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