Australia Censors the Internet

Oh boy. Here we go.

So news just recently came out that Australia is planning on implementing their internet censoring strategy in July. Immediate reaction? Boo! Hiss! Evil censorship. Then you find out that their primary aim is to block child porn sites. Sounds reasonable, right?

Except they're going about it the wrong way. First of all, there is no appeals process in place for websites that get placed on the blacklist - and Wikileaks has already revealed that sites that are unrelated to illegal activities have made the cut (unless Australia has suddenly outlawed dentists in Queensland).

Donna Ashelford of the System Administrators Guild of Australia pointed out that this plan probably won't have an effect on the distribution of child porn anyway. "Child abuse material is more likely to be exchanged on peer-to-peer networks and private networks anyway and is a matter for law enforcement." Keep in mind now, these blockages are being enforced by the internet providers, not the government. So law enforcement is not the one enforcing the restriction to these materials - it's all private sector. (Enforcement, that is. The creation of the list is coming from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, as well as unnamed sources.) The  Electronic Frontier Foundation claims that there is no transparency or accountability in the process of deciding who gets blacklisted, greatly increasing the chances of sites being wrongfully blocked.

Also, these sites are blocked by their URL, meaning that they can continue to be in operation if they simply change their address by only one character. Effective, no?

As with all censorship, its boundaries are almost never as solid and stable as we would like to think. The positive goal, restricting access to child pornography, could (and is likely to) restrict the rights of individuals who are not engaging in illegal activities who just happen to find themselves on the wrong list. Without a way to appeal and defend themselves, this system is setting itself up for this inevitability. It's effectiveness is rightfully questioned, making us wonder if it is worth it to unintentionally restrict the innocent if the greater good isn't even being achieved. And, as always, when you begin to censor things in a free society, you set a presedent for expanding the boundaries of what is and isn't appropriate for people to see.

Source: news.com.au