IP: Australian Censor braves Silicon Valley censure

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:58:35 -0500
> From: Richard Hornbeck <hornbeck () primenet com>
> To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks () toad com>
>
>
> The Sydney Morning Herald
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/9903/20/features/features3.html
>
> Monday, May 31, 1999 
>
> Censorship bill: the joke's on us 
>
> By SANDY PLUNKETT 
>
> One of the biggest mistakes made by former US President George Bush
> during
> the 1992 election campaign was to visit a grocery store. On seeing the
> retailer's technology - a barcode scanner - Bush marvelled at it, but
> had 
> to ask what it was. That supposedly innocent question sent a strong
> message 
> that Bush just wasn't keeping up.
>
> In Silicon Valley, keeping up is mandatory for any political or business
> leader
> attempting to break into the ranks of the so-called Digerati. The
> biggest insult
> to a New Economy wannabe is, "you don't get it".
>
> So when Australia's Information Technology Minister, Senator Richard
> Alston,
> arrives in Silicon Valley tomorrow on another Trade Mission to promote
> just
> how much Australia understands the rules of the New Economy, he would be
> better off not to mention the Australian Government's stance on
> "Internet
> censorship".
>
> Senator Alston was one of the senior ministers fond of mocking opponents
> of
> the Government's policy for the partial privatisation of Telstra in
> 1997. He
> pointed out they were keeping company with Third World and former Soviet
> bloc policymakers - the only countries that still had fully publicly
> owned
> telecoms carriers.
>
> But the Government is also guilty of such backward policies.
>
> In particular, a piece of legislation that takes Australia back to the
> information dark ages by attempting to censor the Internet in ways one 
> might expect of China, North Korea or Vietnam.
>
> Those few people in Silicon Valley who have an interest in Australia
> have
> reacted with either incredulity or sneering disgust to last week's
> passage
> of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill.
>
> We even made the front page of the information industry's bible, Wired
> Online. The headline: "Big Brother Down Under." Indeed, Australia is
> starting
> to become a source of copy for Silicon Valley publications.
> Unfortunately, it
> often takes the form of comic relief.
>
> The bill, if passed, forces Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
> to
> act as censors on the Internet - filtering and blocking "adult" or
> "offensive" 
> content from all around the world. It also sets up the Australian
> Broadcasting 
> Authority as high-powered watchdog, supervising and able to impose heavy
> fines 
> on ISPs.
>
> There are many questions about how this can be technically and
> operationally
> implemented. The Government points to Internet filtering software to
> help
> make the task easier. But so what? If it becomes law, ISPs will have to
> deal
> with offensive content. ISPs which ignore that obligation risk fines of
> many
> thousands of dollars.
>
> And there are far bigger philosophical and economical issues. And they
> have
> already been played out in the US since 1997, triggered by the
> Communications Decency Act.
>
> The Australian Government's apparent ignorance of this devalues the
> emerging
> Australia.com.au brand. Understanding it goes to the core of what powers
> a
> new economy in a democratic society.
>
> In February, the US Supreme Court ruled against Net censorship: "As a
> matter
> of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
> we
> presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more
> likely to
> interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The
> interest in
> encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any
> theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
>
> It is appropriate for those wanting to protect children from offensive
> content -
> in any medium - to have options. Technology is available to allow
> parents or
> teachers to monitor Internet content.
>
> But the US Supreme Court found that government attempts to set a
> national
> standard defining inappropriate material on the Internet was not the
> answer.
> Much of the problem lies in the vague language lawmakers must use when
> trying to define such content.
>
> In another case, a Philadelphia Judge barred enforcement of the Child
> Online
> Protection Act. In a case brought by civil liberties groups to overturn
> the new
> law aimed at censoring content on the Internet, District Court Judge
> Lowell
> Reed issued a preliminary injunction protecting Internet speakers from
> prosecution and fines.
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Shari Steele made the point that
> "plaintiffs in this case are not pornographers; they offer resources on
> obstetrics, gynaecology, sexual health, visual art, poetry, gay and 
> lesbian issues, books, photographs and online magazines.
>
> "Judge Reed has recognised what the Supreme Court has said time and time
> again - the free speech rights of adults may not be reduced to allow
> them to
> read only what is acceptable for children."
>
> In Singapore, attempts to censor Internet content are failing as
> children and
> teenagers are finding ways around filters on Web sites.
>
> In the case of Australia, many believe this is about a Government that
> doesn't
> seem to understand the power of individual pieces of legislation and
> particularly how they can work in combination to create highly negative 
> side-effects.
>
> Combine two years of talk with no action on capital gains tax reform
> with last
> week's Internet censorship moves and Australia looks to the outside
> world -
> particularly the US - like a country that just doesn't "get" this New
> Economy
> thing at all.
>
> Sandy Plunkett analyses the US technology scene each Monday. She is a
> former associate editor of Business Review Weekly and is now an
> associate of the venture capital firm Allen & Buckeridge. She lives in
> San
> Francisco and can be contacted at splunk () a-b com au