Say goodbye to online porn
Online pornography will be caught in the Rudd Government’s compulsory blacklist internet filter, the Australian Media and Communications Authority has confirmed.
Any website that is subject to a complaint and classified RC or X18+ will be added to the blacklist, an ACMA spokesman said.
This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
Legal X18+ pornography in the territories will not be immune, the ACMA spokesman added.
A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy confirmed to Sydney Star Observer that non-pornographic gay content was not illegal and would not be blacklisted unless it breached classification codes, nor would the block use generic keyword searches.
This is not an argument about free speech. As I have already said, we have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the internet is no different, Conroy said.
Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working. The National Classification Code determines content against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
ACMA received 1122 complaints about online content in 2007/08 resulting in 15 take-down orders and 781 recommendations to makers of online filters.
A third of those 796 blocked websites were classified X18+ for actual sexual activity between consenting adults, with the remainder refused classification for depiction of a sexual fetish or fantasy, violence, or a child. Three overseas sites were refused classification for promotion of pedophilia.
We are seeking international cooperation to expand the blacklist of URLs which contain the worst of the worst content -” child pornography, cruelty or real violence, and sexual violence, Conroy said.
This material is illegal across any medium so we do not believe it should be accessible on the internet.
A separate filter, dubbed the Clean Feed, will further block a range of material unsuitable for children. Adults will be able to opt out of the Clean Feed, but not the illegal content filter.
Conroy’s office is in the final stages of preparing an invitation for ISPs to participate in a live pilot trial to determine technical issues for the policy implementation.
Liberals blast censorship bullying
The Coalition has called the Rudd Government’s Clean Feed filter a flawed plan to censor the internet, and condemned efforts by the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s office to silence critics.
It’s extraordinary that Minister Conroy’s office has moved from not only wanting to censor the internet to actually attempting to silence those who don’t agree with him, Liberal spokesman Senator Nick Minchin said.
This follows reports industry figures received phone calls and emails from Conroy’s office after speaking out against the proposal.
Minchin was also concerned the proposal would shift responsibility for guarding children from parents to internet service providers.
While we fully support guarding our children from being exposed to inappropriate internet content, parental supervision and guidance supported by readily available content filters tailored to the needs of particular user settings is a more realistic approach, he said.
I can understand why Australians are concerned about the effect of the Government’s internet censorship proposal on system performance and the manner in which a blanket arbitrary determination about web content is to be imposed by the Government.
Minchin added that the proposal did nothing to address non-web areas of the online world where the most predatory risks were found.
I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.
The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish.
nonetheless, you command get bought an impatience over that you wish be delivering
the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly the same nearly a lot
often inside case you shield this hike.
I pity Australian porn buyers, I assume you will all have to get girl friends. Porn seems to be very heavily censored in Australia. This is why your film industry is almost dead. Maximising freedom of expression has been proven to help your mainstream film industry it is a pity the Australian goverment does not realise this. It is also true that if it is too easy to ban a film in Australia then where is the incentive to make them in Australia.
In the UK in comparison it is much more liberal at the moment how ever there is a draw back it can make single men to happy being single. I will prove it is more liberal in the UK check out these sites. http://www.roue.com, http://www.pabo.com, http://www.filthyadultdvd.com and http://www.britvids.co.uk. They all post within the UK though registered outside the UK. A tactic Aussie porn sellers might be able to copy.
Hardcore porn and fetish porn is lawfully sold over the counter all over the UK but the really disgusting uncertified films are sold under the counter. Despite the myth promoted by the Australian sexparty.
First they just about strip away all your rights to own firearms…next the censorship starts…
Sound like pre-war Germany…
If the government proscribes certain graphic images as illegal – what will the penalty be for possession of illegal graphic images?
Many people have porno DVD’s and have downloaded porn from the internet because those graphic images were not illegal at the time they were acquired. Many people have those DVD’s and downloads (perhaps stored in their computer) and they have forgotten they possess them.
The implication in the government announcement is that a large category of pornography will become illegal after a certain date.
It is open to induce that possession of material in that category of pornography after the legislation comes into effect will attract a legal penalty.
Whatever that legal penalty is (probably monetary – I think it is a money making exercise)a conviction for a breach of the legislation will brand the ‘offender’ as a person convicted of a ‘sex crime’.
The implication to the community will be that a person convicted of possession of ‘illegal pornography’ was in possession of pornography in the category of pornography that was proscribed by the government.
Within the category of ‘illegal pornography’ proscribed by the government is ‘child pornography’. The implication to the community is that someone convicted of possessing ‘illegal pornography’ was in possession of ‘child pornography’.
The changes to the legislation are not well publicised. It would be in the interests of people who at some time in their lives have come into possession of pornography to dispose of all their pornography. That is because if the police discover pornography in your possession and that pornography falls into the category of ‘illegal pornography’ you will be charged with being in possession of ‘illegal pornography’ and if convicted the community may assume that the ‘illegal pornography’ that was found in your possession was ‘child pornography’.
That false assumption on the part of the community may be erroneous but may well have the effect of destroying the reputation of the individual convicted of being in possession of ‘illegal pornography’.
The Australian government plans to block “illegal content.” Shouldn’t the government first have to prove that the content is illegal in court? Why should Australians have to trust the government’s claim that it is blocking only “illegal content”?
This Internet filtering scheme is intolerably vague and arbitrary. It’s a scheme that is more often dreamed up in a country such as Saudi Arabia or China than in a commonwealth country such as Australia.
># Oliver said,
>November 12th, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
>
>Do some of you people realise that children can access this material? Thats why the Government needs to censor this.
Uhm, Oliver, this suggests to me that you as a parent are not doing your job correctly. Sure they can put opt-in filters that parents can use as an AID to keeping their kids on the straight and narrow. But say the kid gets older, and wants to do some research on anorexia as its affecting a friend and they just want to understand what they are going through. Or theres some other topic they wish to cover that would undoubtably be blocked, then what? Sure they can use books but theres an equal wealth of information online that can potentially be far more up to date than those in printed texts.
Information has the *potential* for bad AND good uses, i suggest you open your mind Oliver and figure out what is really needed by YOU to help raise your kids without impacting unnessecarily on others. It will probably do the world some good.
P.s. Any argument that has come out of Conroy’s mouth thus far has been a blatant strawman argument and reeks of the flawed “if your not with us you’re against us” logic.
Do some of you people realise that children can access this material? Thats why the Government needs to censor this.
the fun’s over!
I’d say that logic would have it that the primary intention of this filter system is not to protect children or stop people from learning how to make bombs but rather to control a medium that until now escaped control and this is just another step in the government’s ongoing effort to limit press freedom. What better excuse for an increase in censorship than claiming to protect children from porn and the innocent from being blown up? In fact if they really wanted to achieve that the last thing anyone with half a brain would do is block illegal porn and/or terrorist sites. What better way can there be to detect a terrorist or child-porn network than by monitoring Internet activity? Many children have been saved because abusers are able to access forums, post their crap and so be an easy target for undercover police and what better way to detect a wannabe terrorist than the fact he or she is spending much time on the Al Qaeda website? Regardless of whether this is indeed a deal between the Rudd government and the likes of ‘Family First’ or as I suspect an excuse to limit our right to know, it’s certainly one that will put children and the public at greater risk.
Well thanks for pointing that out Chris. Yes I am entitled to my opinion. Hmmm Time to buy some new Lavender Bags!!!
Oliver “I agree with this censorship”…of course you do Oliver ! just as you believe “Hitler was a good person. “( from your post on this site last week)
Again, the world laughs at Australia. Internet censorship? in 2008, you have got to be joking. Remember the saying “one mans morals should never become another mans law”. If some people don’t want to see internet porn, that is perfectly OK, they don’t have to. But other adults are perfectly capable to make their own decisions.
Start by taking the x box and playstation games off the kids Rudd. Or at least apply the same -œblacklist filter.
Seems we can teach a generation on how to hold and shoot weapons to kill others, hurl bombs, race cars too fast, bash others senseless but we can not, as adults see other consenting adults having sex.
One X Box game (Metal Slug 4) says shot shot and shot some more. Now I am confused.
What are we? Oh that’s right
Start by taking the x box and playstation games off the kids Rudd. Or at least apply the same -œblacklist filter.
Seems we can teach a generation on how to hold and shoot weapons to kill others, hurl bombs, race cars too fast, bash others senseless but we can not, as adults see other consenting adults having sex.
One X Box game (Metal Slug 4) says shot shot and shot some more. Now I am confused. What are we? Oh that’s right –
CIVILIZED
CIVILIZED.
Is society that desperate they need to watch extremely explicit material? hmmm? Ben??
Porn is boring! I’d rather be doing then watching and often do. It is a pathetic degradement of fellow human beings. Addictive and destructive; can’t you guys get it?
Vote Greens.
Gah, we all know what happens when content of any sort gets gloved; we all head underground to get it, that’s where all the Real sleaze is. If the Govt wanted to simply block child porn sites etc, it could do so very easily.
This action by the government reminds me more of China than any liberal (notice the small l) government which ours purports to be like. Remember though Kev is quite adamant in his support of the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004… and there’s been no talk of civil partnership legislation like that of the UK. Sometimes Australia embarasses me.
On top of berating groups that have come out against the policy through calls and emails, Conroy accused Green senator Scott Ludlam of seeming to be pro-child pornography for questioning the censorship plans at a Senate estimates committee meeting. Talk about a bruiser.
Egad – 10 comments and not one of them blames Mardi Gras or BGF for anything!
If they filter my internet i’m either installing a sattelite dish at home to get a feed from somewhere, or i’m emigrating.
Is there a more stupid Minister in cabinet than Conroy?
If the government continue not to not listen to the public on this increasingy crucia issue, it may we be a one-term wonder.
Rudd’s call.
Why are you using it then, Oliver?
Close your connection right now or your petty little mind will be corrupted.
This smells of a Government deal with Family First and other far right, zealous, homophobic groups.
Rudd pledged during his election campaign to speed up internet connections in Australia, where connection speeds are well below other advanced economies. The Government’s own research has shown that filtering lowers speeds by 30% or more even under ideal testing conditions. And while the filter was initially touted as a -œcyber-safety measure for homes with children, now we learn of the existence of a secret black list, that would apply to us all. We were deceived.
Parents that want filtering can easily acquire it for their homes. There are also serious questions about the accuracy of the filters, with even the best performers over-blocking hundreds of thousands of innocuous web sites, up to 6 per cent of sites, like Dick Smith or the Breast Cancer Council.
But it’s the politics of this that alarms me most. Conroy, on behalf of tthe powerful God-botherer lobbies, is seeking to equate those who would prefer an unfiltered internet with seekers of child pornography. This is not only patently ridiculous, Oliver, it is a slur. And the fact that the blacklist will be secret suggests no protection from political or homophobic censorship. First they came for the perverts…
And the streets are a breeding ground for fatal road accidents. Want to ban them too?
The technology is flawed. If this goes ahead, we will all pay a price.
Oliver: This is a slippery slope, if you feel it’s ok to enforce your ideals on me, then it’s ok for me to enforce my ideals on you. Let’s see where that gets us…
I agree with this censorship. The Internet is a breeding ground for sleaze and predators.
Conroy’s claims about what is legal and illegal material in Australia are deceptive and misleading. Under his proposals, most magazines in Australian newsagents that are sold in plastic bags (Category 1 Restricted) will be banned on the internet. Where is the sense or the logic in that? Under his proposals, X18+ films that are legal to sell in the ACT and NT and legal to purchase and possess in all other jurisdictions will be illegal to access on the internet. Where is the logic or uniformity in that? Under his proposals The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with endless depictions of brutal murders and mayhem will be quite legal to access on the internet but a non violent sexually explicit film like Debbie Does Dallas will be illegal. Senator Conroy needs to examine his internal morality meter as well as his sense of logic and tolerance.
It is ridiculous that in this day and age we could be on the verge of having the Internet in Australia filtered back to nothing but M rated content. It isn’t illegal for adults to engage in consensual sexual acts, so why would it be OK to make it illegal for other consenting adults to watch?
You can bet that if the government needs the Family First vote in the Senate there will be pressure to add more gay content to both the child-friendly and mandatory levels of blocking.
Welcome to the Stalinism of the Catholic Right of the ALP. I wonder how many gay voters will remember this betrayal at the next election?
BTW – these “filters” will most likely block sites with explicit ads too – some of the popular filters used by corporates block a great many gay media and human rights sites because of the advertising they carry. I can’t access the SSO website from work – Conroy will doubtless try to stop me accessing it at all.
What is wrong with depictions of actual sexual activity? Now I suppose we’ll all have to impprt porn DVDs from OS sight unseen.
As for graphic violence, they could start by banning all those disgusting images of some poor bastard nailed to a wooden cross…