Internet Censorship in Australia Explained

The internet in Australia is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to censorship. The government has the power to block certain websites and online content, but it's not always clear what's being censored and why.

Australia has a voluntary internet filtering system in place, which is overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). This system allows the government to block access to certain websites, but it's not a blanket ban.

The ACMA has the power to block websites that contain prohibited content, such as child exploitation material and terrorist content. But it's worth noting that the ACMA can also block websites that contain prohibited content that's not explicitly listed.

Here's an interesting read: Telecommunications in Australia

Australia has a complex internet censorship landscape. A collection of both federal and state laws apply to Internet content in the country. This means that online content is subject to multiple regulations, which can be confusing for both individuals and businesses.

The federal government plays a significant role in shaping internet censorship policies. However, the state governments also have their own laws and regulations that govern online content. This dual approach can lead to inconsistencies and challenges in enforcing internet censorship laws.

Federal laws and bills in Australia have been shaping the country's approach to internet censorship. The Australian constitution implies a right to freedom of expression, and the government generally respects these rights in practice.

An independent press, effective judiciary, and functioning democratic system combine to ensure freedom of speech and press. Individuals and groups can engage in online expression, including via email.

However, laws like the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 allow for court-ordered censorship of non-domestic websites facilitating copyright infringement. This law was passed in June 2015.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019 requires websites to remove abhorrent violent content within a reasonable timeframe. Failure to do so may result in fines or jail time. This law applies to any service hosting such content, regardless of server location.

Proposed mandatory filtering legislation aimed to extend internet censorship to overseas websites, but it has not been enacted. The proposal has generated substantial opposition, with concerns raised by opponents and only a few groups supporting it.

Recommended read: Internet Freedom

The Australian Law Reform Commission reviewed the criteria for the "refused classification" (RC) category in 2010. Their report recommended focusing on adult content, censoring only prohibited content, and limiting bans on serious crime. They also suggested enacting a new media content classification act.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) released a filter code on child abuse, stating that no new legislation amendments were required. However, no public code has been released yet.

Discover more: Computer Says No Internet but Internet Works

Some state governments in Australia have laws that ban the transmission of material unsuitable for minors. For example, in New South Wales, internet censorship legislation was introduced in 2001, which criminalizes online material that's not suitable for minors.

The New South Wales government stated that the legislation would be neither commenced nor repealed until after the review of the Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation had been completed. This review was likely done to assess the effectiveness of the legislation.

If this caught your attention, see: Communications in Papua New Guinea

In New South Wales, internet censorship legislation was introduced in 2001 which criminalises online material which is unsuitable for minors.

Here's a list of some of the prohibited content under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992:

In California, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental impact reports for projects that may have a significant impact on the environment.

The state of New York has a law that requires a permit for any project that involves the discharge of pollutants into the state's waters.

Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality has a program that offers technical and financial assistance to help small businesses comply with state environmental regulations.

In Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has a program that allows businesses to pay a fee to avoid the need for a permit for certain activities.

The state of Washington has a law that requires a permit for any project that involves the excavation of more than 5,000 cubic yards of material.

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is a key piece of legislation that governs Internet content in Australia. It was enacted in 1992 and has undergone several amendments since then, with the most significant changes happening in 1999 and 2007.

Provisions in Schedule 5 and Schedule 7 of the Act allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to effectively ban certain content from being hosted within Australia. If a complaint is issued about material "broadcast" on the Internet, the ACMA can examine the material under the guidelines for film and video.

The content is deemed to be "prohibited" if it is refused classification, classified X18+, classified R18+ without an adult verification system, or classified MA15+ without an adult verification system where the user has paid to access the content. Cyberbullying is also considered prohibited content.

Here are the specific reasons why content is deemed prohibited:

If content is deemed prohibited, the ACMA can issue a takedown notice, requiring the content to be removed. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to $11,000 per day. If the site is hosted outside Australia, the content is added to a blocklist of banned URLs, which is then added to filtering software offered by Internet service providers.

The Suicide Offences Act 2006 was a significant piece of legislation passed by the Federal Parliament in 2006.

This act made it illegal to use communications media such as the Internet to discuss the practical aspects of suicide.

In essence, the act aimed to prevent the dissemination of information that could potentially encourage or facilitate suicide.

The act was a response to growing concerns about the impact of online content on vulnerable individuals.

The Suicide Related Materials Offences Act 2006 remains a key part of Australia's laws surrounding suicide and mental health.

Intriguing read: Digital Services Act

In New South Wales, Internet censorship legislation was introduced in 2001, which criminalises online material unsuitable for minors.

The New South Wales Standing Committee on Social Issues issued a report in 2002, recommending that the legislation be repealed.

The New South Wales government stated that the legislation "will be neither commenced nor repealed" until after the review of the Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation had been completed.

In Australia, some state governments have laws that ban the transmission of material unsuitable for minors.

In New South Wales, Internet censorship legislation was introduced in 2001, which criminalises online material that's not suitable for minors.

Two Australian ISPs, Telstra and Optus, voluntarily blocked access to a list of child-abuse websites in 2011.

These ISPs used a combination of DNS blocking and IP blocking to ban the sites, but it's relatively easy to circumvent DNS blocks.

Telstra and Optus claimed to be acting independently and not under directive of government or law enforcement, which sparked some public controversy.

The telecom providers' actions exposed the independent power that ISPs may exercise in censoring online content.

Telstra released a statement saying they blocked the sites due to "extraordinary circumstances" requiring an "extraordinary response".

Check this out: Blocking of Twitter in Brazil

In June 2011, two Australian ISPs, Telstra and Optus, voluntarily blocked access to a list of child-abuse websites.

Telstra and Optus used a combination of DNS blocking and IP blocking to ban the sites, with Telstra taking a similar approach to Optus.

Most bans appeared to be lifted after several weeks, with 4chan and Voat bans extending longer.

Telstra released a brief statement soon after blocking the sites, referring to "extraordinary circumstances" that required an "extraordinary response".

Curious to learn more? Check out: Blocking of YouTube Videos in Germany

The ACMA Blocklist Leak was a significant event in 2009 that highlighted the complexities of internet censorship.

In March 2009, Australian media sources reported that the ACMA blocklist had been leaked to WikiLeaks, which included 2,300 URLs.

The leaked list contained a wide range of websites, including those of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener, and a kennel operator.

ACMA claimed that the leaked list was not the actual blocklist, citing differences in length and format.

Here's a comparison of the two lists:

WikiLeaks published another list in March 2009, which was closer to the length published by ACMA.

The Australian Minister for Communications, Stephen Conroy, acknowledged that the second list was closer to the actual blocklist.

However, Conroy also attributed the inclusion of some websites, such as a dentist's website, to technical errors or external factors, like subversion by the Russian mafia.

Many ISPs are experimenting with live filtering trials to block access to certain websites and online services.

Some of these trials use deep packet inspection technology to analyze internet traffic in real-time.

ISPs claim that live filtering can help prevent cyberbullying, online harassment, and the spread of malware.

In 2019, a UK ISP conducted a live filtering trial that blocked access to websites with explicit content.

The trial resulted in a reported 90% reduction in child safety complaints.

However, critics argue that live filtering can be invasive and may block access to legitimate websites and services.

ISPs must carefully balance the need to protect users with the need to respect their online freedom.

A different take: Internet Access

ISP self-censorship is a growing concern, with some providers actively blocking or throttling certain types of online content.

Many ISPs have been caught throttling BitTorrent traffic, slowing down internet speeds for users engaged in file-sharing activities.

In some cases, ISPs have even blocked access to specific websites, such as those providing pirated content or online security tools.

ISPs have also been known to throttle speeds for users accessing streaming services like Netflix, prioritizing their own content over those of competitors.

This practice is often justified as a means to prevent network congestion, but it can have serious consequences for users who rely on these services.

The Labor Party initially announced plans for an ISP-based filter to censor "inappropriate material" in 2007, with an opt-out provision for adults. However, this was later replaced with a mandatory filter with no opt-out provision in 2008.

Senator Kate Lundy lobbied for an "opt-out" filter in 2010, describing it as the "least worst" option. Stephen Conroy claimed that 85% of Internet Service Providers supported the filter, but iiNet's chief regulatory officer disputed this, stating that the company did not support the filter.

The Labor Party eventually shelved the proposed mandatory filter legislation in 2012, citing existing legislation as a successful alternative. This resulted in 90% of Australian Internet users being censored from accessing some web-based content.

You might like: Filter Bubble

The Liberal/Nationals Coalition has had a mixed stance on internet filtering. They initially obtained independent legal advice that a mandatory censorship regime would require new legislation, and their communications spokesman Nick Minchin stated that the government was "completely botching the implementation" of the policy.

In 2010, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey attacked the filter, saying it was "unworkable in practice" and would create a "scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader scale". The Liberal communications spokesman Tony Smith later announced that a Coalition government would not introduce a mandatory ISP-level filter.

The Coalition later proposed an opt-out filter for all internet connections, but this was retracted as "poorly worded" and replaced with a plan to encourage mobile phone and internet service providers to make available software that parents can choose to install on their own devices to protect their children from inappropriate material.

The Greens have consistently opposed the filter, with Greens senator Scott Ludlam predicting that the legislation will not be introduced due to obstruction in the Senate. He believes that the filter does not suit its purpose of protecting children online and that the government may have hit a wall of "technical impossibility".

The Greens have also criticized the government's responses to their questions about the filtering trial, pointing out that the filter would be easy to bypass using technological measures and that many of the censored sites were not related to child pornography.

The Labor Party has a complex history with internet filtering, with different statements and policies over the years.

Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government's intention to introduce an ISP-based filter to censor "inappropriate material" from the Internet to protect children on December 31, 2007.

In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million "cybersafety plan" which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision.

The Labor Party's policy statement on the issue contradicts Stephen Conroy's claim that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content.

The most recent explanation of the government's position on this issue is provided on the ministry website, stating that only ISP-level filtering of (designated) refused classification (RC) material will be mandatory under their policy.

Stephen Conroy has stated that 85% of Internet Service Providers, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus, and iiNet, welcome the Internet filter.

However, Steve Dalby, iiNet's chief regulatory officer, has stated that iiNet as a company does not support the Internet filter, and never has.

On July 9, 2010, Stephen Conroy announced that any mandatory filtering would be delayed until at least 2011.

In November 2012, Stephen Conroy shelved the proposed mandatory filter legislation in favour of existing legislation, claiming it was successful in compelling the largest ISPs to adopt a filter.

Family First senator Steve Fielding supported the censorship of hardcore pornography and fetish material under the government's plans to filter access to the web in 2008. He wanted X-rated content banned for everyone, including adults.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon initially supported using the filtering plan to block overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia. However, he later withdrew his support in 2009 due to concerns about the plan.

The Australian Sex Party was launched in November 2008 and planned to campaign on issues including censorship and the federal government's promised web filter. They won a seat in the Victorian Legislative Council in 2014.

In May 1999, national protests were held against the proposed Federal Internet censorship legislation. Hundreds of people took to the streets to voice their opposition.

The Digital Liberty Coalition organised protests in all capital cities nationwide in November 2008 and December 2008, with the goal of rallying continuously until censorship was taken off the table.

GetUp!, an Internet-based political activism organisation, backed the offline action of the DLC to oppose the web censorship plan. They first called for donations in December 2008 to raise awareness of Internet censorship in Australia.

The group raised an unprecedented $30,000 in just one day, demonstrating the public's concern about the issue.

GetUp! teamed up with Fnuky Advertising to launch a campaign in July 2009, featuring a mock consumer product called Censordyne, a parody of the toothpaste brand Sensodyne.

The Censordyne campaign went viral, with the words GetUp and Censordyne becoming the number 2 and 3 most talked about brands on Twitter worldwide within 24 hours of its launch.

GetUp! raised over $45,000 in donations from the general public to see the Censordyne commercial on TV and on Qantas flights in August 2009.

Opinion polling on the mandatory internet filter has shown a wide variation in results, likely due to differences in question wording.

In February 2010, a poll of 1,000 Australians found that 62% agreed with government regulation of internet content, similar to other media.

The same poll showed that 80% of respondents were in favour of a mandatory internet filter that would automatically censor overseas websites containing Refused Classification material.

However, 46% of respondents were against the idea of a government-appointed body determining whether a website is appropriate for them to visit.

A 2009 poll of 1,100 people found that only 5% wanted ISPs to be responsible for protecting children online, and only 4% wanted government to have this responsibility.

In contrast, a 2010 survey of 21,755 experienced internet users found that only 8% were in favour of the mandatory filter.

Here are the results of several polls on the mandatory internet filter:

The results of these polls highlight the complexity of public opinion on the mandatory internet filter.

The Australian government proposed mandatory filtering of overseas websites in 2008, but by June 2010, no legislation had been drafted to enact the policy.

This proposal has been met with significant opposition, with many concerns raised by critics. Some groups do support the policy, but they are vastly outnumbered.

The earliest possible date for new legislation to reach parliament was mid-2013, according to a document released by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in November 2010.

The Australian government's website was attacked by the group Anonymous in 2009, with the first incident occurring on March 26th, automatically redirecting visitors to a page with a mocking message about censorship efforts.

The message claimed that the Classification Board had the right to control freedom and decide what content was appropriate.

In September 2009, Anonymous reawakened for Operation Didgeridie, a protest against internet censorship, and launched a Distributed Denial-of-service attack against the prime minister's website, taking it offline for approximately one hour.

The group Anonymous attacked the Parliament of Australia's website again on February 10th, 2010, with a range of tactics including distributed denial of service, black faxes, prank calls, and spam emails, taking the site down for over two days.

The attack, named "Operation Titstorm", was reportedly in defiance of the government's policy on banning certain types of pornography.

Expand your knowledge: Bitė Group

In 2012, a report proposed the creation of an independent News Media Council to regulate all media platforms.

The council would have the power to order changes to published content, publication of a right of reply, and the publication of an apology. This would essentially convert the code of ethics of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) into laws enforceable by the courts.

Refusal to comply with the council's orders could result in contempt charges, trials, and fines or prison sentences. Small publishers and bloggers may feel coerced into publishing corrections or apologies due to the lack of resources to defend themselves in court.

The proposal would affect all media platforms, including print, online, radio, and television.

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) played a significant role in reviewing the country's filtering rules. In July 2010, Justice Minister Robert McClelland ordered the ALRC to review the criteria for the "refused classification" (RC) category.

The ALRC conducted public consultation and evaluated the practices and codes of companies in the sector. They released a report in February 2012 with several key recommendations.

Here are some of the ALRC's recommendations:

This bill introduces broad and ambiguous definitions of "misinformation" and "serious harm", meaning any difference of opinion could potentially be censored.

The law will give government-appointed bureaucrats and fact-checkers immense control over what is considered true or false, even labeling factual content as misleading if it "lacked context."

A previous draft of the bill was abandoned by the Government after it drew widespread condemnation from tech companies, civil liberties groups and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This means unelected officials will have far-reaching powers to censor online debate, which is not just an attack on freedom of speech, but an attack on democracy itself.

The bill will empower ACMA to establish enforceable industry codes, allowing them to exert significant control over online content.

Censoring access based on the Interpol blocklist can potentially constitute a criminal act of "impairment of an electronic communication", which carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison.

This is according to Peter Black, a QUT internet law lecturer, who raised concerns about the legality of mandatory filtering.

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman stopped short of saying Telstra and Optus breached existing contracts, describing the question as a "hypothetical one".

User Rights Violations are a serious concern in the context of online platforms. In some cases, users have reported being unfairly banned or suspended without being given a chance to appeal.

The article highlights the case of a user who was banned from a social media platform for posting a comment that was deemed "inflammatory" by the platform's moderators. This raises questions about the criteria used to determine what content is acceptable.

Users have the right to be informed about why they are being banned or suspended, and to have a clear process for appealing the decision. However, in some cases, users have reported being given vague or unclear reasons for their ban.

The article notes that the platform's terms of service are often lengthy and difficult to understand, making it hard for users to know what they are agreeing to when they sign up. This lack of transparency can lead to users being unaware of the rules they are supposed to follow.

In some cases, users have reported being banned for posting content that was not explicitly prohibited by the platform's rules. This suggests that the platform's moderators may be interpreting the rules in a way that is not clear or consistent.

For another approach, see: Tiktok App Banned

There are concerns that censoring access based on the Interpol blocklist can constitute a criminal act of "impairment of an electronic communication", with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. This is a serious issue that has sparked debate.

Telstra's filter was put live without changing the end use agreement about restricting access or notifying their customers, which has raised eyebrows. This lack of transparency has left many wondering about the telco's accountability.

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman stopped short of saying Telstra and Optus breached existing contracts, but did describe the question as a "hypothetical one." This ambiguity has only added to the confusion.

In October 2008, the Australian Labor Party proposed extending Internet censorship to a system of mandatory filtering of overseas websites. This proposal has generated substantial opposition, with many concerns being raised by opponents.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy released a document in November 2010 indicating that new legislation could reach parliament as early as mid-2013. However, voluntary filtering by ISPs remains a possibility, offering a potential alternative to mandatory filtering.