Censorship Guide (Part 2: Bodies)

This part of the Censorship guide identifies some of the main players in the censorship game.

Australia

Within Australia the policy framework for web censorship, like so much relating to the internet, has two features:

squabbles between different federal and state/territory government agencies

the imperative to be seen to be doing something, resulting in what some criticise as gesture politics or digital potemkin villages - initiatives that are packaged nicely but do not address substantive issues.

The Commonwealth Department of Communications, Information Technology & the Arts (DCITA) - which embraces the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) - concerns itself with 'policy' questions, sharing legislative responsibility with the Attorney-General's (A-G's) Department.

Day to day carriage is handled by specialist bodies such as the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) - which concerns itself with ratings and has one of the more arid government sites - and Australian Federal Police. The latter, understandably, have a strong ethos of digital 'stranger danger' - give us more money, more cars, more computers to catch the villains (tho their success hitherto is uncertain, to say the least).

NetAlert is a community awareness body established by the federal government to educate families about managing access to online content, research new access management technologies and conduct "national awareness campaigns to promote a safer Internet experience for young people." It's based in Tasmania and will include a hotline, modelled on the EU INHOPE initiative.

From 1 January 2000 the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), under the BSA Act, has the power to regulate internet service providers and content hosts in censoring prohibited (and potentially prohibited) content. ISPs are required to take "all reasonable steps" - the nature of which is still contentious - in responding to ABA directions to prevent end-users accessing 'X' or 'Refused Classification' material.

other bodies

Non-government bodies of particular interest in relation to online free speech and censorship are the:

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), leader in the field
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), another US body
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), one of the original US online lobby groups
Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), its somewhat paler Australian counterpart
Watch on Censorship (WoC), another Australian libertarian group
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
Digital Freedom Network (DFN), another US advocacy group
Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA), a US-based body that opposes filtering technologies
Communications Law Centre (CLC), as the name suggests, is an Australian body concerned with the Internet and other communications law
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), playing catch-up

The EU-based INHOPE organisation is an example of industry and community bodies underpinning government action against child pornography. Apart from community awareness, it operates a hotline for reporting illegal online material. Its site provides a useful starting point for study of hotlines.

The US task force on Tools & Strategies for Protecting Kids From Pornography & Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content, established by the National Research Council in 2000, continues its investigations. Meanwhile the US Commission on Online Child Protection (COPA Commission), noted on the preceding page of this guide, will wind up shortly after disappointing the filter lobby by failing to endorse the hype about technological quick fixes.

next part (3: texts)