INTERNET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION LEAKED

"I was promised a copy of the draft legislation on Monday", said EFA's Sydney spokesperson Danny Yee, "but on Tuesday was told it wasn't going to be made available. Having seen the leaked version, I am not surprised they are unwilling to release it. It confirms our worst fears about the government's intentions."

The legislation derives from a consultation paper based on a 1994 report on Bulletin Boards - a paper which has been widely criticised. Among other weaknesses, it assumes that 'on-line services' are owned and controlled by a single 'service provider'. In the following quotes 'on-line service' has been replaced by 'Internet'.

The legislation has two major parts. The first makes it a crime to 'transmit objectionable (RC or X-rated) material on the Internet' or for 'an Internet service provider (ISP) to permit objectionable material to be available for access or retrieval by users of the Internet.' The second makes it illegal for a person to transmit or advertise material unsuitable for minors to a minor, or for an ISP to 'permit material unsuitable for minors to be available for access or retrieval by a minor using the Internet' (with a reiteration for minors under 15 and MA rated material).

Danny Yee commented: "This may sound innocent, but there are some terrible problems with it. The legislation defines 'transmit' as 'send or receive', so you could be in trouble if you accidentally click on a link to an objectionable image or someone malicious sends you one by email. I myself send email to thousands of people a year whose ages I have no way of checking: some of these messages would probably be rated MA or contain pointers to MA rated material."

"This legislation would make it illegal to put MA rated material on a Web page or to post it to a Usenet newsgroup or an open mailing list, since there is no way to verify that the people who access these are not under 15 -- we can say goodbye to discussion forums for drug users, victims of sexual abuse, and perhaps even nursing mothers. Banning material unsuitable for minors so broadly is an extraordinary infringement of free speech: an equivalent would be removing all MA rated material from libraries and making it illegal to tell a dirty joke in a pub without checking that everyone within earshot is of an appropriate age. Such measures are also totally ineffective, since less than 0.1% of the Internet's content resides on computers inside NSW. Genuine protection of children requires supervision by parents and teachers assisted by software such as 'NetNanny' or 'SurfWatch' and the 'PICS' rating system. Such schemes also respect the rights of adults to read and see what they want."

The most worrying section of the draft legislation is a list of 'reasonable steps' it suggests an ISP take to reduce its liability. These include 'procedures (such as random checks of material available through the Internet) conducted to monitor material being transmitted on the Internet' and 'deleting material that users of the Internet have complained is objectionable or unsuitable for minors'.

"For ISPs to monitor what their users send and receive would be a gross violation of civil liberties: it is as if Telstra were to listen in on phone calls. Requiring ISPs to do on the spot rating of material at the whim of anyone on the Internet is also completely unworkable. ISPs simply can not be made legally liable in any way for what their users do: they must be given 'common carrier' status like Telstra and Optus."

A rally to protest against the proposed legislation is being held in Sydney Hyde Park on Monday May 27th at 12 noon. Participants will wear blue ribbons as a symbol of free speech and will march on Parliament House at 1pm.

        ----------------------------------------------------------
        Electronic Frontiers Australia  --  http://www.efa.org.au/
        representing Internet users concerned with civil liberties
        ----------------------------------------------------------