Inadvertently exposed: the ALP’s obsession with universal censorship
December 23, 2009 – 7:57 amby Jon Seymour
When you are a Government of a Western nation about to introduce a mandatory censorship regime unlike anything in the else in the Western world it is a good idea to try to play up comparisons with social democracies like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland and our Commonwealth cousins the UK and Canada. It is also good to downplay comparisons with authoritarian regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia or China.
So, naturally enough the Government’s FAQ about their current filtering policy attempts to do this by asking the rhetorical question: “How does Australia’s approach compare with other western democracies?”
It’s a good question, but sadly for the Government the answer only serves to emphasise what is so wrong about the Government’s proposal. In all the countries listed, not one has a mandatory filtering scheme. In all the countries listed, not one attempts to filter anything other than strictly illegal child abuse material.
Just as revealing is the list they did not enumerate – the list of 30 or so Western democracies which, like Australia, do not presently have any filtering regime.
And, of course, it is no surprise to learn that the Government does not list the countries that do have mandatory filtering regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.
Comparing Australia’s proposed policy with other Western democracies actually highlights how draconian this policy is. Why is it that Australia is the only Western demoncracy to propose a mandatory filter? Why is it that the scope of Australia’s filter is so uniquely broad that it will include material that is actually legal to own and view?
Part of the problem is that Australia is trying to do with ‘taste’ police, what other countries do with real police. Other countries treat child abuse as what it is: a horrific crime against children. Australia is trying to deal with the problem of child abuse by dealing with it as a content classification problem. The Government would have us believe that it can do something meaningful about the problem of child abuse by devoting more effort to content classification and then ensuring that content classification decisions are riguourously enforced at our digital borders (e.g. on the other side of the pipes into your living room).
Or, at least, it used to believe this. It is clear that the Government now understands that a mandatory filter can’t contribute to fighting child abuse because it now states that the purpose of the mandatory ISP-level filter is merely to “reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure” to Refused Classification material. It readily admits that a technically competent user with the motivation to do so can circumvent a mandatory filter.
However, even this more modest aim is still far more draconian than those of other Western democracies that have some kind of filtering policy. These countries seek only to minimize inadvertent exposure to illegal child sexual abuse material which is a far more restricted category of material than that which is rated Refused Classification by the Australian National Classification Code.
Consider this: in 2003 Margaret Pomeranz, the ABC’s film reviewer, attempted to give the Refused Classification film “Ken Park” a screening before a crowd in Balmain, Sydney. Police physically intervened to prevent her breaking the law. Yet it is exactly material of this kind that will be subject to Conroy’s censorwall. Is Stephen Conroy prepared to call Margaret Pomeranz, a purveyor of “the worst of the worst” kind of internet filth? Or is she instead a decent person who strongly believes the National Classification Board made an error when it gave “Ken Park” an RC rating?
The ALP’s policy on ISP-level filtering has changed on numerous occasions since it was first drafted in 2006. At that time the policy was about mandating that ISPs offer a cleanfeed to families that wanted it. In December 2007, it was about mandating that ISP’s impose a cleanfeed that people could opt out of. In 2008, the policy changed again and opt-out ceased to be an option.
All along we were told that a mandatory filter was necessary to prevent Australians who seek child pornopgraphy from viewing it.
The Government has since learnt that a filter will be utterly ineffective for that task, primarily because most child pornography is traded on networks that are invisible to an HTTP-based filter. It now, at least, readily admits that the filter can be technically circumvented with ease. So, in recognition of these cold hard facts, the Government now insists that the mandatory filter is no longer about preventing criminal access to illegal material. It is now merely about preventing inadvertent exposure of ordinary citizens to Refused Classification material.
Think about that.
The Government insists that it must filter your Internet connection to prevent you being inadvertently exposed to material, such as the movie “Ken Park”, that the National Classification Board has deemed unsuitable for any other classification.
How paternalistic. How patronising.
There would be less (but not much less) disquiet about the mandatory filter if the Australian government chose to target, like the European governments it wants to compare itself to, only strictly illegal material. Yet the Government, despite the wriggle room afforded by changing its position once more, has explicitly decided not to go down this path. It has deliberately chosen to continue down the path of ensuring that the National Classification Code is uniformly and universally applied to citizens as if each and every one of them were themselves film and literature distributors.
People who are “inadvertently exposed” to films such as “Ken Park” are at little risk of abusing children because of that exposure. People who deliberately access child sexual abuse material are. Making it more difficult for Margaret Pomeranz to download “Ken Park” from the web does precisely nothing about the problem of child sexual abuse, irrespective of Minister Conroy’s persistent angry insistence otherwise.
Republished with permission. Visit Broadbanned Revolution for more of Jon’s writing.
9 Responses to “Inadvertently exposed: the ALP’s obsession with universal censorship”
Fantastic piece. A clear, concise explanation of why the ALP’s policy is draconian and useless. Will share this one around.
By Kath on Dec 23, 2009
“Refused Classification” is a very murky subject. There is nothing in law that states that material which isn’t in accordance with the guidelines has to be be refused classification.
The first I heard of the term was in classification legislation introduced into by the New South Wales government in 1984. The law stated that video tapes previously exempt from classification law were subject to the same provisions as film shown in a cinema. Any video tape without classification markings had to be sent to the OFLC to be classified. The criminal penalty that applied was determined after the event by the rating applied to the video tape – with harsher penalties applying to higher levels of rating. If a tape was refused classification then the penalty was reasonably harsh although in practical terms the only available penalty under that law was a fine (terms of imprisonment required decisions by the Supreme Court).
There is nothing in that legislation which specifically outlawed the newly introduced “X” rating and the criminal penalty for a film subsequently rated “X” by the OFLC or the Classification Board didn’t exist in the legislation – so no criminal penalty applied.
In this regard a search through Hansard reveals that some in the parliament thought that a film rated “X” had in fact been refused classification. They were wrong.
A classic example of the refused classification fiasco is the film “I Spit on Your Grave”. When first released into Australia it was given an “R” classification. Shortly after the Howard government took office the film was reviewed and it was determined that the film was now refused classification despite the fact the film could be hired from numerous video hire outlets with the original “R” classification on the cover.
I hired the “R” rated video tape many many years ago due to it’s controversial nature but didn’t take any time to study it – preferring instead to fast forward until the end and return it to the video outlet.
While it was in it’s refused classification state I picked up a Region 1 DVD copy from an oulet underneath the George Street strip of cinemas (not sure if it’s Hoyts). This shop imported Region 1 classification movies and stated that if I discovered a region 1 film that interested me they would import it for me regardless of classification law.
It was then that I took time to study the film in detail. I still have it on my video shelf although many other RC titles have since been sent to to the “tip” as I no longer have room for olde olde video tapes – some dating back to 1976.
What happened then was that somebody submitted “I Spit on Your Grave” again and this time the OFLC (or the Classification Board) decided that it was now rated “R” and no longer refused classfication.
In Western Australia it is illegal under their “Censorship Act” to be in possession of RC material so what can we make of this – a person in WA has a an olde olde copy of “I Spit on Your Grave” and suddenly the film is refused classification and they become subject to criminal penalties for possession, and then lo and behold the film is rerated “R” and they are no longer subject to criminal penalties for possession.
In my opinion very few films should be refused classification givent that the job of the Classification Board is to classify films and video. If they cannot classify a film then it’s up to Ministers of the Crown to amend the guidelines so that many films subject to the extremely harsh refused classification stigma are classified under Australian law.
The myth is that we don’t ban films – we classify them. The reality is that if a film or video is refused classification it can be seized at the point of entry into Australia and otherwise innocent people convicted of an offense for importing a film that is legal to sell purchase and view in many western democracies including France and the Republic of Ireland.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Dec 23, 2009
As an addendum to my comments on the film “I Spit on Your Grave”
Refer the Refused Classification website..
http://www.refused-classification.com/Films_ISpitOnYourGrave.htm
“In keeping with the rising censorship of the late 90′s, in 1997 the Classification Board took one more look at the film. On December 15th of that year the rating was withdrawn, and the film was effectively banned in Australia. Technically, any of the three previous video releases should have been withdrawn from rental. In practice, a search of any half-decent video store would usually come up with this title tucked away on the shelves somewhere”
and then…
“The DVD was released on September 13th 2004. It is uncut with a running time of 96min 57sec. The following is the Force Entertainment press release that accompanied the disc. Although they claim it has been banned for 17 years by the OFLC, this is not true. It was rated R18+ from June 1982 until December 1997. The RC rating lasted from December 1997, until it was once again rated R18+ in June 2004.”
Banned then unbanned. Some films go through a cycle of banning unbanning and then being banned or “Refused Classification” in a seemingly never ending cycle depending on the mood of those in power at any particular point in time.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Dec 23, 2009
Just a short note regarding my statement…
“There is nothing in law that states that material which isn’t in accordance with the guidelines has to be be refused classification”
Here in the Government Gazette is former Darryl Williams amendments to the Classification Code
http://tinyurl.com/y9gjnx6
(In Force until March 2003 but presumably assumed to be legally binding.. )
Section 1 a) of the code states that material that falls into this category
(there are three categories of RC material a) general material b) underage material and c) promoting crime )
has a qualifying statement with the words “.. to the extent they should not be classified”.
In the case of Baise Moi for instance this is the wording that arguably caused the film to be legally classified R18+.
The same wording appears in the regulations regarding prohibited imports under the Customs Act meaning (in my view) that in any legal proceedings it would be up to the prosecution to establish an argument as to why a film being imported should not be classified other than RC.
Such a provision does not appear (rightfully) under sections b) and c)
It is Xmas Eve. I’m awaiting Santa Claus
Bob
By Bob Bain on Dec 24, 2009
To one side: I think there needs to be more of a historical perspective shone onto why all this is happening now. This isn’t new. Australia has always been draconian when it comes to censorship. This is the country that almost banned Orwell’s classic “1984″ because of Orwell’s socialist position for example. If you read a history of censorship in Australia this filter is no surprise – we’ve always been one of the most, if not the most, controlling liberal democracies in the world as regards “free speech”, it goes right back to the country’s convict origins, convicts’ speech had to be strictly controlled & censored, for obvious reasons. It’d be interesting for someone to publish an essay looking at the historical record of censorship in Australia.
By Daniel on Dec 24, 2009
My concern also extends to Blogs and Peer Press Publishing … will the filter prevent accessing one’s own sites? As an individual I acknowledge the importance of erotica and pr0n as a means of communication regardless of what theoretical or moral criticism one puts to it. I know this filter will easily blanket r-rated material, indeed I think it will turn Australia from a Continent to an Island where language itself will need to be disseminated in order to prevent “free speech” from being blacklisted.
As I wrote in my Blog, not seeing Happiness does not mean one does not know how to be happy, not seeing Sadness does not prevent one from being sad … so not seeing, hearing or speaking about humanity, its ills, its controversies, its experimental behavior, its foibles, and its radical free will does not mean it all just goes away. The Internet has provided for the first time in humankind’s history a Globally Open Forum, to opt out of that forum, to not be part of that intricate conversation means one might as well abolish schooling as well and be done with it.
I’ve seen the government here work hard to encourage isolation, especially in areas of collective communication such as Universities, the Internet, Pubs (think about the government restrictions now on public venues) where ever people meet and talk is considered dangerous to the government. People are easier to control in isolation.
I suppose this however had to arrive at some time, and I guess it is good that it has – we’ve battled censorship capers like this before in the past and won so hopefully this one will be written about in the same way Miller wrote about the banning of his books, and others who have challenged the values and views of “decision makers”.
Rupert
By Rupert on Dec 26, 2009
I’ve been a very heavy internet user for around 15 years now. I have NEVER been “inadvertently exposed” to any child abuse or anything else the Government thinks I shouldn’t see – and I’ve visited a lot of dodgy websites in my time. The filter is just going to give parents a false sense of security.
@Daniel: Interesting theory. It’s funny how Aussies think of themselves as liberal and easy-going and relaxed when really, the country is anything but. Growing up in NZ, I always had this idea of Australia as a kind of hippy utopia of surfers and sunshine. It wasn’t until I moved to Hobart in 2004 that I realised how wrong that impression was. Even after moving to the Gold Coast, I never regained that idea.
By Ilaeria on Dec 27, 2009
I am currently living and working in Thailand. After following the Oz govt’s attempts at outrageous censorship, I’m happy to be out of the country and I don’t think I’ll be back. It’s all down to the morons from “Family First” and their fundamentalist “christian” agenda. They have the balance of power in the senate and the govt. is too chickenshit to stand up to their extremist ideas. Just proves that all politicians care about is keeping themselves in power. My reaction to all this: I’m now downloading Ken Park (using – shock-horror – torrents) on principle. Love your blog and I hope the govt doesn’t shut you down.
By Templedog on Jan 26, 2010
Conroy has been spinning the “but… but other countries do it.” line for over a year now. Yes we know other countries do it, just not the ones Conroy wants to list. China, Saudi-Arabia and Iran have internet Censorship. Western society doesn’t.
By Dan Buzzard on Feb 1, 2010