By Rachel Chalmers
Australia’s Internet Industry Association (IIA) and Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) have expressed furious oppositions to government proposals to restrict internet access to offensive content. IIA executive director Peter Coroneos was the least immoderate of the opponents to the proposed Online Services Bill. Whilst the legislation is a courageous attempt at reflecting the position we’ve been developing over the last three years, he conceded, it fails to recognize the factual information provided by the IIA, CSIRO [Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization] and others that is clearly in opposition to what the legislation dictates.
In particular, Coroneos says, the legislation requires internet service providers (ISPs) to take reasonable steps to prevent internet access to offensive material. This measure, he points out, assumes that there are reasonable steps that can be taken. Our message to the government is that such steps are not available… We are left wondering what reasonable steps the government has in mind and continue to oppose any measure that might damage the efficiency and amenity of the internet.
Far less conciliatory in tone was a call to arms published by the EFA. Their rhetoric of ‘protecting the children’ and their use of extreme examples can not conceal that these proposals threaten our freedom to access and publish all kinds of information, the EFA wrote. If you want the internet to remain free, please act immediately to stop these draconian proposals. The document calls on Australian internet users to contact government officials and express their opposition to the proposed bill.
Most strident of all, however, was Australian Federal Communications Minister Richard Alston, who introduced the censorship legislation by accusing its critics of making it easier for pedophiles, drug-pushers, racists and criminals to pollute the internet. Ironically, Alston’s impassioned speech followed a statement from the government itself, saying that it welcomes informed debate about the topic rather than knee-jerk responses to generalized rhetoric. Maybe someone should tell Richard Alston. á
