How legal content will be blocked by the ISP filter
Filter-advocate Mike_again has, in recent weeks, become far more tolerable and decidedly more helpful in poking holes in the anti-censorship lobby’s arguments. He commented on my recent response to ACL managing director Jim Wallace asking for documentary proof of our assertion that legal-to-possess content would be blocked by the filter.
Given the amicable and honest nature of his request I have done my utmost to provide it.
From ‘Labor’s Plan for Cyber-safety‘:
Labor’s ISP policy will prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA
Now it would be ideal to define what is meant by prohibited content. The legislation that defines ‘prohibited content’ is the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 [CTH] Schedule 7.
Schedule 7 defines prohibited content as
(a) the content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or
(b) the content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board and access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system; or
(c) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board, access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system, the content does not consist of text and/or one or more still visual images, and the content is provided by a commercial service (other than a news service or a current affairs service); or
(d) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board, access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system, and the content is provided by a mobile premium service.
In simpler terms, anything that, if it were a print publication, would be classified as RC, X18+, R18+ or MA15+ will be added to the list of prohibited content if it were hosted outside Australia. There are two interesting provisos here as well.
The MA15+ content would only be blocked if it were a video that wasn’t hosted on a news site. Regardless of who’s hosting it, it is prohibited if transmitted for money over a mobile phone network.
Either way, MA15+ and R18+ content is far from illegal in Australia. Just go down to Blockbuster and hire Interview with a Vampire. Even X18+ print publications are legal in some parts of the country.
Currently it is illegal to host anything in the 4 categories above in Australia. Doing so results in a take down notice.
So when Conroy says “the Australian Government has no plans to stop adults from viewing material that is currently legal”, it is entirely deceptive.
For a more in-depth analysis of this legislation, read Irene Graham’s fantastic article at Libertus.net.
The stuff about mobile phone networks completely blows my mind. How are mobile devices any different to laptops (or even desktops) when it comes to the access they provide? Is it just that more kids have phones than laptops?
Mobile devices blows your mind? How about the whole handling of MA15+?
MA15+ is “prohibited” if it’s sold commercially and not on a news site. If it’s given away for free, the same content is perfectly fine.
There’s also a strange bit of asshattery in the treatment of “eligible electronic publications.” The intent of the law is to make “Restricted” print publications “prohibited” online. But there’s a loophole: If the “Restricted” publication is assessed by the Classification Board and found to be Category 1 or Category 2 restricted, it’s banned. But if ACMA takes a guess about unclassified content, and at some point in the future the same material is assessed by the Classification Board and found to be Category 1 Restricted, ACMA says, “Oh, ok, we made a mistake about banning that one,” and it isn’t prohibited anymore.
So if the Classification Board gets to it before ACMA, it’s prohibited. If ACMA gets to it first, it’s all a-ok even if the Classification Board reckons it’s bad news. Unless they say it’s Category 2 Restricted, in which case it’s banned again.
WTF?
Either there is some overall design to this system that eludes the minds of we mere mortals, or censorship laws in Australia are too unweildy and tanlged to accurately represent anybody’s idea of appropriate content control.
In simple terms. It’s fucked.
Seriously no-one can be too surprised with the efforts to censor and restrict media and the Internet.
Howard started it in 1996 with the addition of the Cyber Crimes Act (which is now in the C’wealth Criminal Code) and Rudd’s just doing what Howard would’ve been doing had he won power again.