It’s sounds like a prefectly legitimate suggestion however accompanying such a move would be a hefty cost and unlike the Australian Communications and Media Authority who currently classifies the online content, the OFLC would need additional funding.

WBA has said that for other matters that involve the OFLC, applicants for classification purposes typically pay the fee, and in the case of self regulatory areas, the individual broadcaster pays. This is where WBA suggests that ISPs bear the cost of classification for online content by paying for carrier licencing fees. After this process has been executed, the ACMA can then recoup costs through the respective fees.

Source: itnews.com.au

Common sense Aussies should be outraged by the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMA) heavy handed ultimatum that’s forcing Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) to remove a link to an abortion site from their blog.

A deletion notice was issued to the EFA stating that if they did not to remove the respective link by 6pm on the following business day they would face $11,000 in fines per day as a consequence. The ACMA ruled that the content on the website was R18+ prohibited content.

A representative of the EFA ‘Colin Jacobs’ said that Australians should be alarmed at this action considering the principles involved. He stated that the link is part of a political discussion about the merits of Internet censorship and that there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

This action by the ACMA is sure to raise concern and argumentation over the legitimacy of what should be, and shouldn’t be classed as inappropriate content, especially if it has any political agenda.

Why is Senator Conroy and the Federal Government so adamant on obtaining ‘control’ of the Internet within Australia?

Ever heard of the metaphor ‘opening a can of worms’? Well if there was ever a good example of this meaning, the whole Australian Internet content filtering censorship issue would be a great definition. The term ‘issue’ is argubaly being applied lightly here and possibly not the best adjective for describing this instance. Some may refer to it more indicatively as a ‘farce’, ‘debacle’ or ‘complete ballsup’, or stronger still, the capitulation of freedom. It’s like C’mon Mr Conroy! How dare the current Labor Government treat the Australian society with such contempt and think they can get away with it? Then again, haven’t they been doing this for years and years and getting away with it anyway? So what’s the real principle driving force behind the Internet censorship push in Australia? Is it through ‘Fear’ and ‘Total Control’ that the Government elect to proceed down this path, or is it through the sheer concern for the people and the willingness to protect the flock?

In case you’ve just crawled out from under a rock, to date we have a Communications Minister that’s been labeled ’pathectic’, voted the country’s worst in decades and one that’s been basically accused of trying to undermine the Australian public by essentially wanting to control the Internet and hiding behind the excuse that he’s trying to protect our children from pedophile predators. Of course we all care for our kids safety, but C’mon Mr Conroy, what do you take us for?  In various online forums and blogs many progressive thinkers and informed contributors seem wary of the consequences that such a mandatory reform may bring. Having the ability to completely control all of our media portals and freedom of speech is perhaps the major concern expressed by many.

There are of obviously many shortcomings involved with the Internet, exposure to graphic, violent and inappropriate content along terrorism elements are just some of the ramifications we face. But what price will we have to pay in order to try and eradicate this sediment and furthermore, can we succeed? At the end of the day a mandatory filtering approach may be perceived as an action taken by fearful Government to which it will only succeed in obtaining a fearful re-action.  The longer this debate is waged, the greater the issue will esculate and depending on mainstream public perception, it may very well see the Government being kept or booted out come the next Australian Election. I suspect the latter of the two.

After reading many comments and concerns in relation to mandatory filtering, and if I can condense the feedback into one sentence, it would chiefly revolve around the concerns of the whole filtering process, it’s transparency and the ‘accountability’ of such. Simply speaking, what would stop the good hearted Senator from pulling any site off the Internet that he chose to, and regardless of what type content was displayed on it? I could name counteless types of hypothetical scenarios, and morever ’who would watch the watchers’?

Delving below the surface of the the subject at hand, I think its vital that a major decision making process of this magnitude require careful consideration, significant debate, feasibilty, ultimately required and extensive research into all possible outcomes, both positive and negative. Senator Conroy appears to be moving swiftly on this issue while waving his flag of ‘protection’, but many are suggesting that it’s a veil of ‘deceit’ shielding alternative agendas as well. He was recently dealt another blow when he released a statement on the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) where Mr Conroy condemned a reported leak of prohibited Internet addresses while at the same time emphasising the online safety of our children. The Senator claimed that the black banned website list which appeared on the Wikileaks.org was fake and had the following to say on the matter –

“This is not the ACMA blacklist.”

“The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible. It undermines efforts to improve cyber–safety and create a safe online environment for children,”

“The published list purports to be current at 6 August 2008 and apparently contains approximately 2400 URLs whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1061 URLs.”

“ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution.”

Wikileaks responded (as below) to the threats sentimented by the Communication’s Senator and ironically stood firm behind constitutional law themselves and in turn, basically threatened to have Senator Stephen Conroy extradited if he breached the law -

“Under the Swedish Constitution’s Press Freedom Act, the right of a confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right,” the organisation said.

“Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights.”