ACMA forces Whirlpool to remove link to banned anti-abortion web page
March 13, 2009 – 3:57 pmACMA has issued Whirlpool’s web host Bulletproof Networks with a notice to remove a link to this anti-abortion web page, blacklisted by the regulator in January. At risk of their host being hit with $11,000 fines per day, Whirlpool has complied.
This comes as Senator Stephen Conroy urged those opposed to the Government’s mandatory ISP filtering plan to have faith the right legislation will be passed, saying ‘There is no political content banned in the existing Broadcasting Services Act’. He described some of the opposition as ‘conspiracy theories’.
According to Australian IT:
On March 10, ACMA issued Sydney web hosting company Bulletproof Networks with an “interim link-deletion notice” for allowing its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, to post the link to an anti-abortion web page blacklisted by the regulator.
[...]
The interim notice, obtained by The Australian, stated that on February 19, ACMA received information that a Whirlpool forums page “may contain links to other websites that may contain ‘prohibited content’ or ‘potentially prohibited content’”.
[...]
“Bulletproof must comply with the interim link deletion notice as soon as practicable, and in any event by 6pm on the next business day,” the notice said.
[...]
ACMA said that the complainant had done nothing wrong in submitting the link for all and sundry to view.
“There is no prohibition on complainants publishing the outcome of their complaints, as has happened in this case,” an ACMA spokesman said then.
Today, ACMA said it was merely investigating a complaint it had received about the web page on Whirlpool’s website and took action against Bulletproof in accordance with the Broadcasting Services Act.
ACMA determined the anti-abortion page in question to be ‘prohibited or potential prohibited content’ after they received a complaint from Whirlpool user ‘xFOADx’. No investigation was done to determine if the photographs were real.
As the media authority is required to notify complainants about the outcome of their complaint, xFOADx published the findings on the Whirlpool forum. That letter (including the link) has now been removed as a result of the notice, but remains viewable here on STotC).
“Hopefully ACMA’s heavy-handed action will also demonstrate the futility of censoring a medium where web pages spring up by the thousands every second and information is copied at a furious pace.” EFA – Net censorship already having a chilling effect.
29 Responses to “ACMA forces Whirlpool to remove link to banned anti-abortion web page”
What a pack of complete idiots.
By Sam Clifford on Mar 13, 2009
Two words: Streisand effect
By Frank Filippone on Mar 13, 2009
I am so glad you are not hosted in Australia.
By John on Mar 13, 2009
Streisand effect indeed.
And ironic too — on the same day that news of ACMA’s actions against Whirlpool breaks, Conroy tells ATUG that the ALP’s scheme is not to crack down on political dissidence.
This is the SECOND time Conroy has been discredited like this with ACMA’s help.
By Eddie on Mar 13, 2009
‘potentially prohibited content’
The term “potentially” is even more dangerous than explicit censorship because the ISP or server host then has to actively monitor for content which may be borderline, close to borderline, might be interpreted as close to borderline, etc And when the lawyers get involved you can bet the ‘better to be safe than sorry’ policy will result in anything remotely likely to result in a complaint to ACMA from a single person will be censored.
By Carl on Mar 13, 2009
@carl: No monitoring is required. The ACMA can only declare that something is prohibited or potential prohibited content if it’s the subject of a complaint.
(note that ACMA staff can initiate their own complaints, just like any other citizen)
By Mark Newton on Mar 13, 2009
If you look here:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1161107#r4
Simon Wright, Whirlpool’s founder, quotes xFOADx’s deleted post, verbatim sans the offending link.
As I understand it, xFOADx chose a link at random, to complain to ACMA to test the waters.
Here’s where the post WAS that caused the ruckus:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1123716&p=35#r685
However, it can be accessed in full through the Google cache.
By Ryan on Mar 13, 2009
update from Senator Conroy (about the same time as the ACMA article)
Conroy requests faith in net filter scheme
By Brett Winterford
13 March 2009 03:27PM
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/98679,conroy-requests-faith-in-net-filter-scheme.aspx
“There is this argument out there that says – my God! We can’t let the Senate have a say on this!”
“The Government of Australia is elected,” he said. “If the parliament wants to take this path, the last time I checked, that’s ok.”
———————-
Conroy also reiterated that the Government has made clear which content is to be filtered and how.
It will attack RC [refused classification] content, he said, by the same rationale ACMA already classifies content under the existing Broadcasting Services Act for television, radio and print publications.
“There is no political content banned in the existing Broadcasting Services Act,” he said.
“We are not building the Great Wall of China. We are going after the filth – like child pornography. Its been done around the world and it can be done here.”
How it is done “will be guided by the outcome of the trials.”
——————
Bob
By Bob Bain on Mar 13, 2009
I am astonished about the mind blowing stupidity of this decision.
Each time they act against an Australian provider in this way, ACMA multiplies the Australians who will visit such a link by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude and in the process highlight the absurdities of trying to censor the Internet.
And it does precisely nothing against links on pages hosted offshore. So they either leave the offshore hosted links stand (if so, what’s the point of acting against local sites) or they multiply their stupidity a million-fold and start actively blocking sites like SToC and EFA with their censorwall.
ACMA couldn’t be _that_ stupid, could they?
jon.
By Jon Seymour on Mar 14, 2009
something tells me that THIS is going to be one of the MAJOR points in all upcoming debates.
By alphamone on Mar 14, 2009
Using Google image search for the term “aborted fetuses” with safe search off…
http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=18&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-au&um=1&q=aborted+fetuses&start=0&sa=N
returns over 84 thousand images…
ACMA and Conroy have a LOT of work ahead of them.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Mar 14, 2009
meh if this was any other website I’d be more than concerned, but it’s Whirlpool so they’ll get no sympathy from me, considering the ridiculous amount of moderation/censorship that goes on there it’s a bit hypocritical for them and their users to be complaining about this.
I’m pro choice but I don’t think anti-abortion sites should be censored, prohibiting linking to such a site is even more ridiculous, rules are rules though and Whirlpool seems to like breaking them to prove a point all while expecting everyone to respect theirs.
By batman on Mar 14, 2009
@batman “Whirlpool seems to like breaking them to prove a point all while expecting everyone to respect theirs”
AFAIK Whirlpool is an “Broadband Discussion Forum”
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/
..with stated rules
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/rules/
..about a quarter of a million registered users and over 18 million posts expressing personal opinions regarding a multitude of issues reating to Broadband.
When told that a link to an anti-abortion site – presumably placed there by one of several thousand Whirlpool forum members was prohibitec content or potential prohibited content it was removed.
Again AFAIK Whirlpool is not a political party nor a branch of either the EFF, the EFA or any other organisation.
Whirlpool is a forum – a place where people can express viewpoints. As far as I know Whirlpool doesn’t have a “point to make”. From what I can tell it is a forum operating in a democratic society where a variety of views and opinions are aired and discussed.
BTW: The ownership and possession of images including RC images and films (including images and films involving aborted fetuses) is NOT illgal in most states of Australia. It is most certainly not illegal here in New South Wales.
You might like to check out the links to the videos on YouTube related to the subject of aborted fetuses(Rosary Films I believe) pointed to from the Home Page of the prohibited webpage and consider if these videos would fall fould of ACMA rules and be subject to a takedown notice.
The YouTube site contains links to a Roman Catholic website on Ebay where it’s possible to purhase Roman Catholic literature. In the Republic of Ireland recently there was controversy from Roman Catholics when a similar website was banned.
See my LiveJournal entry
http://bobbain.livejournal.com/292444.html
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland
http://www.bci.ie/news_information/press207.html
“Over the course of the past fortnight, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) has given detailed consideration to a number of scripts proposed by representatives for the organisation Veritas as part of a Christmas advertising campaign. As part of this process, the Commission has had regard to existing legislation and regulation; specifically Section 65 of the Broadcasting Act, 2001 and Section 9 of the BCI General Advertising Code. The Commission also had regard to a decision of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in September 2008, upholding a complaint against a Veritas advertisement which was broadcast.”
“The BCI deemed the lines “Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something?”; “Why not give a gift that means more?”; and “So to give a gift that means more” ”offend the legislation”. It also found that asking people to visit the website http://www.veritas.ie was unacceptable”.
————-
As far as I can tell the Republic of Ireland abolished censorship a few years ago…
… but again they do have rules.
I am certain that http://www.veritas.ie is a perfectly acceptable link under Australia legislation.
Warning ** the following YouTube site contains videos relating to anti-abortion material which could include images of aborted fetuses
http://www.youtube.com/rosaryfilms
and points to http://www.secret-roses.com/
This site points to a Catholic EBay site where they are selling material somewhat similar to the Veritas site in the Republic of Ireland.
Thanks for your attention.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Mar 14, 2009
Well Bob sure makes a fine job of missing the point of my post, I’m sure he’d fit right in at Whirlpool:
“Whirlpool is a forum – a place where people can express viewpoints.”
Bzzzzzzz wrong, Whirlpool is not a place where people can express viewpoints, I visit many forums on the internet where people can express viewpoints Whirlpool isn’t one of them unless your post fits the criteria which can be changed on whim by a mod that happens to view it at any random time. These are the sort of people that would be perfect for maintaining the filter when it is eventually in place, these are the sort of people that will have their “finger on the trigger” Then when you wonder why you cant view a web page because it contains a word that rhymes like a swear word, when you wonder why you cant donate money to a charity, when you wonder why you’re having so much trouble bidding on ebay, this will be why, wonder no more.
Seriously, if you ever want to know what the great internet filter will be like, just head on over to Whirlpool and spend a week or so on the forum, it is a PERFECT simulation.
By batman on Mar 14, 2009
Wow batman, forums are moderated! Who would have thunk it? If you can’t follow the rules, then don’t post there.
By Matthew on Mar 15, 2009
“Whirlpool is not a place where people can express viewpoints, I visit many forums on the internet where people can express viewpoints Whirlpool isn’t one of them unless your post fits the criteria which can be changed on whim by a mod that happens to view it at any random time.”
Whether or not Whirlpool is a good forum or a liberal forum is irrelevant. It is a private forum and they can censor or molest the posts as they see fit. Comparing this to government censorship is disingenuous.
By james on Mar 16, 2009
Please note that as indicated on the Sky News item recently posted to the nocensorshipaus channel the prohibited website is reported as being listed on the ACMA Wikipedia page at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority
Seeming listed under External Links – Prohibited Website.
YouTube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsXRPipPZAs
From the news video posted two weeks ago..
=================
“An ACMA spokesman confirmed the contents of its letter and said the complainant was not barred from publicising the banned web page. “There is no prohibition on complainants publishing the outcome of their complaints, as has happened in this case,” the spokesman said.”
Source The Australian on-line…
Bob
By Bob Bain on Mar 17, 2009
Why won’t Con(job)roy, ACMA, and that DILL Atkinson learn? Aren’t they LISTENING?
Out of touch & out of line.
Euthanase them!
By MAX on Mar 19, 2009
By the way, i’ve been a Labor voter for over 30 years, but no more.
I will NEVER vote Labor again because of this.
By MAX on Mar 19, 2009
Hey, Batman:-)
Yahoo is no better.
IMNSHO
By MAX on Mar 19, 2009