![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the recent Australian Government decision to impose mandatory Internet service provider level filtering to home and school users. This policy has been championed by various religious groups suggesting that a particular set of values influences the law in this area. It is argued that the result of this policy may well be new forms of censorship of the Internet in the future.
Notes
1. This implemented Labor Party policy dating from 21 March 2006 when the previous Labor leader announced mandatory ISP filtering would be required under a Labor Government.
2. The regulatory regime is also discussed further below.
3. Which are used to determine what online content may be prohibited (see further discussion below).
4. See National Classification Code, cl.1 and further discussion below.
5. This tension is reflected in the law in such cases as Ginsberg vs. New York 390 US 629 (1968), where the Court recognised the ‘parent's right claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of children [is] basic in the structure of our society’, while also recognising that ‘the State also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth’.
6. See, e.g., National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Who Abuses Children? Resource Sheet No. 7 (February 2005) and studies cited therein.
7. E.g., then Opposition Leader Rudd (now Prime Minister) and then Prime Minister Howard both addressed a meeting of Christian groups to outline their respective programs during the 2007 election campaign (ACL, Citation2007b).
9. http://www.familyfirst.org.au/policy/policypornography.pdf (emphasis added).
12. Citing John Paul II, Message for the 35th World Communication Day.
13. Citing Pontifical Council for Social Communications (PCSC) (1989) Pornography and Violence in the Communications Media (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia_pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_07051989_pornography_en.html).
14. See, e.g., ‘Minister warned on porn filters’, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 2008.
15. ‘Conroy wades into child porn net flood’, The Australian, 8 January 2008.
16. ‘Conroy wades into child porn net flood’.
17. Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), Schedule 5 (which is given effect by s.216B of the Act).
18. http://www.classification.gov.au (accessed 11 June 2008).
19. See Internet Industry Association (July 2008) Internet Industry Codes of Practice: Codes for Industry Co-Regulation in Areas of Internet and Mobile Content (www.iaa.net.au).
20. See Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), Schedule 7, cl. 20, applied by Schedule 5 cl. 3. X18+ material relates to material that contains ‘consensually sexually explicit activity’ (Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games [(Federal Register of Legislative Instruments F2005L01286]).
21. Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth), s.9.
22. National Classification Code, cl. 1.
23. National Classification Code, cl. 3.
24. National Classification Code, cl. 4.
25. National Classification Code, cl. 3.
26. National Classification Code, cl. 1.
27. These requirements are actually found in State laws as the Commonwealth in effect classifies films, computer games and publications on behalf of the States (see, e.g., Classification (Publications, Films And Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (NSW), s.6).
28. Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.
29. Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.
30. The guiding principles contained in the National Classification Code, cl. 1.
31. ‘Conroy wades into child porn net flood’; see also ‘Call to ban anorexia websites’, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April 2008.
32. See Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), Schedule 5, cl. 66.
33. Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), Schedule 5, cl. 60 (1) (d) and (e).