In the Information society the internet is one of the most convenient ways to access a broad range of information. As well as being a source of information the World Wide Web is also a recreational and commercial but unfortunately contains both savoury and unsavoury contents. Online censorship is the regulation of internet content; this is referred to as censorship as certain content becomes prohibited. In 1999 the Australian government enacted the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 this is the primary legislation responsible for the regulation and censorship of internet content.
When the internet was new and was used primarily as a recreational space, internet libertarians like John Perry Barlow called for radical means of individual self-regulation (Fitzgerald, 2002, p.86). However, as the internet has grown to become a centre for electronic commerce and communication the Perry Barlow model for internet governance has been overtaken by pressure for commercial enterprises governance supervised by governments. As the information society evolves so does internet regulation and how the legal system operates. In response to numerous complaints about internet content the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 was enacted. The Act works through a ‘co-regulation’ arrangement with the Internet Industry of Australia (IIA). It aims for Internet Services Providers (ISPs) to commit to an Industry Code of Practice, whereby all material classified as RC (refused classification) or X (non-violent sexually explicit material involving consenting adults) is prohibited, and material that is rated R (which can include sexual activity that is not displayed explicitly) would be prohibited if hosted in Australia, but not if it was hosted overseas. The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) only engages the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) in content classification in response to complaints from members of the community, rather than attempting to classify all Internet content. (Flew, 2002, p.195)
Online censorship is an important issue because societies and governments haven’t found a successful way of limiting minors' access to explicit content. Jurisdiction is one of the main reasons for this and it will be necessary for the law to evolve to take into account the special characteristics of the World Wide Web. The internet is a borderless place making it an international medium that crosses several jurisdictions. This makes securing national territories for the purposes of regulation virtually impossible. Nations are able to enact laws that regulate and censor content that is hosted within their country but they do not have jurisdiction of content hosted outside their borders. The ideal solution would be an international convention prescribing universally applicable rules. Unfortunately given cultural and political differences especially concerning obscenity and freedom of expression – those issues which attract the greatest level of regulation – it would be a tedious task to get all countries to agree. However, where commercial law is concerned, it may be possible to achieve international laws(Garnett, 2000).
The Act’s effectiveness is arguable; it has been described as ‘symbolic policy’ because content can be re-hosted overseas and also because it relies on complaints. Only “a hundred complaints were received in the first six months of the legislation’s operation, and in the majority of cases, the offending content was simply re-hosted outside of Australia� (Young 2000 in Flew 2002 p. 252)
The Act has also been criticised as being fundamentally wrong because it makes the carrier liable. Suggestions have been made that the content producers should be the ones liable even though it would offend Australia’s principles of free speech. In March 2002 Electronic Frontiers Australia did some extensive research into policies regarding internet censorship in other countries and found that other democratic societies weren’t as regulated as Australia (2002, Dec. 20). In Australia the government has the ability to enact stricter legislation than other democratic nations because unlike the United States of America for example there is not a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Internet filters are a certain form of internet censorship because they make certain information inaccessible to the user. Filtering software sits between internet users and internet content. The software allows access to some material that is deemed appropriate and blocks access to other material. The IIA has a list of filtering products that have been scheduled under their Content Code of Practice. For successful regulation of offensive and inappropriate content it is advisable to use a filtering product in conjunction with the legislation. While using filters is more akin to a self-regulatory model because the user choses what information is available to them or their family until the jurisdictional issues associated with the industry developed solution (Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999) it is the most effective.
The United States of America was the first country to regulate online content through the Communications Decency Act 1996. The United States District Court in Pennsylvania found later in the same year that the Act was unconstitutional because it threatened the First Amendment for the right to freedom of speech. The internet censorship debate has since continued. In Singapore the Singapore Broadcasting Authority has been given responsibility for the regulation of internet content. Through examining international positions on internet censorship the possible development of international regulation can be considered.
Kathryn Badger 21:33, 9 Sep 2004 (EST)
References for Online Censorship
