Jayeless

ACMA ref 780248254 concerned this content: [snip]. Can’t host it or a link to it in Australia. Twitter is offshore. #nocleanfeed

To be on the safe side, I won’t link to the content blacklisted. I did, however, link to the Twitter status that linked to it (which I do not believe is illegal).

Because YouTube is an irritating organisation committed to shielding “vulnerable children” from the horrors of political realities, I am actually forbidden to view this video, in a way that probably makes the Australian Government feel very happy inside. However, I can see that the title of this video is Neda Sultan R.I.P - Iran Elections.

Since Australia has not yet implemented its filter, the blacklisting means that people who’ve opted in to the existing filter cannot view it, and it’s illegal to link to or rehost. Essentially, ACMA believes that the fate of Neda Soltan is unacceptable for Australians to view.

In the interests of fairness, Mark Newton was the one who filed the complaint against the video in the first place — the blacklist will be run partially on complaints, so (theoretically) if no other country has blocked certain material and no one’s complained about it, ACMA will not block it.

In practice that can’t reassure us, because anyone can file a complaint. It could be anti-filter campaigners proving a point about how bad this censorship scheme will be, as it is this time… or it could have been an Iranian representative in Australia trying to get this hushed up. Perhaps once the filter’s in place, we’ll see Chinese officials filing lots of complaints about graphic depictions of crackdowns in Tibet, or Xinjiang, or wherever they may occur. Or perhaps Sri Lanka would complain about the footage that exists of Sri Lankan soldiers shooting Tamils. Having set this precedent, how could ACMA not block this stuff?

But none of it should be blocked at all. The whole point of this video’s publication is that everyone knows, and remembers, the capabilities of a totalitarian regime, so our opposition to such regimes is strengthened. Maybe it’s horrifying, but that doesn’t mean the government should be working to conceal it from people. We can’t be sheltered from everything that’s horrifying, particularly when that gives such things the freedom to occur.

Comments

- weez
- Sat, 23.01.2010, 5am
Your point about totalitarian govts lodging complaints with ACMA to suppress speech they don’t like, while illuminatory and indeed functionally possible, is a bit impractical. A bit of whack-a-mole for China/Sri Lanka etc to use that means to keep Aussies from learning of such speech. I’m more concerned about the Aus govt themselves working to suppress speech on domestic matters. It would not be beyond the realm of comprehension for the Aus govt to attempt to suppress speech to prevent Aus citizens from learning the truth of ‘children overboard’ or SIEV-X.

And you’re quite right, none of it should be blocked.
- Jess
- Sat, 23.01.2010, 2pm
My point wasn’t really that they’d be able to suppress all speech (because ACMA would realise they couldn’t get away with that) but that the more graphic, shocking examples (like videos of people’s deaths) could get blocked. The information would still (probably) be there in written articles (unless they linked to the banned graphic material), but they wouldn’t have the same impact. Of course I believe the same footage could be shown on TV anyway, but that relies upon TV stations caring enough about the issue to show it.

It is true that the Australian government would care a lot more about blocking material embarrassing to it, though. I’m sure that since leaking information is illegal, sites like wikileaks will come under fire a lot. Especially when they leak stuff about Australia.

Add a Comment

Please note:

Allowed HTML tags are: <em>, <strong>, <q>, <cite>, <a>, <code>, <pre>, <blockquote> and <p>.
If you want line breaks in your comment, you'll have to add <p> tags yourself. I can do it for you but I'd rather not.
Your email address won't be published anywhere, sold to anyone, nor given away for free. I promise.
I reserve the right to edit or delete your comment as I see fit, but I won't see fit so long as your comment is free of broken HTML, at least fleetingly relevant to the entry, not spam, and does not give away personally identifying information.

← Some reflections on this blog •

Your point about totalitarian govts lodging complaints with ACMA to suppress speech they don’t like, while illuminatory and indeed functionally possible, is a bit impractical. A bit of whack-a-mole for China/Sri Lanka etc to use that means to keep Aussies from learning of such speech. I’m more concerned about the Aus govt themselves working to suppress speech on domestic matters. It would not be beyond the realm of comprehension for the Aus govt to attempt to suppress speech to prevent Aus citizens from learning the truth of ‘children overboard’ or SIEV-X.

And you’re quite right, none of it should be blocked.

My point wasn’t really that they’d be able to suppress all speech (because ACMA would realise they couldn’t get away with that) but that the more graphic, shocking examples (like videos of people’s deaths) could get blocked. The information would still (probably) be there in written articles (unless they linked to the banned graphic material), but they wouldn’t have the same impact. Of course I believe the same footage could be shown on TV anyway, but that relies upon TV stations caring enough about the issue to show it.

It is true that the Australian government would care a lot more about blocking material embarrassing to it, though. I’m sure that since leaking information is illegal, sites like wikileaks will come under fire a lot. Especially when they leak stuff about Australia.

Now banned in Australia

Comments

Add a Comment

Pages

Tags

Archives