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.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.
35 comments
Websinthe says:
Jan 22, 2009
Absolutely remarkable isn’t it.
It would appear the slippery slope started early on this one.
Sam D says:
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?
Anti-abortion website blacklisted by ACMA! « Philosophy Hurts Your Head says:
Jan 22, 2009
[...] by Sam D on January 22, 2009 As reported on Whirlpool and Somebody Think of the Children, ACMA has apparently declared an antie-abortion website to be unsuitable for adults after a [...]
HTA says:
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.
Mike says:
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.
Mark Newton says:
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
HTA says:
Jan 23, 2009
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
AileenWuornos says:
Jan 24, 2009
Well, I mean, those pictures aren’t even “real” anyway so.
Jim Wallace wants you to believe filtering will work - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Jan 27, 2009
[...] political and religious comment will be censored as ridiculous, but only last week ACMA added an anti-abortion website to their prohibited content blacklist. In 2008, Senator Conroy told Sky News you can’t opt in or out of prohibited material (via [...]
Senator Conroy keeps telling the same old story: It’s not about free speech - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Feb 17, 2009
[...] last month ACMA declared an anti-abortion website to be prohibited content, the type of content Senator Conroy intends to prohibit Australian adults from [...]
ACMA demand Whirlpool remove link to banned anti-abortion web page - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Mar 13, 2009
[...] host, Bulletproof Networks, with a notice to remove a link to an anti-abortion web page that was blacklisted by the regulator in January. At risk of their host being hit with $11,000 fines per day, Whirlpool has [...]
JAB_au says:
Mar 13, 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
ACMA: Linking to blacklisted sites will cost you $11,000 a day. | OzSoapbox says:
Mar 13, 2009
[...] all started back in January when Whirlpool forum user Matthew Law (xFOADx) submitted a complaint to ACMA citing the [...]
ACMA blacklists Wikileaks page - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Mar 16, 2009
[...] the anti-abortion page recently blacklisted by ACMA, this page was also submitted to the media authority for investigation [...]
Internetzensur: Blick in die Zukunft | 44,9 Grad says:
Mar 18, 2009
[...] Fenster, das einen auffordert die Seite zu verlassen, wenn man unter 12 Jahre ist. Auch ein australisches Forum, in dem der Link zu finden war, wurde unter Androhung von hohen Geldbußen dazu aufgefordert einen [...]
Wheeee, down the slippery slope! « Internet Scofflaw says:
Mar 18, 2009
[...] happening now. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has blacklisted an anti-abortion web site that shows gruesome pictures of aborted babies. That’s not even [...]
Internetwaakhond dreigt met boete voor plaatsing link | ZIFP says:
Mar 18, 2009
[...] toen een Australische internetgebruiker op 5 januari een anti-arbotus website als aanstootgevend opgafbij de ACMA. Twee weken later reageerde de ACMA hierop. Ze waren het eens met de klacht en hadden [...]
dave says:
Mar 19, 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.
Mike says:
Mar 19, 2009
@Dave
Yes, The BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 – SCHEDULE 5
New ACMA blacklist leaked: 1170 URLs dated March 18 - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Mar 20, 2009
[...] Breaking News: WikiLeaks.org has released a version of what is alleged to be the current ACMA blacklist. This list is dated March 18 and includes 1170 URLs, including the now high-profile AbortionTV page. [...]
Conroy wrong again: Says ACMA blacklist hasn’t been updated, RC illegal - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Mar 26, 2009
[...] is included under the March 2009 site additions. Furthermore, ACMA also included a now famous anti-abortion website on their list in January. It is general knowledge that ACMA is still operating and adding websites to a [...]
Patrick says:
Apr 1, 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
Five things I learned from the Insight episode on filtering - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Apr 3, 2009
[...] category that includes adult pornography containing fetishes like spanking… oh, and that anti-abortion web page we shouldn’t see. Refused Classification is a broad category of classified and unclassified content that when [...]
Somebody Think of the Children’s latest « Censorship in Australia says:
Apr 26, 2009
[...] I found an article on ACMA declaring an anti-abortion website prohibited. I figured as none of us have said much about it I would mention it today. It [...]
ACMA issues EFA with Link Deletion Notice - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
May 5, 2009
[...] Deletion Notice because of an article EFA published on their own website containing a link to an anti-abortion webpage declared prohibited content by the media regulator in January this [...]
lawtears says:
May 7, 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
Aussie censors block links to links!-The Register « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand says:
May 10, 2009
[...] in January of this year, ACMA wrote back to a complainant: “ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, [...]
Mandatory filter will block RC - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Jun 2, 2009
[...] containing fetishes, euthanasia instruction material like The Peaceful Pill Handbook and of course anti-abortion material. It’s also legal to possess and view in Australia (with the exception of Western Australia [...]
Ryan says:
Feb 6, 2010
ACMA reacting like a child that knows they’ve done something naughty.
It’s a top secret list? Everyone knows what ACMA deems inappropriate. I have a feeling this is no longer about children’s safety.
Emily Jones says:
May 26, 2010
I am always against abortion because it is a sin to kill an innocent child.”:
Thought Criminal says:
Jul 22, 2010
Labor has put the internet censorship issue on the back burner till after the election. No public debate. If they win they declare a mandate to restrict what you see and what you can think. Pedophiles can be handled easily by existing legislation. As can terrorists. Theres no need to restrict the rights of average citizens to think for themselves. In the end they will include political sites and there wont be anything we can do about it. I think of particular issue to government is restricting anti war information. The internet has ended the days of the media as government monopoly for propagandising the people and they want those days back. I want my country to be free. To allow open discussion of ideas not some police state where im criminalised for daring to think for myself and examining both sides of a political issue.
These days even writing this response is likely to bring you under government security attention
Metal Halide Lamp says:
Dec 4, 2010
what i can say is that abortion is a sin and it should be deemed illegal by all means ‘.;
The internet as an instrument of control says:
Dec 7, 2010
[...] UK became controversial and the government backed down, but small sites do not have the same clout. The Australian government has added a pro-life website to its black list, we do not even know what is banned in most countries because the lists of banned sites are a [...]
humpty says:
Aug 23, 2011
ACMA were only doing their job.
They have no interest in the ’cause’ of the content.
Obviously this site believes the pics are justified.
Oh, It’s all too convenient to bend the rules when you have a cause.
Abner says:
Sep 8, 2011
I stumbled upon your blog, i believe your blog is awsome, keep writing.