Philosophy Hurts Your Head
  3. Jan 27, 2009: Jim Wallace wants you to believe filtering will work - Somebody Think Of The Children
  4. Feb 17, 2009: Senator Conroy keeps telling the same old story: It’s not about free speech - Somebody Think Of The Children
  5. Mar 13, 2009: ACMA demand Whirlpool remove link to banned anti-abortion web page - Somebody Think Of The Children
  6. Mar 13, 2009: ACMA: Linking to blacklisted sites will cost you $11,000 a day. | OzSoapbox
  7. Mar 16, 2009: ACMA blacklists Wikileaks page - Somebody Think Of The Children
  8. Mar 18, 2009: Internetzensur: Blick in die Zukunft | 44,9 Grad
  9. Mar 18, 2009: Wheeee, down the slippery slope! « Internet Scofflaw
  10. Mar 18, 2009: Internetwaakhond dreigt met boete voor plaatsing link | ZIFP
  11. Mar 20, 2009: New ACMA blacklist leaked: 1170 URLs dated March 18 - Somebody Think Of The Children
  12. Mar 26, 2009: Conroy wrong again: Says ACMA blacklist hasn’t been updated, RC illegal - Somebody Think Of The Children
  13. Apr 3, 2009: Five things I learned from the Insight episode on filtering - Somebody Think Of The Children
  14. Apr 26, 2009: Somebody Think of the Children’s latest « Censorship in Australia
  15. May 5, 2009: ACMA issues EFA with Link Deletion Notice - Somebody Think Of The Children
  16. May 10, 2009: Aussie censors block links to links!-The Register « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand
  17. Jun 2, 2009: Mandatory filter will block RC - Somebody Think Of The Children

Post a Comment