Australia Internet To Censor Over 500 Websites

Beginning in July the Federal Government of Australia will be censoring over 500 websites that pertain to specific themes deemed unsuitable for Internet users. The censorship will take place through two of the largest Aussie Internet service providers, Telstra and Optus, who voluntarily opted to take part in the plan aimed at child pornography websites.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, with a few International partners, will be personally selecting the ISPs to be filtered, a procedure that was previously part of the Federal Government's $9.8 million plan to scrape the Australian Internet of specially selected sites. Though that plan was cut from the Federal budget, Telstra and Optus remained on-board to voluntarily filter offending sites.

Those who oppose the program worry the filtering is merely vanity work, since these sites can still be accessed with a swift change of URL. Even more worrisome, content can also be accessed through peer-to-peer networks and aggregation sites, where web surfers are more likely to accidentally stumble upon it.

Members of the Electronic Frontiers Association are most concerned about the creation of the list of URLs to be blocked and are hoping the process will include an appeals court for websites that have been unfairly listed. They are calling for the government to be more transparent in their process and are asking for the censorship discussion to be opened up further so that the correct content can be more closely targeted.

Quick Poll

Do you agree with Australia's Internet censorship plan?

Yes - I am happy that someone is taking proactive steps to "clean" the web.

No - What web users view is up to them.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[Mortalias]

12:40 PM on 06/23/2011

Sad state of affairs. No government should participate in censorship of any kind.

[brawnydoc]

06:26 AM on 06/23/2011

Brave New World Here comes the Thought Police

[GaelMc]

05:33 AM on 06/23/2011

Is this the law they passed New Year's eve two years ago when every Aussie was preoccupied or too drunk to care? Who says what will be censored? Who controls it? That needs to be specified.

[jenny6833a]

04:45 AM on 06/23/2011

Everyone opposes child porn, but no one defines the term exactly the same way and everyone's judgment is different. Inevitably, sites and decision making authorities take the easy way out as PayPal has done. They just ban anything and everything that anyone at all _might_ regard as objectionable. The result is ludicrously inappropriate censorship. Moreover, as the article points out, such censorship accomplishes very little. Those who want the stuff still have many other ways to obtain it. I have a hard time believing that Australia would do such a stupid thing.

[BayviewerBob]

09:56 AM on 06/23/2011

Years ago when AOL was all the rage, AOL decided to filter content to "protect" their customers. This resulted in blocked searches for information on breast cancer.

[monty24llr]

04:27 AM on 06/23/2011

My opinion is if a government is allowed to censor one thing they deem inappropriate, it will simply be an invitation for the government to begin making decisions about everything a person can access. I am in no way advocating the rights of child pornographers, but censorship is a slippery slope. It won't stop criminals; they'll just think of more creative methods to reach participants.

[On My Way 58]

02:50 AM on 06/23/2011

If what the Aussies are going after are child porn sites, then go for it! Child porn is a nearly universally accepted illegal act.

I am also concerned that this is the era of communication through electronic media, and that media was one of the ways OBL managed to stay in contact to coordinate acts of terrorism all over the world.

Much beyond that, my vote is "no." I do not like the KKK or John Birch Society, or other sites that promote holding one group of people down while elevating another; however, that impinges on free, legal speech, and as much as I dislike them, that should not be tolerated.

Yes, there needs to be a swift form of appeal so that sites can demonstrate their unwillingness to promote things like child porn - and be given the chance to quickly erradicate the intruders.

Many, many years ago I downloaded a song from a P2P service and discovered it was in reality child porn. First course of action was to notify the FBI of what I had discovered. They handled it in a very professional manner, did not seize my computer, and I never heard from them again. That sort of system needs to be in place for all.

[joper201]

12:31 AM on 06/23/2011

I wonder if they're going to hire Huffpost moderators/censors?

[FKHFPT]

04:16 AM on 06/23/2011

Probably.

[shakesome]

12:29 AM on 06/23/2011

It seems that 'child porn' has become the new bogeyman to make many government intrusions seem reasonable. Someone is suspected? Seize their computer and see what's on it. Now more and more I'm reading stories about people suspected of all different types of crimes, or even just what the police like to call 'persons of interest', whose cell phones are searched to see who they call, computers are searched to see what they look at. If someone harms a child they should be punished to the full extent of the law but this here hysteria seems to be more like a tool to popularize censorship. If you don't question it at this level, you'll find yourself having to question it at the level of unpopular political sites in which you might be interested.

[On My Way 58]

02:15 AM on 06/23/2011

Marked as fav for the last part of your post - you are right, we need to be concerned about how far this goes.

However, I must disagree that child porn has become the new bogeyman. I have absolutely no problem with seizing computrs, cell phones, or any other form of media that is suspected of containing child porn or connecting to those who support it. Furthermore, I have no problem with seizing the same media if connections to criminal behavior, including terrorism, are suspected. If the guy on the corner is selling illegal guns or drugs, what better way to climb the ladder to find his supplier - something that has thwarted authorities in the past - than find out who he is in contact with.

After Mr. Vargas admitted to entering the White House with legitimate credentials obtained through illegal means, my suspicious nature has come out and I am very, very concerned.

The only stipulation I would add is that there must be a court order accompanying the seizure.

There are times censorship should indeed be initiated, and child porn is clearly one of them.

[Mad Doctor]

06:05 AM on 06/23/2011

I am absolutely opposed to cp but you sound like a company man!!

[sugarcreekchile]

12:29 AM on 06/23/2011

There is no government money going to filter out the porn sites. Australia's 2 largest internet providers are voluntarily pulling the child porn. They should be commended. Those who oppose this move as censorship are just sickos. A internet provider has a right to decide what websites it wants on its network. Child porn is against the law. I'm sure if someone took a picture of their child naked in a bathtub and posted it on a child porn site; they'd be singing a different tune.

[Dancenownzen]

11:53 PM on 06/22/2011

CHILD PORN
THE KKK
RACIST SITES

I can think of MANY MANY MANY sites that should be shut down

[shakesome]

12:21 AM on 06/23/2011

Sure... maybe we can only keep the ones you approve of. You must be a 'progressive'. Knowledge is ignorace, right?

[taatiita]

04:13 AM on 06/23/2011

You are a certified retard! I guess its safe to assume you are a racist and you view child porn? U didn't waste time to respond to this and label the commenter a "progressive" (sicko!)

[FKHFPT]

04:26 AM on 06/23/2011

F&F. Shakesome.......You said it well!

[FKHFPT]

04:23 AM on 06/23/2011

AOL already censors KKK and Stormfront sites.

[mddarch]

11:27 PM on 06/22/2011

well i guess their sick of pervs looking at child pornography which i guess a lot of them do out their...so their clamping down on it..theres nothing wrong witrh it....their not really stopping regualr sites or normal porn they just want to end the sick stuff!

[BayviewerBob]

10:10 AM on 06/23/2011

They're, There, Their. Learn the difference.

[John Howell]

11:26 PM on 06/22/2011

Any attempt to get child porn off the internet will inevitably run into problems with sites that should not have been taken off. The last part of this article is encouraging. Getting child porn off the internet is fine, but there should be an appeals process.

[bighornman]

10:39 PM on 06/22/2011

Only if it shows child pornography. I guess I'm okay with this censorship, but nothing more. No more censorship. That's it.

[eulerckt]

11:06 PM on 06/22/2011

Back off a bit and look at what's happening, folks. Look at the patterns.
Legal eagles attack those who view/possess kiddie porn with gusto, and now they are attempting to censor such websites sites.
What about rounding up and drowning the ABUSERS?
Could this be just more eyewash...an attempt to look tough while protecting the money men?

[grant06]

11:13 PM on 06/22/2011

Keep telling yourelf that. Censors are well known for their discretion and restraint.

[tenderlung]

09:36 PM on 06/22/2011

i thought they abandoned this plan before the last election (because it was so deeply unpopular). i haven't seen any coverage in the australian media. sneaky.

[LMPE]

09:10 PM on 06/22/2011

Whoa, Australia! When did you start following China's lead?

[taatiita]

04:14 AM on 06/23/2011

Borrow a normal brain cell mate!