Saturday, July 18, 2009

Australia's Internet Censorship Gong Show

How would censorship work in the Internet age? Australia gives us a sneak preview of the gong show that ensues when medieval thinking is applied to a wired world.

Australia’s government nannies have officially banned 1,370 web sites. They’ve drawn up a blacklist, just like the medieval index of banned books. Right now it’s a voluntary pilot project to which Internet service providers can submit. But if the trial run is deemed a success and made law, anyone who links to a blacklisted site can be fined $11,000 a day. That means it will be a crime not just to provide the contents of a web site, but to merely reproduce its address.

That’s not just like banning books. It’s like banning books, and banning saying the banned book’s title. It’s a lot of banning.

But here’s the tricky part: the government won’t even say what those 1,370 banned web sites are. It’s secret. So there are 1,370 web sites out there that could result in your criminal prosecution in Australia. But you won’t find out what they are — until you link to one of them. That’s right out of Alice in Wonderland. The pretzelian logic goes like this: if the Australian government were to list those 1,370 banned web sites, then not only would they be breaking the rules themselves, but that list would serve as an advertisement. Out of the billions of web pages on the Internet, 1,370 would be given special attention, inviting anyone curious to check them out.

Of course, people who compile the secret blacklist know what’s on it. But apparently they can be trusted not to succumb to the temptation to look at the sites. And the list was sent to selected Australian Internet companies for a trial run. That didn’t work out quite as well. The list was leaked to Wikileaks, the web site that specializes in publishing confidential documents, especially embarrassing internal government memoranda.

And that’s when things got even weirder. Wikileaks published the entire blacklist on one of its pages. So now that Wikileaks page, too, has been added to the blacklist. It’s number 1,371.

Needless to say, I was tempted to skim the names of the banned sites. Most of them are porn sites, and some have names that suggest child pornography, which is a crime. But that’s what we have courts for. The Australian blacklist wasn’t written by a court; there was no hearing where evidence was brought that these sites were criminal sites. A group of busybody human rights activists simply wrote the blacklist. Sounds Canadian, actually.

Many banned sites are merely offensive, but not illegal. And some sites are perfectly innocuous. For some secret reason, the web site is on the blacklist. If you’re not in Australia, feel free to give that one a click. It’s not a pornographic site. My Dutch is rusty, but it appears to be a web site for a forklift rental company in Holland.

How did Van Bokhorst get on the blacklist in Australia? Nobody knows because the process was kept secret, even from Van Bokhorst. It’s unlikely that Van Bokhorst had any Australian customers. But that’s not the point. Someone is making these clandestine decisions about what Australians can or can’t see.

We’ve seen this sort of censorship in other countries — and not just from the likes of communist China. Thailand brought in a similar blacklist in the name of protecting its citizens from child pornography. But — surprise! — within months, the blacklist had other web sites on it, including 1,200 banned for criticizing the Thai royal family. A secret list, in the hands of a government, practically guarantees that sort of political abuse.

Australia’s trial-run blacklist has plenty of questionable items on it, and not just Dutch forklift companies. Hundreds of Internet poker sites are banned. Poker, unlike child pornography, is not a crime. It may be a vice, but how to handle that is a political debate. Australia’s blacklist ends that discussion with force.

And now a web site about abortion politics is on the blacklist. You can probably guess which side of the debate is being censored, but either way, it’s abominable censorship.

That blacklist was sold as a way to stop child porn. But that’s the thing about slippery slopes, isn’t it; you don’t really see the dangers until you’ve started sliding into them.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission wants an Internet blacklist, too. It wants to expand Canada’s to cover political sites, not just child porn sites it targets now.

We associate book burnings with witch trials and the Nazis, not with mild-mannered bureaucrats. But book burnings in the 21st century require no matches — just self-righteous censors and a somnolent public.

6 Opinion(s):

Ranger Tom said...

This is truly scary... What's next? I ask...

Doberman said...

The Aussies have sayings like "having a fair go", "it's un-Australian" and "fair dinkum" which means let's play fair. They don't take shit very easily and they don't like injustice. It must be the rugged nature of the inhabitants that colonised the country. People had to rely on goodwill and trust to survive.

The list will be challenged and thrown out if such a list is ever used against an individual because, and this is where the stupidity lies, in order to charge and prosecute someone based on a "list", you need to produce said list in an open court and the secret list will be no more.

Don't worry, I've seen the Aussies protest in numbers over very minor things like traffic circles so this would get their goat big-time when it becomes common knowledge.

I guess that's why the list is secret, they know if the public finds out about its existence, they (the authorities) would be torn a new one. Not a worry. Gotta love Australia.

Vanilla Ice said...

Yes, I imagine Australia may be the only English country left, that will push back. But don't be pro-white, then you are forked.

Anonymous said...

I live in Brisbane. My ISP is Telstra ("bigpond" - the Aussie equivalent of Telkom). I've just accessed the Wikileaks "secret list" as well as some of the banned sites listed on it, without being blocked. The thought police haven't arrived at my front door yet ... but I will let you know if they do. But seriously, I don't think this ban is "active" yet.

Anonymous said...

the website belongs to a Driving School.

I guess the fact that the 3 directors on the main photo are seemingly covering their private parts may constitute something in the Australian law?

Doberman said...

@ anon 4:13, lol. Let me know. I would love to see the public get hold of this information. Can you imagine A Current Affair and/or Today Tonight getting hold of this? Actually it may be a good idea to send them the link to Levant's article.