War on the Internet

Update: videos from this event are now available at: http://vimeo.com/efaoz

Update: Julian Assange is recording a video that wll be played at this event.  For anyone unable to attend, we'll be streaming the whole event here: http://www.livestream.com/efa_oz

Electronic Frontiers Australia, in partnership with the Australian Greens, is proud to present:
War on the Internet, an event featuring:

• Jacob Applebaum - leading computer security researcher and hacker
• Bernard Keane - 'Crikey' journalist and author
• Scott Ludlam - Senator for Western Australia and Greens spokesperson for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy
• Suelette Dreyfus - author and researcher on whistleblowing

When: Saturday 21st January 2012, 3.00 - 5.00pm

Where: Trades Hall, Corner Lygon & Victoria Streets, Carlton, Melbourne 3053

(more...)

Some of EFA’s campaigns, such as fighting against the Internet Filter and pushing for a R18 rating for video games, can be seen as long-term goals. We’ve been fighting them for a number of years and sometimes it can be difficult to see light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how hard we try or how logical our arguments seem to be.

Today we’ve made a significant step towards one of those goals, the government has announced in-principle support for introducing a R18 rating on video games; this means that its introduction is now all but certain and we could see it being implemented within months.

Part of the why it has taken so long is the result of how difficult it is for changes to censorship laws to be conducted inside Australia. The decisions ultimately come down to the Attorney Generals of each state and territories who must all agree unanimously. Decisions such as these are typically made at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting (SCAG) which only occurs three times a year. As you’d know, the Attorney General in each state is appointed by the majority government of that state. As a result, the list of active Attorney Generals is in a constant state of flux as each state and territory changes government in elections.

Historically we’ve have had some Attorney Generals in strong support of the reforms and others in strong opposition, but in many cases those in support have lost office before they’ve convinced their counterparts in the other states. Getting all our ducks in a row, as it were, was a seemingly impossible task.

So what’s changed? The Gillard government has come out in strong support of the introduction of the R18+ rating essentially saying that they’d planned to go ahead regardless of what the state Attorney Generals thought. Indeed there hasn’t been unanimous support this time around either with New South Wales failing to fully commit claiming they haven’t had enough time to form a viewpoint (despite the fact this topic has been out in public debate for years).

Consequently new games rated as R18+ by the Australian Classification Board will be banned under current New South Wales law, but these changes make it possible for that state to address the law in their own time, rather than holding back the rest of Australia.

South Australia have also put forth an interesting position where they support the R18 rating but also wish to eliminate the MA15+ rating for video games entirely within their state and place any games currently falling within its guidelines inside the new R18 rating. They claim the reason for this is so that parents have a clearer understanding that R18 means ‘not suitable for children’ and that parents are currently confused by the current MA15+ classification. The important thing to note is that, like New South Wales, these changes only have effect within South Australia.

Regardless of the positions of these two states this decision allows their debate to be restricted to their individual state borders and not hold back the reforms for the rest of Australia. It will also make it easier for people within those states to lobby more effectively.

There is, however, room to be cautious as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has published a press release cautiously welcoming the decision. This will come as a surprise to those who have been following the debate as they have traditionally been one of the largest groups opposed to these reforms (despite the fact their view are shared by only a fraction of Australians).

The ACL feels that rather than allowing previously banned games to be available under the R18 banner, they will remain in the Refused Classification bracket and remain illegal to be sold. Is this going to be the case? We’ll have to wait and see how exactly it’s implemented, but make no mistake, we’ve taken a very positive step today.

Ultimately the thanks for the introduction of the R18 rating fall to one particular group of individuals: you. The only reason that these reforms have been made possible is that people, just like you, have tirelessly campaigned in the face of seemingly impossible odds. It is this campaigning that has made the Gillard Government push forward and ultimately secure the commitment of the individual Attorney Generals.

Congratulations all, you did it.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy went in to bat for the Labor Government's mandatory internet filter again, reaffirming the commitment to the unpopular policy. Nothing has changed since earlier debates; the filter still has the same problems it has always had - it's useless, unworkable and expensive. It still won't help anybody.

The latest line, that the Minister trusts "to the common sense of the Australian public with respect to the classification system", is a little strange. Censorship policy is complicated, especially when it comes to the internet, and it's not clear how pursuing this scheme is somehow leaving the whole matter up to the folksy wisdom of the Australian people. Of course, if you ask people whether they want something done about child pornography (for instance) they are likely to say yes. Who wouldn't? But the more they learn about this particular "something", the more skeptical they become.

Last year, several large ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Primus announced they were voluntarily pursuing a blacklist filter against child pornography. It's disappointing, and a little surprising, that the Government did not use this announcement as a good pretext to put the filter policy out to pasture. The reason is, of course, that they don't believe it goes far enough. The Minister at one point in his remarks at the Estimates hearings commented that: "If you believe a voluntary filter should block child abuse, how would you justify having a voluntary filter not block a bestiality or pro-rape website?" This language will be very familiar to those of you who have followed Senator Conroy's role in the debate.

If, like us, you believe that the word "bestiality" does not automatically end a discussion, you can probably think of a few answers to that question. One reason might be that those forms of content, unsavoury as they may be, are not criminal to possess. Another reason might be that child pornography is defined in the statute books, but something like "pro-rape" is quite vague. Perhaps one calls to mind a website that encourages, and even provides instruction on, attacks against women - something none of us would tolerate. What about a website set up by fetishists to explore power games amongst consenting adults? It might not be popular, but is it a menace to public decency?

Playing the bestiality and "pro-rape" cards also begs some important questions. How many bestiality sites are out there? Is there any evidence that Australians are seeking them out? Would those who do be stopped by the filter? If they aren't stopped, will they be harmed? Of course, these questions are not answered by the Minister. If they were, the answers probably wouldn't add up to a public emergency that could be solved by the proposed blacklist.

We must be resigned to the fact that as long as Senator Conroy remains at the helm of internet policy, we're going to be hearing about this great Bestiality Shield. Luckily, there are others in Parliament who have weighed the policy more thoughtfully, and for now it appears the filter would be unlikely to pass through even the lower house. We still remain resolutely opposed to internet censorship, especially the Labor plan, and we'll work to make sure that those other policymakers don't fall for the moral panic line.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the release of draft
guidelines for the classification of computer games that includes an
adults-only category.

"Australia is the only developed country where computer games with adult
themes are seized at the docks," said EFA Chair Colin Jacobs. "It is long
past the time to harmonise classification laws and give adults the freedom to
choose what to watch and play. Whether the disc goes into the DVD player or
game console, the principle should be the same."

The guidelines include an R18+ category for adults-only games. Games that do
not fit into the MA15+ category are banned for sale in Australia under the
current system. For the new guidelines to be adopted, the agreement of all
the states is required.

"The federal government has shown strong leadership in this area which we
applaud," said Jacobs. "This is something the public wants and it would be a
scandal if one recalcitrant state attorney-general derailed it to score
points or because they thought it was all too hard."

"This isn't about putting more violent games into the hands of kids," added
Jacobs. "It's the opposite, a category that is specifically forbidden to
children. In a free country like ours, giving adults that choice shouldn't be
controversial."

(more...)

The Australian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is holding an inquiry into the Australian Film and Literature Classification Scheme (which rates publications, films, Internet content and computer games). There have been lots of these inquiries, including a current po-faced review of whether the Federal Government needs to classify billboards. The issues over R-18 computer games have been recently reviewed, and to the horror of the thousands who urged the Government to allow adult-rated computer games, reform seems distant and delayed.

EFA has consistently said that the Australian classification scheme never suited the Internet, and in response to the many terms of reference of this Inquiry, have focused in our submission on the need for fundamental reform of the Australian mandatory classification scheme.

The EFA Submission is now online, along with a number of submissions from other individuals and groups. While it's easy to be cynical about these inquiries, given the current censorious climate, the inquiry is an opportunity to comment and put some contrary opinion on the public record.

For the first time, there is a momentum to dismantle Government-mandated classifications and the clunky attempts to make media types and the Internet compatible for censorship purposes.

I'd like to hear from an EFA research volunteer or interested member of the public who has time and dedication to work through the submissions and chart the position statements of the submissions. This will help EFA cover the debate across all of the Inquiry's terms of reference and if granted a chance to address the Senate.

Comments and crowd wisdom welcome.

Kimberley Heitman, EFA Secretary

[email protected]

13th March 2011