The Review on the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games closes on Sunday. To all of you who have not yet made a submission, I encourage you to do so.

To make a submission, use the template provided on the Attorney-General's website. Fill out the questionnaire and add your own comments. It is critically important that we explain to the Australian Government that Australians are capable of making responsible decisions for themselves and for their children. You should explain, in your own words, why you believe we should not censor games designed for adults. Two particular points I think it's important to get across are:

• If you are a parent, explain how you monitor and oversee what media your children are able to watch and play;
• Explain why you would like the opportunity to play games that deal with complex adult themes

We have almost completed our submission, drafted in conjunction with AusGamers. You may want to read through it for some ideas.

We believe that it is time that Australia accepts that games are not just for children - that games are a highly expressive media capable of conveying complex adult themes that are not suitable for children but which should not be banned. We believe that Australians are capable of making responsible choices about what games we play and what games we allow our children to play. We believe, crucially, that introducing an R18+ rating will help parents and all Australians make more informed choices by providing a clear indicator of video game content and aligning games classification more closely with film classification.

Please take the time to make your voice heard on this crucially important issue.

If you're a politician, and something nasty is brought to your attention, what do you do? The best and sometimes only tool in your toolbox is the one you reach for. The tool is this: to pass a law banning it. Therefore, although it's always discouraging, a story like this one, is far from unusual or surprising. "Laws to tackle racism on the Internet are set to be beefed up," it announces.

"Authorities warn they are often powerless to act against online content, which is responsible for almost one in five racial vilification complaints," it continues, then:

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has ordered the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct a sweeping review of ''arrangements for dealing with racist material on the internet''.

''While freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights, this is not at the expense of the rights of people, while using the Internet, to be treated with equality, dignity and respect,'' Mr McClelland told The Sunday Age.

Certainly, nobody likes hate speech. But these words, by our Attorney-General, are concerning. Firstly, they show a terrible lack of  consideration of the complexities of the issue, and secondly, they demote freedom of speech in a significant way.

Banning racist content on the Internet might seem like a good idea on the surface, but you don't have to dig very deep before the idea becomes problematic. The existing laws throughout the states grapple with some thorny issues. How do you define hate speech? "Kill all Jews" certainly counts, but what about "Liberate Palestine"? Is Holocaust revisionism hate speech? What about an honestly held  opinion on the undesirability of immigration from a certain part of the world? Does this inspire "hatred, contempt or severe ridicule" against a group of persons? These ambiguities will become more problematic if a new national law is introduced that applies to every blog on the Internet.

The proposal also shows a considerable lack of understanding about the realities of censoring the Internet. The Internet, it should go without saying, is global. Billions of web pages are out there, far beyond the reach of Australian lawmakers, and reflecting a multitude of different cultural values. Content hosted in Australia can be removed, but it can just as easily be moved or copied overseas by its authors. It is therefore questionable whether any law could have a meaningful impact.

The comments by the AG and others pay lip service to freedom of speech, but their words lack conviction. Freedom of speech is fine, but "not at the expense of the rights of people... to be treated with equality, dignity and respect." That sounds like a noble sentiment, but are we certain that freedom of speech shouldn't include the right to be mocking, disrespectful and offensive? There are definitely limits to freedom of speech that we can all agree on. But the above comments seem more like a dismissal of free-speech concerns than a debate of their merits.

We need to ask ourselves, is this the best way to tackle racism in Australian society? Is racist web content a cause of racist attitudes, or merely a symptom of it? In our view, other, more substantive and community-based policies are needed if we want to see a real improvement in this area.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the results of a recent survey that found Australian Internet users do not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.

The preliminary results of the Australian Broadband Survey 2009, conducted by Whirlpool (whirlpool.net.au), found that 91.8% respondents did not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.

The survey also found 83.4% of respondents said that the introduction of mandatory Internet filtering might affect their vote at the next Federal election.

“The results highlight widespread community disagreement with the Government’s plan,” said Peter Black, EFA’s campaign manager. “These results also show that Australians believe the Government would be better off focusing on increased education and law enforcement, instead of an impractical and costly policy of Government censorship.”

When asked what the Government should focus on in terms of internet safety, 81.8% supported educating parents, 63.9% said educating children, 43.7% said law enforcement, 42.1% said subsidising desktop filter software, and 33.5% said subsidising ISP-level opt-in filters, with only 3.2% supporting mandatory Internet filtering.

These preliminary results from the Australian Broadband Survey 2009 only include respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The survey was successfully completed and verified 21,775 times by respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The full results of the Survey are expected to be published soon.

“These results confirm that people who understand the issue overwhelming oppose the Government’s policy,” Black said. “The big challenge now is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians, who perhaps aren’t particularly computer or Internet savvy.”

That is why last week EFA launched the Open Internet campaign, centred around a new website, OpenInternet.com.au, blog and Facebook fan page, to, to, that together will act as campaign hub for all the different individuals and organisations that are campaigning against the Governmentb s mandatory Internet filtering policy.

The Open Internet campaign marks an escalation of opposition to the Government’s policy, which will continue throughout the year. “Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they’re in for,” said Black. “It’s important that such a major and expensive policy gets the public scrutiny it deserves. And we believe that Open Internet portrays a positive and understandable message that will resonate with Australians who are yet to form a strong opinion on the Government’s policy.”

- Ends -

Below is:

- Background information
- Contact details for media

Background:
* EFA’s Open Internet campaign
- http://openinternet.com.au/

* Electronic Frontiers Australia
- http://www.efa.org.au/

* Australian Broadband Survey 2009 Pre-Release Report
- The pre-release report has been redacted.  The full report will be available at Whirlpool (whirlpool.net.au) in the next few days.

About EFA:

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit national organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line rights and freedoms. EFA was established in 1994, is independent of government and commerce, and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online civil liberties.

Media Contacts:

Mr Peter Black
Campaign Manager
Phone: 0421 636 496
Email: pete.black at efa.org.au

Mr Colin Jacobs
EFA Vice-Chair
Phone: 0402 631 955
Email: cjacobs at efa.org.au

Michael Geist is reporting that the text of the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) chapter on internet enforcement has been leaked. As suspected, the text is unlikely to require major changes to Australian law, but it does do two very concerning things:

• Increased pressure on intermediaries (ISPs) to monitor and police their networks: in the recent iiNet litigation, the Federal Court found that ISPs were under no obligation to terminate the accounts of subscribers that the film industry alleged (without proof) were infringing copyright. This is a contentious point, and we expect to see the copyright industry lobby for legislative change. The ACTA provides them with more ammunition to argue for a three-strikes policy, which is unfortunate.
• Increased entrenchment of the harshest level of copyright sanctions: my biggest concern with ACTA is what it means for the way that international copyright law is developed. Copyright is such an important part of the framework that governs the way that we interact online - it underpins nearly every aspect of modern communication. Because the balance between providing authors with an incentive to create and users with the ability to access is so critically important, the way in which copyright policy is made is also critically important for a society. The ACTA, a secret plurilateral agreement, ensures that the role of the public is minimised, allowing corporate rightsholders to set the agenda for copyright policy.

(more...)

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the widespread opposition to the the Rudd Government's mandatory Internet filtering plan.

"There are dozens of organisations and groups that are working against the Government's plan to censor the Internet, highlighting the depth of community disagreement with the plan," said Peter Black, EFA's campaign manager.

EFA has launched a new website, OpenInternet.com.au, blog and Facebook fan page, to act as a campaign hub for these different groups.

"We hope that the Open Internet campaign will help unite all these different groups, so that we can work together to stop the Government's plan," Black said. "The big challenge for all of the opposition groups now is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians, who perhaps aren't particularly computer or Internet savvy."

EFA is concerned that the actions of Anonymous are only hurting the movement's cause.

"EFA condemns the denial of service attacks orchestrated by Anonymous, as they damage the cause by playing to stereotypes of filter opponents as juveniles motivated by a desire to ensure the availability of Internet pornography," said EFA Vice-Chair Colin Jacobs. "They serve no purpose but to give the Government the moral high ground, and distract from arguments about the ineffectiveness of the policy and its ramifications for free speech."

EFA also rejects any attempt to legitimise the actions of Anonymous.

"We are aware that Anonymous is now organising street protests on 20 February, dubbed Project Freeweb," said Black. "However, EFA does not support these protests. Any attempt to legitimise the actions of Anonymous only makes it easier for the Government to dismiss the opposition to its filter as fringe extremists."

"While we understand the frustrations that the Anonymous members feel, we would instead encourage people to contact their local Member of Parliament, or participate in the National Day Action activities being planned by Block the Filter and Stop Internet Censorship on 6 March," said Black.

The Open Internet website has a list of 10 practical things that people can do to oppose the filter.

The Open Internet campaign marks an escalation of opposition to the plan, which will continue throughout the year. "Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they're in for," said Black. "It's important that such a major and expensive policy gets the public scrutiny it deserves. And we believe that Open Internet portrays a positive and understandable message that will resonate with Australians who are yet to form a strong opinion on the Government's policy."

(more...)