Is Conroy deceiving the public about what his filter will ban?
July 15, 2009 – 1:51 pmSenator Conroy says awarding him the title of Internet Villain of the Year is misguided and that the people have been mislead into what the Government is doing in terms of filtering the Internet. However, in doing so the Minister for Communications has shown he is either deliberately misleading the public about the type of content that will be banned or he has no understanding of classification systems in Australia.
Fairfax reports on what he told journalists Tuesday (my emphasis):
“Unfortunately most people have been misled as to what the government is actually doing,” he [Senator Conroy] said.
“We have identified that this is sites like pro-rape sites, bestiality sites, and child pornography promotion sites.
“We’ve said it is confined to that.
“If people have a problem with blocking that material, well, I’m going to disagree with them.”
[...]
“A lot of the myths about what we are trying to do have been perpetrated quite deliberately to mislead and inflame the debate,” he said.
“This is an act of parliament. This is the Broadcast Services Act that defines what refused classification is.
“There is no capacity to include political material.”
Actually Senator, the Broadcast Services Act defines what is prohibited content. Classifications such as refused classification are based on criteria outlined in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005.
And the type of content you intend to ban isn’t confined to sites like those you mentioned. Refused classification is an extremely broad classification category which includes material surrounded by political debate like The Peaceful Pill Handbook. Movies like Ken Park and adult pornography with fetishes like spanking are also RC. Even content that depicts or deals with drug misuse and addiction can end up being classified RC.
Here’s the criteria from the National Classification Code for determining if a film is RC:
Films that:
- depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or
- describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be , a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
- promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence
Unless the content is illegal under other criminal codes, such as child abuse, RC content is legal to possess and view in Australia (with the exception of Western Australia and some indigenous communities in the Northern Territory).
Deliberately misleading or no understanding? Flip a coin.
19 Responses to “Is Conroy deceiving the public about what his filter will ban?”
Possession of Bestiality product RC is prohibited in Tasmania.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cfacgea1995596/s74.html
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT ACT 1995 – SECT 74
74. Offence to possess bestiality product
Refer Tasmanian Act
PART 8 – Child Exploitation Material and Bestiality Products Unlawful
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cfacgea1995596/
Bob
As noted in a recent tweet New South Wales has resisted calls for criminal penalties on RC material and thus unlike Tasmania the now limited amount (zero as far as I can tell ) of bestiality product is not illegal to own purchase view or indeed download.
By Bob Bain on Jul 15, 2009
And for games, reasons to be refused classification include using the names of real drugs (Fallout 3), simulated sex that requires user modification to access (the infamous Hot Coffee) and encouraging vandalism (Mark Ecko’s Getting Up) amoung others.
By Pharaoh on Jul 15, 2009
We still have to remember that the existing definition of prohibited content includes X rated sites, that is sites that show explicit sexual vanilla activity between adults.
He has said that X won’t now be included but that change will require an amendment to the Act. He also neglects to mention that R rated games are included in his proposed mandatory and they are sold on Amazon
By fiona patten on Jul 15, 2009
What’s important to understand is that there is law which permits the construction of the ACMA blacklist and the plan is essentially (and always was) to implement the blocking of that. There is NO law in place which permits for the construction of an RC-only list, or a rape porn list, or any other type of list. Whatever Conroy says WRT this list or that list is abjectly wrong and can’t be salvaged, it simply can’t be the case.
By Geordie Guy on Jul 15, 2009
You know if that fucker actually gave a shit about rape, maybe they’d invest some time and effort to fucking stop one in four women being a victim/survivor of a sexual assualt/rape in their life time.
What a fucking joke.
God damnit. It just has to be one of THOSE days doesn’t it?
By AileenWuornos on Jul 15, 2009
It’s a bit of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation isn’t it? If he’s actually completely ignorant of the realities of what he’s pushing then he really is unqualified to be spearheading the push in the first place. But if he is, and he’s being deliberately misleading, then that’s approaching corruption issues and he’s probably unsuited to be holding a political position at all.
By Simon on Jul 15, 2009
Despite backtracking to rather vague statements such as “almost” exclusively RC and sites “like” child pornography promotion sites, we should listen to what he says in more concrete sources.
For instance, Labor’s Plan For Cyber-Safety:
“Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
So it’s the entire ACMA blacklist, R18+ content, euthanasia websites, adult pornography and all. This is what “prohibited content” means, and the Senator should know this.
Or the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Blog:
“The Government’s election commitment was that filtering would block content using a blacklist of prohibited sites maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in accordance with legislation. The ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web sites, predominantly comprising images of the sexual abuse of children, which are defined as ‘prohibited’ under Australian legislation which has been in place since 2000.”
Although this is in direct conflict with expert testimony during Senate estimates which categorises only 32% of the blacklist under “child abuse” (the proportion that actually does contain “child abuse” material is a question for another day, but is certainly closer to 0% than 32%), this repeats the claim that the entire ACMA blacklist will be blocked.
We are constantly told to wait for the results of the trial before passing judgment (which doesn’t make a lot of sense – the technical results of the trials have nothing to do with the fact that this will curtail free speech without any accountability), however if we consider what the expressions of interest document states:
“ISPs are invited to participate through […] filtering the ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs […]”
We can confirm that what they are testing is the full ACMA blacklist. Why would they trial something that has nothing to do with what Conroy now claims the scope has been reduced to?
The filter has always been about blocking all prohibited content, and apart from a few deliberately vague comments (and no official policy updates), Conroy has done nothing to suggest otherwise.
By Stuart on Jul 15, 2009
Deliberately misleading or no understanding? Try both. Being a fool and a liar aren’t mutually exclusive.
By Stuart on Jul 15, 2009
This has been bugging me for months. On Insight Mark Newton made this exact point – that RC is a broad category & an RC filter would block adult porn, anything that’s graphic & confronting (like the abortion image), & other stuff that would be legal offline.
Conroy said: “This is one of the great furphies that people have wanted to engage in to try and create a scare campaign about what we’re actually proposal. I on have only ever identified refused classification in terms of child porn, bestiality, rape, incest sites – those sorts of things”.
Does that mean he’s blocking a subset of RC with the exact scope to be determined by politicians? Or was he just lying? I always thought it was a shame that the presenter didn’t pin him down about that.
By Mark G on Jul 15, 2009
I want them to leave my internet alone.
Wolfie!
By Wolfie Rankin on Jul 15, 2009
@Mark G
“that RC is a broad category & an RC filter would block adult porn, anything that’s graphic & confronting (like the abortion image)”
Contrary to what many appear to believe “the abortion image” wasn’t rated RC but R18+ meaning that under legislation it has to be behind an age verification system.
I believe the notice explaining this is on the EFA Website in pdf format. I believe I have seen it and also believe that within this document (the ACMA “please remove this link” notice) is the URL for the abortion image (which might of itself be problematical).
I’m not going to provide a link to an ACMA notice which lists the website concerned.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Jul 15, 2009
Bob
Actually, ACMA classified the anti abortion images as RC; the Classification Board subsequently reclassified them R18+. ACMA is normally not required to confirm its ratings with the Classification Board, but this was a special case & followed the furore over the leaked blacklist. Had the leak not happened the images would almost certainly have remained RC-rated, as (presumably) would other images of similar kind.
By Mark G on Jul 15, 2009
When is this ban-happy government going to finally ban itself?
God himself needs to give all involved a gigantic clip round the ears. Conroy is so ridiculously ill-suited to his role that the mind simply boggles. He should be arrested for lying to the Australian public and replaced by a qualified individual. Hell, a packet of Tic-Tacs is more qualified for the job than Conroy is.
By BM on Jul 16, 2009
“We have identified that this is sites like pro-rape sites, bestiality sites, and child pornography promotion sites.
“We’ve said it is confined to that.
…
“There is no capacity to include political material.”
Did anyone else suffer a mild stroke reading that?
Something being undesirable or detestable does not preclude it being, “political material”.
By Icaria on Jul 17, 2009
Mark G, with your regard to your confusion over Conroy’s bizarre statements on Insight, this is how I recall the incident:
Put simply, Conroy made the claim that it was not the government’s “intention” to block certain kinds of RC material, or that blocking such websites was “not something the government had ever talked about doing” (I’m paraphrasing here). HOWEVER, when pressed by the host (or other guests), he effectively conceded that this would happen anyway under the current classification codes. He attempted to divert the issue away from the government and suggested that even if they did try to rework the classification codes, it wouldn’t make it through the Senate.
So in other words, it isn’t the government’s “intention” to block political content. It’s just an inevitable consequence of a policy they are trying to implement.
Now, that’s what I call responsible governance!
By Heath on Jul 18, 2009
The sad thing is that Thailand has it right, where are our screaming hordes of protestors? Unfortunately this negligent and incompetent minister will be successful in thrusting his religious fundamentalism down our throats because, in general, The Australian Public either don’t know or don’t care (enough) about this issue to actually stand up and shout NO FUCKING WAY.
By Fred on Apr 10, 2010