ACMA issues EFA with Link Deletion Notice
May 5, 2009 – 5:24 pmACMA has issued EFA’s webhost a Link 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 year.
EFA writes:
‘To be clear, EFA published only a link to a page that is hosted overseas and is on ACMA’s prohibited list. Viewing the potentially R-rated page itself is not in any way illegal, and no system is yet in place to enforce the blocking of such web pages. One may well wonder why a link to a legally viewable page should draw the threat of legal sanction while the content itself remains visible. Because the link was on a web page hosted in Australia, the hosting provider – not EFA ourselves, who have more control over the content – falls under Australian legal jurisdiction and could be so served. What this accomplishes is uncertain.’
EFA has complied with the notice and have removed the link to AbortionTV in this post.
They add:
‘This is a textbook case that demonstrates that there is no sharp dividing line between “political” speech and other content. At the edges of public policy are issues which will inflame passions and lead to images, video and words that are offensive to many people. Trying to stamp these out, especially on the Internet, not only diminishes our democracy but is pointless and paternalistic to boot.
You probably remember that Whirlpool.net.au was also issued with a Link Deletion Notice in March after a forum user linked to the same webpage. Because STOTC is hosted in the United States, I will continue to link to the page in my original post.
14 Responses to “ACMA issues EFA with Link Deletion Notice”
hey your back mate, nice to hear from you again
By Jarrod on May 5, 2009
2 weeks of downtime feels like years. Good to be back but a lot of posting to do and still too busy!
By Mike on May 5, 2009
Geordie Guy mentioned this at the Sydney “Tangled Web” forum this evening held at the NSW Parliament House Theatrette. Also present were David Vaile of the UNSW Cyberlaw Centre, Fionna Patten of the Australian Sex Party and Kerry Graham of the Inspire Foundation.
Bob
By Bob Bain on May 5, 2009
As noted on 5th April in the nocensorship mailing list…
Interestingly at least two of the URLs on one of the leaked blacklists consists of an IP address followed by ROT13 encoded text.
I’ll assume this is how those who may have originally published the URL (assuming it’s prohibited content) may have distributed it.
I believe it’s legal to examine the lists without visiting the sites) and analyse them. I tried ROT13 on every URL on one of the lists (takes two seconds) and lo and behold up popped meaningful words rather than what appears to be garbage.
ROT13 is a very simple cypher. I would imagine URLs that aren’t caught by ACMA could well be enccypted with a much stronger encryption technique than ROT13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rot13
It was frequently used on Bulletin Boards..
Shpx bss naq qvr !
or
SBNQ (abbreviation) … a nickname used on the Whirlpool forum
Bob
By Bob Bain on May 6, 2009
Is there anything to be read into the fact that the two public take down notices were both to websites that were critical of the government?
By Arved von Brasch on May 6, 2009
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/302161/watchdog_threatens_online_rights_group_11k_fine
Watchdog threatens online rights group with $11k fine EFA forced to remove blacklist link
EFA board member and Labor party member Colin Jacobs said the redress should alarm Internet users because it was part of a political discussion about online censorship.
“The link was offered as a demonstration of the sorts of controversial content that could and would be included in any such proposal. No “offensive” material was included on our site itself,” Jacobs said on the EFA Web site.
“This system, which costs Australian taxpayers millions each year, is clearly unworkable. Because the content is hosted overseas, it remains untouched by ACMA’s directives.
“With fines of up to $11,000 per day threatened against our hosting provider, we have little choice but to comply with ACMA’s directive,” he said.
By Bob Bain on May 6, 2009
They should probably consider international hosting, I have strong doubts this’ll be the last time ACMA gives them trouble for their ‘radical’ views on censorship.
By Pharaoh on May 6, 2009
But you see ACMA is only doing their job based on legislation. They’re not actually giving them a hard time on purpose, nor are they out to censor political content. The problem lies in the fact those who write such laws aren’t thinking of the unintended consequences of those laws. So Senator Conroy possibly honestly believes that the laws weren’t intended to censor political content, but he doesn’t seem to get due to the nature of the legislation they actually do end up censoring political content. Both the government (current and the one circa 1999) have dug a giant hole for themselves here and it’s certainly bit Conroy on the arse a number of times in the last six months.
By Matthew on May 6, 2009
Would be interesting to know what would happen if someone placed the actual url on a T-Shirt, mugs, other paraphernalia etc and handed them out at the Official Opening Ceremony for CeBIT Australia (8:00am 07-MAY-09) at Darling Harbour
Where none other than The Minister for Sillyness Himself “Sen Conroy” [The Real One
] and The Premier of the Silly Law State “Nathan Rees” are special Guests.
Wonder what they would do? Especially since it is NOT illegal to have the texts on anything that IS NOT a web site. Also any photos of the T-Shirts etc showing the url in plain view Would also be exempt if placed on Any Australian Website.
Just a thought
By G Thompson on May 6, 2009
Ooops make that 12 May 2009 for Opening Ceremony at CeBIT.
The 7th is the RSVP date for attending the breakfast at the Darling harbour Parkside Ballroom A.
By G Thompson on May 6, 2009
http://jjj.nobegvbagi.pbz/Cvpf/NobegvbaCvpgherf6.ugz
is NOT a prohibited URL !
Bob
By Bob Bain on May 6, 2009
“Would be interesting to know what would happen if someone placed the actual url on a T-Shirt, mugs, other paraphernalia etc and handed them out at the Official Opening Ceremony for CeBIT Australia (8:00am 07-MAY-09) at Darling Harbour.”
If you had copyright in the material and burnt it to CD or DVD then as it appears the material is R18+ material then in the State of New South Wales you could legally sell the DVD or CD and people could purchase and own it legally.
It’s only illegal to point to the URL and I doubt if a ROT13 “encrypted” version violates the Act.
There may be a ROT13 encrypted version of the URL on a website somewhere, someplace !!
Bob
By Bob Bain on May 6, 2009
This is the main reason why I hate ACMA. They have been pricks ever since the organization was formed.
By Glenn on May 8, 2009
The issue is documented in the “No Censorship” forum at:-
http://www.ausbdsm.org/nocensorship/viewtopic.php?t=69
Admin (who originated the post) makes the point:-
“This is a typical example of how the internet will be under the proposed net filters. It is not illegal for pro life organisations to produce these images in their pamphlets and shove them into the faces of distressed women who are seeking abortions, but it is illegal for the same images to be seen on the internet by all Australians.”
I believe the site is hosted overseas. It’s not clear to me which ISP hosts the No Censorship forum. It isn’t clear to me what happens if a URL is converted into a “tiny URL” and whether tiny URL’s are also blacklisted. If people started talking about this issue using Twitter using tiny URLs how would conversations invoving the issue be removed from Twitter at the behest of an agency of the Australian government ?
Bob
By Bob Bain on May 10, 2009