🚀 go-pugleaf

The text of the South Australian Internet censorship Bill is now available
on EFA's web site, together with EFA's analysis.
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/sabill.html
(The text of the Bill was scanned from a hard copy, as apparently the SA
A-G is unable to make a copy available on the web or by email.)

Among other things, the Bill criminalises making available content
unsuitable for children online, even if the content is only made available
to adults. The maximum penalty planned is $10,000. The Bill covers content
placed on the web (including archived mailing lists), messages to
newsgroups, etc. For info on what is "matter unsuitable for minors" see the
above mentioned URL.

The SA Bill is expected to be debated by the South Australian Parliament
during its sittings commencing 13 March 2001. The Bill is part of the
second component of the Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation. The
South Australian Government is believed to be the first of the
State/Territory Governments to act on the Commonwealth Government's request
that they enact complementary enforcement legislation applicable to
Internet users and content providers. Other States/ Territories are likely
to introduce similar legislation.

People in South Australia concerned by the potential for technologically
illiterate politicians (and others) to enact legislation with a raft of
unintended consequences would be well advised to contact their South
Australian politicians. 

While the drafters of the SA Bill have made minor changes to the draft
model national legislation issued in August 1999 for public comment by the
SA Attorney-General and some others, the SA Bill is a profoundly flawed
document:

- Rather than address the intention that "what is illegal or controlled
offline should also be illegal or controlled online", the SA Bill
criminalises material online that is not illegal offline. 

- The SA Bill enables prosecution of content providers to commence prior to
classification of content.  While it may be argued that police would not
commence proceedings against an Internet user unless they expected the OFLC
to rule that particular content be classified R, X or RC, no useful purpose
is achieved by enabling the possibility of police guessing wrongly. The
instance of South Australian police seizing a book from an Adelaide book
store (Pictures, containing photography by Robert Mapplethorpe) in January
2001 demonstrates that police are not specialists or even trained in
interpretation of classification guidelines, nor should they be expected to
be. The OFLC Classification Board decided that the seized book did not
warrant a restricted classification, that is, it may legally be sold to
minors.  

- Proposed penalties for making available content online are double those
applicable to sale and exhibition of films off-line. The maximum penalty
applicable to online content providers for making available matter
unsuitable for minors is planned to be $10,000 even if the content is only
made available to adults. The maximum penalty planned (in other parts of
the same Bill) for sale, delivery or exhibition of an R classified film to
a minor offline is $5,000 with no penalty at all for sale or exhibition to
adults offline. 
 
- Many of the flaws in the document appear to arise from the attempt to
force Internet content into a censorship regime developed for an entirely
different medium, that is commercial sale and exhibition of movies and
videotapes.

- The SA Bill does not give content providers an opportunity to take
material down when they have inadvertently mis-guessed the classification,
but instead it criminalises them. 

- The proposed legislation subjects average everyday Australians to
criminal proceedings for failure to correctly assess the classification
that "would be" granted, from time to time, to particular material by the
non-unanimous decision of members of the OFLC Classification Board. This is
inconsistent with State/Territory legislation regulating off-line media and
treats average everyday Australians providing on-line content less fairly
under criminal law than off-line publishers.

- Existing or proposed classification legislation must be amended to ensure
content providers cannot be prosecuted for infringing laws/classification
decisions of jurisdictions in which they are not resident. Average everyday
Australians cannot be reasonably expected to know the laws of every
jurisdiction in the nation, and should not be placed at risk of criminal
proceedings simply because they chat and/or publish material via an
uncontrollable medium that crosses state and national boundaries.

- The classification of online content as a "film" creates a number of
serious anomalies and unintended consequences.  If content providers can be
successfully prosecuted for making available "films" that consist of text
and static images (e.g. Web pages), then under existing Classification law
librarians and teachers (and others) who manage or supervise premises
containing computers connected to the Internet could be prosecuted for
events beyond their ability to control, eg. "screening"/"exhibiting"
objectionable matter and matter unsuitable for minors. Similarly, because
it is an offence in all States/Territories to sell an unclassified film,
newspaper publishers who presently sell electronic copies of archived
newspaper articles ("films") online could be prosecuted.

For more detailed information, see EFA's analysis of the Bill.
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/sabill.html


Irene

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Irene Graham, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. PGP key on h/page.
Executive Director, Electronic Frontiers Australia: http://www.efa.org.au
Personal Web: http://libertus.net - about censorship/free speech in Aust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~