Abortion Website Gets R18+ Classification
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) yesterday demanded Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) remove a link to an abortion website from their blog, stating it would fine them $11,000 per day if not removed.
The document, issued by the ACMA to EFA’s hosting provider yesterday, explained that it was a final link-deletion notice, and if they did not comply by 6PM next business day their hosting provider, Sublime IP, would be fined $11,000 per day.
Speaking with Mark Newton, an IT expert, Tech Wired understands that a final-link deletion notice must be sent to the Classification Board for it to be “final”.
The decision from the Classification Board, available online, overruled the ACMA’s initial decision of the content being “refused classification”. The Classification Board instead deemed the content as being R18+ of which is also “prohibited content” and in turn blocked.
As seen in March of this year, Whirlpool, a Broadband discussion forum, received an interim link-deletion notice from the ACMA.
It is understood by Tech Wired that Whirlpool’s hosting provider, Bullet Proof Networks, received a final link-deletion notice last week.
Colin Jacobs, a representative for the EFA outlined in a blog post that this should alarm Australians.
“…the link was part of a political discussion about the merits of the existing and future Internet censorship policies,” he wrote.
“Nevertheless, we were forced to remove the link on pain of severe penalties.” he added.
Tech Wired was reminded of what Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said at the ALIA Online conference on January 20th.
“…there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.”
This decision by the Classification Board is sure to spark another chapter in the debate of whether blocking political content through ISP-level filtering is right or wrong.
Check in your own backyard also
http://techwiredau.com/2009/01/australian-internet-filter-to-censor-freedom-of-speech/
To Matt;
The thing to keep in mind is that Conroy & the Labor Govt through the ACMA are only threatening those who have been vocal in their opposition to Labors efforts to destroy free speech in Australia. As techwired does not fit into that category they have nothing to fear from publishing the link.
I thought the only content that would be blocked under the proposed filters is that which is Refused Classification – why is R18+ content getting added to the ACMA blacklist? Anything R18+ is legal. This is yet another perfect example of why the filter should not be implemented.
Can someone explain what is ‘illegal’ about an abortion website? has abortion been made illegal in Australia without my knowledge?
Greg,
R18+ websites will be blacklisted if they do not have an age verification process.
All they need to do is stick up an age verification page like all the porn sites do.
It’s not “illegal” – it’s prohibited internet content. A strange but important distinction.
See http://www.efa.org.au/2009/05/05/efa-gets-link-removal-notice/ – it has some links with more info on the current scheme.
Conroy has indicated the mandatory filter might use an “almost exclusively RC” blacklist. But this list does not exist anywhere except in an off-the-cuff remark by Conroy, and there is no indication how such a list would be prepared or by whom.
1
So right now all we know is the ACMA list, which definitely includes R-18+ material and lots more besides.
Rob,
Abortion is illegal, just decriminalised (at least it is in Victoria).
See my above post for the reason why this site is blacklisted. It is the same reason you are asked for ID when purchasing porn from the newsagent.
I had no idea that it would take so little time for the gov’t to mess this up… Seriously… I thought it would take at least 6 months for them to pull a stunt like this…
This is exactly the reason why this filter will not work. Whats next?
The worst part is, Im sitting here trying to make a statement about how to word this. Has it really come to this, god forbid public opinion suddenly becomes prohibited?
Dear Mr Conroy. Persecute those who break the law. LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!!!!
We don’t need your “protection”
This is what happens when you aply 1970 thinking to the internet.
How much money is wasted on institutions who now serve no purpose, or whose purpose you twist to try and “regulate” the internet.
It’s probably wrong to charactise Whirlpool as being critical of the net filter. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that many of their posters have critical comments.
After we have spent a few million dollars on theis net filter, I can’t wait for a current affair program to show a few seven year old defeating it.
I doubt anyone has a problem with banning child pornography sites, but the fact is that any such site is not around for long as EVERYONE ON THE PLANET will instantly take down such a site when it is brought to their attention.
So what we end up with is requiring overseas porn sites to have a method of verifying Australians are over 18 before allowing them to view, or our Gov will add them to the list.
Total waste of their time and our money. Perhapse It might be better not discontinuing existing options for parents to gain free filtering software for their PCs…
Seems its legal in *my* part of the country, just goes to show that a NATIONAL filer wont work if/when there are state based laws involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia
Senator Conroy sir, Your fired!
Rob, the R18+ rating has nothing to do with the topic of abortion per se. The webpage in question would have been classified R18+ because of the graphic nature of the images. The page then remains on the blacklist because it does not include any kind of age verification system. (Details of what counts as acceptable proof of age online are in the guidelines, but basically credit card verification etc.). The rest of the website, which is political in nature from start to finish, is not blacklisted at all.
At the rate Comrade Rudd is going with Conjob trying to remove freedom of speech in this country, I am seriously wondering why I voted Labor in the last federal election.
Labor have surrendered the freedom of speech of millions of Australians so they can keep various lobby groups happy – like hard line christian groups who feel the need to force their views on the wider community. Much like the fundamentalist protestant groups in the US who are pushing for Intelligent Design to be taught instead of Evolution – you know the theory – apparently, man and dinosaurs walked the earth together.
It’s not an “Abortion Website” that is linked. It is an anti-abortion site. The images are to dissuade women from having abortions.
Maybe this link to an government UK TV advertisement, persuading people to wear seatbelts, should be banned, too, as it’s been called “too graphic” by some: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2009/jan/14/advertising-channel4
Why does everyone go on about walking over ‘our’ free speech in Australia ?..WE DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO IT !. We arent the United States….our government can do whatever they want really..
Go have a read…
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm
“…Freedom of Speech and the Constitution
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).
..’
@John Perhaps we need to revisit the constitution
Its already begun, the thought police taking over the internet.
Lets practice ” Seig heil mein fuhrer”
Stephen Conroy = Joseph Goebbels
OK, so I see everyone sitting here whining about this appalling situation – myself included – but what the hell are we going to do about it? Is there anything we (the majority of Australian citizens) can do to stop this vile attack on our freedoms? It’s frightening to see the government behave like this but it’s even scarier to see the people just bending over and taking it.
Whats this rubbish about Political opinion being discussed on the ISP Filter thread??Its nothing but a discussion on ways and means of stopping any mandatory ISP filtering taking place. Not to mention users posting links to the ACMA banned website list. I would say they have every right to get the thread closed down.
Come on – you are all just playing games. This isn’t anything to do with “abortion” – the restriction is on the “images” on the website.
There is no “censorship” of political debate. If there were no graphic images there would be no restriction or rating.
If you can’t find a decent selling point for your libertarian rubbish then you haven’t got much of an argument, have you.
Boom
ah hell Google is gonna get censored too then
type abortion, porn or whatever you want… click on images, click on safe search and turn it off.
didnt ask me for my credit card info…
Oh no!
Will somebody please think of the children?!
It’s legal to chop up a baby before birth, but a link to a link to a link to a photo of the dead baby will get you in trouble with the paranoids who run Big-Sister’s internet filter.
R18+ is a Classification Board decision; definition of prohibited content in Schedule 7 is a legislative decision by Parliament; enforcement of the BS Act – ie. issuing a link deletion notice, is an ACMA decision.
Start getting the specific facts right, and we might start to make some headway on this issue.
To win this argument, you may need to make it an election issue and have an opposition that opposes the Labor platform.
Bob Bobbington:
Abortion isn’t illegal. It isn’t illegal in Victoria, and it certainly isn’t illegal in South Australia where abortion has been a recognized medical procedure (covered by medicare no less!) for almost 20 years.
– mark
The illegality/legality of abortion isn’t the question here. I feel certain people are trying to sidetrack the issue.The question here is should graphic pictures of mutilated fetus’ be freely available on the internet. If the ACMA says that these picture(s) “may cause offence to a reasonable adult or are unsuitable for children -(1992 Broadcasting Act)” and should be stopped or filtered ,then thats absolutely fine by me and most other people too!