ACMA caught blacklisting political advocacy site

2009 January 25
by websinthe

“There has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.” – Senator Conroy at ALIA 2009.

Despite numerous claims that the Labor government will not use the filter to hamper political discourse, the ACMA has begun blocking political sites such as the anti-abortion advocacy site abortiontv.com.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, the right to speak against it is one that any freedom loving person can tolerate as an expression of free speech.

In a test of Senator Conroy’s claims that the ACMA blacklist contains only illegal content, whirlpool community user xFoadx sent a random page from abortiontv.com to the ACMA complaints department. This was the response he received:

Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100
From: 
Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278
I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm
Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.
The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.
Information about ACMA’s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMA’s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline
Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMA’s attention.

Regardless of the graphic nature of some images on the site, there is no doubt that this is a social advocacy site and not pornographic.

This ACMA ruling means that Australian based PC filtering vendors will have this site added to their list of blocked sites and that, if Conroy’s censorwall is implemented, this site will be blocked within the 1300 site blacklist.

This move has alienated even the conservatives that originally mandated the filter. Discussion amongst the Sydney Anglican community shows concern that religious sites may be blocked due to anti-vilification laws deeming the orthodox anti-homosexual beliefs of the church as illegal or ‘unwanted’.

Anglican community moderator Luke Stevens writes:

Could Sydneyanglicans.net be blocked as “illegal” if it carries material deemed at some point now or in the future as vilifying other religions?

Senator Minchin, Conroy’s shadow minister, has written an article in the Sydney Morning Herald slamming Conroy’s plan to censor the Internet.

This article was originally posted at blog.websinthe.org.

12 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 January 26
    Mark Platt permalink

    I have stated this before, but the reality is that there is a constitutional protection of political free speech. It may be limited, but it would at least seem that any political content censored would be protected. On the face of it, abortiontv.com included.

  2. 2009 January 26

    The submission of abortiontv was clearly designed to show how stupid the system was. Now, imagine if a malicious political party gained government (or concession from the government) and got a bunch of stuff blocked. Very scary that abortiontv got blocked even though it’s fairly tame.

  3. 2009 January 26
    Mark Platt permalink

    That would be a situation totally unconstitutional on the basis of the protection we have now.

  4. 2009 January 26

    Actually in Australia there is no constitutional protection of political free speech. What protects our right to free speech are statutes, which is not the best form of protecting fundamental human rights like free speech.

    Although I find the likes of those responsible for Abortion TV to be disgraceful and fundamentalists, I also want their right to spew their vile bullshit protected.

  5. 2009 January 26

    I was under the impression that the implied right to freedom of political communication was a common law thing.

  6. 2009 January 26

    Websinthe you’re spot on our right to freedom of political communication is something implied in common law and affirmed by statutes. I got a little carried away.

  7. 2009 January 27
    Mark Platt permalink

    Alex, that’s wrong. It’s implied from the Constitution.

  8. 2009 March 20

    Argh, what’s going on with the tables and those pingbacks?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. ACMA: Linking to blacklisted sites will cost you $11,000 a day. | OzSoapbox
  2. They came for the anti-abortionists … at catallaxyfiles
  3. Internet Censorship: $11 000 fine for linking to banned sites at STRANGE TIMES
  4. Chasing the Norm » Blog Archive » What you cant say online

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS