KC Hill
Dexter
Cibbuano
Paladin
Craig Hill
Oracle of DelphiAustralia: Internet Censorship and Sedition Laws
October 29th 2008 00:33
Australia is set to introduce compulsory internet censorship, supposedly to control access to anorexia and euthanasia sites. It would appear only a matter of time before it is expanded to incorporate the new sedition laws, introduced in 2005.
Governments around the world and throughout history have always used a softening approach to introduce controversial, unconstitutional or downright illegal laws. In thsi case, they are playing on the emotions of the population, saying such laws are to protect anorexics from themselves. It is only a matter of time before they decide that the public need protecting from a wide variety of matters, including political material that is deemed "unpatriotic".
Australia is already seen internationally as lacking internet maturity or sophistication. With low internet speeds and high costs, and technology that lags behind the world, we are precluded from many services that other countries take for granted. In USA last year, for example, I had high speed access, with unlimited downloads, for just $29 month. It was similar in China, no download restrictions by most companies, at affordable costs.
Now the government wants to restrict what we can access even more. Such censorship would put Australia on a par with countries such as China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea. I experienced such censorship when I was in China, and know first hand the effect lack of knowledge can have on a population.
The advent of information technology has generally been heralded as a force for the breakdown of authoritarian political control. In days gone by, such governments seized printing presses and burnt books. The internet made such practices futile.
However, about a decade ago, Singapore adopted a strategy of controlling the internet, by ensuring all ISPs connected through a government controlled server. In 1995, Singapore's Second Minister For Foreign Affairs (now Minister), George Yeo, stated "censorship can no longer be 100% effective, but even if it is only 20% effective, we should not stop censoring."
In September 1996, it became clear that Singapore had achieved much higher than this 20%. ASEAN met in Singapore, and agreed to collaborate on finding ways to control the internet (Philippines was the only ASEAN member to reject such political control).
Even before this meeting, China had sent senior information official Zeng Jianhui to Singapore to learn about internet policing practices. So had Vietnam. After a brief period of blocking access to 137 sites in September 1996, Chinese officials followed the Singapore example of more selective restriction, and a greater reliance on the threat posed by the mere possibility of monitoring.
In Australia, this brings up the possibility of the use of the Anti-Terrorism (No.2) Act 2005. According to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the Act contains the largest legislative impediments to press freedom ever seen in Australia. The laws allow police to hold a person for 48 hours without charge on mere suspicion of "terrorist activity." A journalist who reported such detention faces five years imprisonment, with no defence of "public interest" where a journalist reports miscarriages of justice.
In 2006, an academic who had been awarded an $829,000 Australian Research Council grant was warned by Attorney-General Ruddock that his proposed interviews with international terrorist leaders, as part of this research, would be in contravention of the anti-terrorist laws, even if such interviews happened outside Australia. The academic was forced by the government to alter the framework of his research using the threat of these laws.
It remains to be seen how long before Australia expands it's censorship of the internet to incorporate the anti-sedition laws, and to what degree.
More stories by this author after the following important information
by Craig Hill
Governments around the world and throughout history have always used a softening approach to introduce controversial, unconstitutional or downright illegal laws. In thsi case, they are playing on the emotions of the population, saying such laws are to protect anorexics from themselves. It is only a matter of time before they decide that the public need protecting from a wide variety of matters, including political material that is deemed "unpatriotic".
Australia is already seen internationally as lacking internet maturity or sophistication. With low internet speeds and high costs, and technology that lags behind the world, we are precluded from many services that other countries take for granted. In USA last year, for example, I had high speed access, with unlimited downloads, for just $29 month. It was similar in China, no download restrictions by most companies, at affordable costs.
Now the government wants to restrict what we can access even more. Such censorship would put Australia on a par with countries such as China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea. I experienced such censorship when I was in China, and know first hand the effect lack of knowledge can have on a population.
The advent of information technology has generally been heralded as a force for the breakdown of authoritarian political control. In days gone by, such governments seized printing presses and burnt books. The internet made such practices futile.
However, about a decade ago, Singapore adopted a strategy of controlling the internet, by ensuring all ISPs connected through a government controlled server. In 1995, Singapore's Second Minister For Foreign Affairs (now Minister), George Yeo, stated "censorship can no longer be 100% effective, but even if it is only 20% effective, we should not stop censoring."
In September 1996, it became clear that Singapore had achieved much higher than this 20%. ASEAN met in Singapore, and agreed to collaborate on finding ways to control the internet (Philippines was the only ASEAN member to reject such political control).
Even before this meeting, China had sent senior information official Zeng Jianhui to Singapore to learn about internet policing practices. So had Vietnam. After a brief period of blocking access to 137 sites in September 1996, Chinese officials followed the Singapore example of more selective restriction, and a greater reliance on the threat posed by the mere possibility of monitoring.
In Australia, this brings up the possibility of the use of the Anti-Terrorism (No.2) Act 2005. According to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the Act contains the largest legislative impediments to press freedom ever seen in Australia. The laws allow police to hold a person for 48 hours without charge on mere suspicion of "terrorist activity." A journalist who reported such detention faces five years imprisonment, with no defence of "public interest" where a journalist reports miscarriages of justice.
In 2006, an academic who had been awarded an $829,000 Australian Research Council grant was warned by Attorney-General Ruddock that his proposed interviews with international terrorist leaders, as part of this research, would be in contravention of the anti-terrorist laws, even if such interviews happened outside Australia. The academic was forced by the government to alter the framework of his research using the threat of these laws.
It remains to be seen how long before Australia expands it's censorship of the internet to incorporate the anti-sedition laws, and to what degree.
More stories by this author after the following important information
by Craig Hill
| 161 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by Chris Champion
LettersToNorm
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Unlike the liberal party you can't opt out of it so your net will suffer regardless and he hasn't even kept his promise on the new broadband infrastructure.
What really irks me about this censor the internet bullshit is it will stuff up our internet more, it's not like we'll even have today's speeds as everything has to go through a government filter. Traffic jams on the internet high way, wonderful, just bloody well wonderful. As if small businesses weren't suffering enough from our shoddy internet, this will simultaneously end all possible internet based start ups in the country and kick the IT industry in the balls.
argh, I mean the liberal party would be worse no doubt but damn it labor, this is the last time you're getting my [2].
Comment by Mister Smith
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
Comment by Mister Smith
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
You cannot 'protect someone from themselves' whether it is drugs or alcohol or gambling or anorexia....Underlying problems always cause an addiction, and restricting the information creates a fearful and violent society, and it makes them into dictators....
Back to the Senate people! Back to the Senate! Ceasar has his back exposed and our knives are ready!
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
Are we going to have the same problem with "anorexia", or are they just going to read every site on the web, and block those they can find and need to protect us from? Sounds like an awfully big job if they are.
And how are they going to block all the public news sites? That's how we got around censorship in China - people reposting on news and thus bypassing on www.
Comment by Damo
And a great read.
I am disappointed that Kevin07 did noting so far to dismantle Howard's anti terror laws.
However I did not expect it to happen.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
This is absolute Crap! Since when does a government need to protect us from ourselves... anorexics my eye.
Gagging the press.. (even more?), its borderline now, but this nudges it over that line doesnt it?
Once we have lost the freedom of speech, we have also lost the right to keep the government transparent through that freedom of speech, which is goodbye for democracy alright .. hello Mao Tse Tung and the *great Leap Forward* ..cue twighlight zone music and De Ja Vu..
but /seriously/ there hasnt been subversion like this since the dark ages, mind you if it catches more paedophiles, and actually stops anorexia I wont complain... sheesh *slapping my forehead* anorexia? .. is that really the best thing they could come up with to hook this onto?
Now THAT is transparent.
Lilla ..
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
New World Order, anyone?
Comment by CraigH
Legal Herald
Australian Constituency
Sights of Dubai
Film Peek
Australian Tales
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Please contribute your knowledge.
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
Actually, I don't mind nasty comments. Makes me more aware of my shortcomings, and determined to fix those shortcomings.
I hope that my writing has a positive impact on as many people as possible. If I find it having a negative impact, then I try to adjust to fit the real public mood.
Part of public expression is to accept positive and negative feedback with equality, and to learn to evolve as an individual from both forms of feedback.
Much of what is written here is criticism or praise of those in the public eye. By putting ourselves on public forums, we must accept the same back. In effect, we are opening ourselves up to the public eye.
Of course there are the odd comments from people who are just straight out morons, but you just have to accept that. I believe everybody has their inalienable right to express their opinion, and I allow all comments to stand as are.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
When I had a regular page in Big Issue magazine, about 5% of feedback were "nasties" Almost all the nasty ones, and the death threats, were from good old "Anonymous". Or Pauline Hanson's fan club.
Ahh.. the good old days
Comment by Mister Smith
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
OK. I'm over it now.
Comment by Mister Smith
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Comment by KC Hill
World Art
Gear Lover
Daily History
The HOT Report
World Travel
Street Beat
Hind Sight
As long as the criticism is fair and warranted, I accept it whole heartedly. Even if it is unfair criticism, I still accept your right to state it.
I always welcome your comments, and others on this site, as they are generally relevant and considered.