🚀 go-pugleaf

Page 1, Computer Age, Tuesday 18 June 1996
------------------------------------------
CENSORSHIP FIGHT HOTS UP
By Mark Lawrence

On the crest of a wave of celebration among it United States
counterparts, Electronic Frontiers Australia has increased its campaign
against Internet censorship laws that are being considered by the New
South Wales Government.

Electronic Frontiers Australia says tit believes the proposed
legislation, mooted as a model for other states, was "badly drafted,
draconion, indiscriminate and incapable of achieving its aims".

Campaign manager Greg Taylor said last week's US Federal Court decision
to block the Communications Decency Act, signed into law only four
months ago by President Clinton, was extremely encouraging, although the
US situation was not directly relevant to Australia and had not been the
reason for the campaign launch here.

"He said the group's objections were based on a leaked draft but the
essence of what would be put to the standing committee of the
attorneys-general on 11-12 July by the NSW Attorney-General was worth of
protest.

"First, we believe the new legislation is unnecessary because there are
already laws in existence that cover the subject and which have already
been used to charge and prosecute people for supplying and receivin
objectionable material on the Internet", Taylor said.

"Second, they are talking about something that is not technically
feasible -- they want Internet Service Providers (ISP) to be made
responsible for the information that may be accessed by minors.  It's
ridiculous.  The ISP is, after all, just a conduit.

"The other major concern is that the draft suggests that ISP's should be
required to do random monitoring of user activity; it's the equivalent
of asking Telstra to random monitor telephone conversations, which is a
grave offence under the relevant legislation," Taylor said.

He said the authorities were attempting to treat the Internet in the
same manner as television, when it clearly was nothing like the same
medium.

The bad content on the Internet was largely invisible to the average
users, he said.  Anyone wanting to find the so-called offensive material
had to really look hard.

"This material makes up a tiny percentage of the total and gets far too
much attention -- particularly from the media, I'm afraid."  Taylor said
all these factors added up to an indication that the proposals had been
writted by people "who have absolutedly no knowledge or experience of
the Internet".

The decision by the three-judge US Federal Court last week to block
legislation that was designed to shield children from sexually explicit
ideas and images on the Internet included the finding that Internet
users were entitled to the strongest constitutional protection.

Judge Stewart Dalzell called the Internet " a never-ending worldwide
conversation " and said it "deserves the broadest possible protection "
from Government controls over what is said and seen.  The means the same
hands-off protection that the print media gets -- that is, more
protection than given to air or cable broadcasts.

Any attempt to regulate the content of Internet expression, Judge
Dalzell said, could destroy "the global village" while trying to protect
its children.

The bill had been opposed in court by two coalitions: one led by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and another led by the American
Library Association (ALA).

The coalitions include companies doing business on the Internet or
expecting to have such operations; firms such as the major on-line
services and Internet access providers and trade associations.

(* Under new Victorian online laws, our regular Sitiings column has been
changed on legal advice -- Page 4)

------------------------------------------

Note spelling errors are probably mine :-))

James