Australian Free Speech Issues

[Cesario]

This is a spin-off thread from the DUI thread.

Relevant passages:

@Cesario

I take issue with their free expression laws. Particularly the lack thereof.

The fact that I can be deemed a criminal for owning a written story is reason enough to take issue with the country.

[QUOTE=not_alice]

But because it goes so far beyond our principles and our DUI checkpoint regime, AND your country recently allowed new infringements on its internet freedom of speech with nary a peep from the population, it could be argued that your country has already gone far down the slippery slope that Dinsdale described.

[/quote]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]

Wait, because the Australian government is considering a publicly debated and controversial plan to block foreign child porn sites, Australia has fallen into tyranny?

[/quote]

[QUOTE=not_alice]

“Tyranny” seems like an effort to color a discussion before it starts.

Let’s look at facts: Australia is proposing, and has conducted tests already with its primary ISP (Telstra) to implement filtering software of the type that we associate more with China, Egypt, Iran, and other authoritative regimes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/...nternet_filter

This is not what we generally think of when we think of Australia, at least not in the US.

[/quote]

[QUOTE=not_alice]

Oh for goodness sakes: Here is some news about your country, to continue an SDMB tradition you were complaining about a few moments ago

[/quote]

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]

Only three of those “News” stories (on the first page) relate to Australia censoring the Internet, and it’s worth bearing in mind that at the moment the filter isn’t in place and the last time the Government tried it was proven the whole thing is an expensive, unworkable mess and gave up. There’s no reason to believe this time around will be any different. The consensus from my colleagues at University (who are far more knowledgeable than I on the subject) is that “It won’t happen”, because it’s A) Unpopular, B) Expensive, and C) Unworkable.

In short, it’s something that you’ve just found out about but is “Old News” to everyone here. And- even though I’m against a 'Net Censoring Scheme- the reality is that most of the sites on the blacklist are/would be things that right-thinking people wouldn’t want to be looking up anyway. It’s like being told it’s illegal for you to own a Spaceship. Theoretically it’s an outrage, but realistically, you’re never going to own one anyway, so why get worked up about it?

[/quote]

[QUOTE=not_alice]

This is getting ever more disturbing. Where do you draw the line pray tell about what you accept the government deciding what you could see or not see, own or not own, build or not build, study but not study, who you could communicate with about what or not?

Why would you allow your government to implement what you say is unworkable? What if it is not? What could the purpose be other than political control and consolidation? Has this sort of thing ever been proposed, let alone implemented, for any reason other than that?

[/quote]

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]

I believe the semi-official version is “Won’t someone think of Families???”; ie parents know jack shit about The Internet but they know it’s full of nasty things that Little Billy And Susie probably shouldn’t see. So The Government is stepping in to provide a filter to block the worst of it out; again so that if people see That Sort Of Thing then they’ve really got to be looking for it.

So, I can understand the sentiment, but I don’t think it’s practical or workable and the money would be better spent on educating people about… pretty much anything.

[/quote]

[QUOTE=not_alice]

You are actually comparing ancient common law such as libel, with the proposed limitations on communications in your country? Of course there are limits here, we like to say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or my individual right to speech ends where it harms you. Other than that, pretty much its a free for all. And so it is hard for Americans to understand the proposed limitations on speech, to be implemented by technical means, as proposed and tested, by your government.

[/quote]

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]

Right now I’m struggling to think of anything that I can’t say in Australia that I could say in the US because of your Freedom Of Speech enshrinement, and the best I can come up with is things that might be qualified as Hate Speech and therefore restricted in parts of the US as well. What sort of things do you think you can say in the US that we can’t say here?

Remember, Political & Economic matters are two things that we do have freedom of speech about. So Government attempts to censor the internet can’t be for political consolidation because people have a legal right to criticise the Government and to discuss politics and economics.

[/quote]

Figured it’d be best to move this conversation out of the DUI thread.

[not_alice]

Right now I’m struggling to think of anything that I can’t say in Australia that I could say in the US because of your Freedom Of Speech enshrinement, and the best I can come up with is things that might be qualified as Hate Speech and therefore restricted in parts of the US as well. What sort of things do you think you can say in the US that we can’t say here?

I dunno, there is not really anything we can’t say here. “Hate Speech” is not verboten. I don’t know if you do, but if you follow same sex marriage debate here, you would see plenty of hate speech. No one is suggesting it should not be allowed, only that people ought know better, and ought not be allowed to enshrine the hate itself into law.

My own vision, as I said above, is that Australian rules of law are a cousin of ours. And so I (and by proxy Americans to the extent they think about it at all) expect that your freedom of speech is in fact, as you allude to, pretty similar to ours in practice.

Which is precisely why the current (an you say repeated) proposal comes as such a shock. Cousins grow up independent of each other of course, but one doesn’t like to see a cousin go against the most precious principles in this way, or even flirt with doing so.

So it is not that there are particular restrictions I am aware of .. (time out, I just did 2 minutes searching, I take that back)

Wikipedia seems to indicate there ARE restrictions you have that are odd by US standards. See here and here (I am sure the reverse is true too, but that wasn’t the question).

Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.[4] Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of conscience.[5] The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter. At present, therefore, Langer’s actions would not seem to be considered illegal.

As of 2005[update], censorship regime is largely the purview of the OFLC, a statutory body which operates independently of the Federal Government.

Failure to obtain classification is an implicit ban and the OFLC occasionally refuse to give classification. All feature films, videos, computer games, and magazines that contain sexual content for commercial release are required to be submitted to this body, made up of “community representatives” appointed by the government for two-year terms.

There are numerous subtle restrictions on advertising in Australia. For example, lawyers in most Australian states are restricted in advertising concerning personal injury compensation law. In New South Wales all advertising concerning personal injury compensation is prohibited. In Queensland print and web site advertising is permitted to a limited extent but television and radio advertising is strictly banned (see below: Censorship of Personal Injury Compensation). In Victoria it is illegal to advertise any aspect of a brothel business.

Usually only certain types of prohibited pornography, serious encouragement of crime, instructions on suicide and seditious literature are banned from publications in Australia as recent history has shown.[4]

Although the Office of Film and Literature Classification Guidelines state that “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”, many books are apparently banned simply because they may offend certain segments of the population. Under particularly frequent attacks are books containing erotica, and those concerning illegal drugs.

Many recent contemporary teen novels have been banned due to depictions of teens meeting strangers in chat rooms and then planning to meet them in real life.

And much much more, that is only a sample of what I found.

The only remotely similar thing I am aware here are bans on hard alcohol and tobacco advertising on TV since the early 70s, and that is presented as a public health issue. Advertising is permitted (and common!) elsewhere.

The rest of that is what gives me reason to doubt your claim that Australians will somehow never end up with a firewall in place, as it appears it could be pitched as an extension of restrictions on speech you (as a country) have already accepted. Perhaps it is not something new, only an extension of a fight against something the public already values, but whose shape has shifted in the internet era?

That is a slippery slope you are not only on, but sliding down in an accelerating fashion IMHO.

@Martini_Enfield

Remember, Political & Economic matters are two things that we do have freedom of speech about. So Government attempts to censor the internet can’t be for political consolidation because people have a legal right to criticise the Government and to discuss politics and economics.

No, sorry maybe I was misunderstood, I didn’t mean it was, as presented, a method to squelch dissent. Control comes in more subtle forms, by framing expectations, by setting boundaries that frame future discussion. This can happen in any number of ways - it is Economical because it involves overt and covert decisions on how to allocate limited resources, both tangible and non-tangible. And it is Political because politics is inseparable from economics and vice versa.

That is pretty abstract. Less abstractly, your government is proposing to limit your speech, and hence your thought, even more than it currently does. Americans would argue that this is political at the core, because government has no right to define how we can think. This is at the core of our feelings about government and politics. It concerns us when any country suggests it can control and hence define what the citizens can think about, no matter the topic. We just don’t expect to see it from our close cousins while we combat it in places like China.

[Martini_Enfield]

@not_alice

I dunno, there is not really anything we can’t say here. “Hate Speech” is not verboten. I don’t know if you do, but if you follow same sex marriage debate here, you would see plenty of hate speech. No one is suggesting it should not be allowed, only that people ought know better, and ought not be allowed to enshrine the hate itself into law.

No, I don’t follow it, but I’m pretty sure that if someone in the US started seriously proposing that Members Of Minority Group X should be deported to the Gulags and/or killed, and encouraged others to take steps towards that end, The Powers That Be would find some legislation that would enable action to be taken to either punish or silence that person.

My own vision, as I said above, is that Australian rules of law are a cousin of ours. And so I (and by proxy Americans to the extent they think about it at all) expect that your freedom of speech is in fact, as you allude to, pretty similar to ours in practice.

They’re not. Australian rules of law (and Parliamentary procedure) are descended from British Common Law (and the Westminster System) and, until the mid-1980s or so (with the passage of the Australia Act) followed them pretty closely. Until quite recently it was unheard of, for example, for an Australian judge to cite an American case or decision.

Even the way our legislative system works- here, for example, legislation must relate to one thing (or several related small things) per Act. So you can’t have totally unrelated riders (like funding for a Bridge To Nowhere, for example) attached to an Act changing the Liquor Licensing regulations (again, for example).

So our two systems are similar, but also totally unlike each other, in many respects.

No, sorry maybe I was misunderstood, I didn’t mean it was, as presented, a method to squelch dissent. Control comes in more subtle forms, by framing expectations, by setting boundaries that frame future discussion. This can happen in any number of ways - it is Economical because it involves overt and covert decisions on how to allocate limited resources, both tangible and non-tangible. And it is Political because politics is inseparable from economics and vice versa.

That is pretty abstract. Less abstractly, your government is proposing to limit your speech, and hence your thought, even more than it currently does. Americans would argue that this is political at the core, because government has no right to define how we can think. This is at the core of our feelings about government and politics. It concerns us when any country suggests it can control and hence define what the citizens can think about, no matter the topic. We just don’t expect to see it from our close cousins while we combat it in places like China.

I’ll say it again: The only noticeable form of “Censorship” here in Australia is the OFLC occasionally refusing classification to movies or video games. The video game issue is the result of there being no R18+ rating for games here, and attempts to implement one have been blocked by the South Australian Attorney-General, who is… not a popular person with gamers or civil libertarians as a result. There is currently a White Paper released by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office inviting discussion on introducing an R18+ rating anyway, overriding the SA A-G’s veto on the subject.

I’m not aware of any books being “refused classification” recently; and as I said in the other thread, besides computer games, things which get Refused Classification are generally things right-thinking people don’t want to see anyway. It’s really not this big deal that you’re making it out to be.

The Government here is not trying to control what people think. They are saying “There are certain materials that Community Standards find abhorrent and should therefore not be widely available”. Most people agree with that view.

Even if we did have a Right To Free Speech built into our Constitution, it’s still highly unlikely that- for example- pornography would be protected as “free speech” as it is in the US (subject, I believe, to local obscenity laws). We just have a totally different societal attitude and makeup than the US.

You might be interested to know that Britain does practice actual censorship- ask a Briton about the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) sometime.

[not_alice]

@Martini_Enfield

No, I don’t follow it, but I’m pretty sure that if someone in the US started seriously proposing that Members Of Minority Group X should be deported to the Gulags and/or killed, and encouraged others to take steps towards that end, The Powers That Be would find some legislation that would enable action to be taken to either punish or silence that person.

You’d be seriously wrong. It happens all the time. See “White Supremacy” for endless (but not the only by far) examples.

There are truly no laws against it.

So our two systems are similar, but also totally unlike each other, in many respects.

Right, that is what makes them metaphorically “cousins”. It arises due to our mutual history as colonies of the British Empire. As opposed to Romania, for instance.

I’ll say it again: The only noticeable form of “Censorship” here in Australia is the OFLC occasionally refusing classification to movies or video games.

I’m not aware of any books being “refused classification” recently;

It’s really not this big deal that you’re making it out to be.

How do you know what you are missing in order to be judging it “not a big deal”?

At least you are not disputing the censorship laws I listed and others actually exist.

May I ask this?

Are you proud that your country has such censorship laws, and that all publications subject to them is speech that the government must approve before the citizens can be exposed to it?

The Government here is not trying to control what people think.

Then why do they have laws regarding so many media that require prior approval of what one person or group can communicate to another?

Now, it may be that they don’t actually censor much, but the point is, they get to make the decision every single time.

They are saying “There are certain materials that Community Standards find abhorrent and should therefore not be widely available”. Most people agree with that view.

And I would maintain a country where that is true has traveled far far far down the slippery slop towards a police state. They are only allowed to be exposed to speech that the government deems them able to handle, and worse, the people consent to it.

Dissidents in China would surely lose their lunch if they read your response in this thread!

Even if we did have a Right To Free Speech built into our Constitution, it’s still highly unlikely that- for example- pornography would be protected as “free speech” as it is in the US (subject, I believe, to local obscenity laws).

How would you define “pornography”?

“Pornography” is most certainly not subject to any laws regarding publication in the US, unless it is also “obscene”.

We just have a totally different societal attitude and makeup than the US.

What? No porn is made or viewed in Australia? don’t we have an Australian pornographer active on SDMB?

You might be interested to know that Britain does practice actual censorship- ask a Briton about the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) sometime.

And I would object just as strongly. I know Australia is not unique. But don’t hold UK up as a shining beacon for freedom - don’t they have an obscene amount of police security cameras everywhere?

[Martini_Enfield]

@not_alice

You’d be seriously wrong. It happens all the time. See “White Supremacy” for endless (but not the only by far) examples.

There are truly no laws against it.

Perhaps there should be. You like living in a country where it’s OK to agitate for the elimination of minority groups. I like living in a country where society says “That’s not OK and we won’t tolerate it.”

How do you know what you are missing in order to be judging it “not a big deal”?

Because if it was important I’d have heard about it- “Did you know that the Government censored [Example Publication], which is about [Topic], and this is an outrage because [Reason Why Censored Publication is either harmless or taken out of context]?” I haven’t, therefore nothing that’s getting censored is a big deal. Except video games, and that’s being amended via public discussion as we speak.

At least you are not disputing the censorship laws I listed and others actually exist.

They exist but they’re not often invoked, as Wikipedia mentions.

Are you proud that your country has such censorship laws, and that all publications subject to them is speech that the government must approve before the citizens can be exposed to it?

“Proud” isn’t the right word. “They have almost no impact on my daily life and so therefore I generally don’t care that much” would be a better summary.

Then why do they have laws regarding so many media that require prior approval of what one person or group can communicate to another?

Now, it may be that they don’t actually censor much, but the point is, they get to make the decision every single time.

No, they don’t. They don’t classify “Everything”, you know. There isn’t someone from the OFLC asking me to submit my posts on the SDMB to them first or anything. That would be censorship. They don’t “censor” magazines (except pornographic ones),

I’m sorry, but you’ve simply got no idea what you’re talking about wrt to “Censorship in Australia” and until you’ve actually lived here- and ideally worked in either the media or publishing or a related industry- you’re never going to grasp or have an understanding of how things actually are, not what Wikipedia says or what you’d like to pretend they are

How would you define “pornography”?

Greater legal minds than ours have been arguing over this one for over a century, last time I checked.

“Pornography” is most certainly not subject to any laws regarding publication in the US, unless it is also “obscene”.

What? No porn is made or viewed in Australia? don’t we have an Australian pornographer active on SDMB?

You’ve misinterpreted what I was getting at. My point was that we have porn here despite not having a Guaranteed Freedom Of Speech. And even if we did have guaranteed FoS, pornography wouldn’t be protected by it- but rather by the principle that adults should be allowed to see what they like as long as it isn’t offensive (“obscene”) to community standards.

And I would object just as strongly. I know Australia is not unique. But don’t hold UK up as a shining beacon for freedom - don’t they have an obscene amount of police security cameras everywhere?

I’m not holding the UK up as a shining beacon for freedom at all- they’re far, far closer to being a Police State than Australia is.

Look at it this way: There are several works of fiction depicting the UK as being run by a Fascist/Totalitarian/Authoritarian Party as a Police State. Australia? Not so much.

[Cesario]

@Martini_Enfield

Look at it this way: There are several works of fiction depicting the UK as being run by a Fascist/Totalitarian/Authoritarian Party as a Police State. Australia? Not so much.

That’s mostly because they either use Australia as an example when the supervillain need to blow up a continent to prove they’re serious, or as a bribe for the hero when the villain wants to offer something that seems valuable after he’s conquored the world but doesn’t want to give up any of the good contients.

[greendestiny]

As another Australian perspective, I think Martini Enfield’s nonchalance regarding censorship in Australia is misguided. I think internet filtering has a good chance of passing as legislation and is well supported by the government. Initially it seemed to be dieing quietly but has since been resurrected and is actively being pushed. Certainly large segments of the Australian population are quite angry about the proposed filter.

Talking more generally about the role of the government in Australia, I find myself more in agreement with Mr Enfield. Generally speaking we don’t as a populace seem to have a problem with random car stops, censoring broadcasts, gun control and measures of that kind. The US bill of rights would be in conflict with plenty of laws in Australia, but I don’t feel that in most cases Americans are more free in a real sense. In fact I think not having to legislate via supreme court appointments is a good thing.

The one constitutional guarantee that I think is worth the trouble is freedom of speech. The High Court having to imply such a right for political communication kind of points to a fairly big hole in the constitution in that regard.

So I guess more generally I’d say I don’t find Australia to be less free despite its lack of constitutional guarantees. It does mean that we may have less tools to fight against unreasonable restrictions of rights such as that proposed by the internet filter, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to fight.

[bluezooky]

The big issue with Internet filtering in Australia is THE LIST:eek: not only are you blocked from visiting certain sites you cannot even mention the name of one of the sites. Publish the list of sites and your in extremely big trouble,it appeared briefly, very briefly on the web, if you looked at that list you are a criminal and better hide under the bed:(

[Princhester]

It is not Australia but the US that is the outlier. The US has an effective “freedom of speech” law written into its constitution, and that law is effectively enforced. Most countries don’t have that.

Personally, like greendestiny, I’d like to see such a law in the constitution but we don’t have one. I agree that in practice there is probably very little impact of this lack upon Australians in a day to day sense, and being here doesn’t seem less free than being in the US. However, the ability of governments to slowly chip away at freedoms without running into impenetrable constitutional walls worries me.

If internet filtering gets up, it will significantly change what the country is, in my view. There are many here who will not be worried by filtering because they don’t think it will affect them (as “right thinking citizens”) and/or who are positively in favour of controlling what “wrong thinking citizens” can access. There is also a lot of opposition to filtering amongst younger people, but I doubt there is enough.

I think there is a real chance that filtering will come in: the Prime Minister is driving the issue personally because he is a dyed in the wool wowser. The opposition is in disarray and the current PM will win the next election so the proposal isn’t going to quietly die at a change in government. The issue isn’t perceived as important enough for people to vote against the government because of it, alone. Besides, the opposition won’t campaign against the filter for fear of being labelled as in favour of child porn.

I think the scheme is potentially damaging to our chances of keeping up with the information age (with implications for study, business and reputation), potentially a political slippery slope in that governments can very often not resist the urge to politicise censorship once the mechanism is in place, and totally pointless since internet sophisticates will get around it all anyway.

[not_alice]

@Martini_Enfield

Perhaps there should be. You like living in a country where it’s OK to agitate for the elimination of minority groups. I like living in a country where society says “That’s not OK and we won’t tolerate it.”

My understanding is your country is strongly homogeneous, and does not have a great history with its native minorities.

Ours is of course strongly heterogeneous by design, and we too don’t have a great record with native minorities.

People come here for freedom, escaping what they saw as the opposite, for the ultimate in freedom and opportunity.

We value that, and like I said in the other thread regarding rights and risks on roads, we find the unfettered freedom to speak does come with a risk that not everyone will like what everyone else will say, but we value what results from a free interchange more than the annoyances of hate speech which doesn’t have a large effect on anyone anyway.

IOW, we accept the risks that come with freedom, confident we can manage the results, certainly more confident then we are that we could come up with a decent scheme to allocate different rights to different people at different times and places.

Does it bother you as a journalist that your work is subject to prior censorship? I don’t know your interests or fields, but can’t you see either you or a colleague ready to report on something that would be squelched? Doesn’t that bother you?

Because if it was important I’d have heard about it- “Did you know that the Government censored [Example Publication], which is about [Topic], and this is an outrage because [Reason Why Censored Publication is either harmless or taken out of context]?” I haven’t, therefore nothing that’s getting censored is a big deal. Except video games, and that’s being amended via public discussion as we speak.

Even if I agreed you are the perfect source on that, and I don’t, Americans would still find it a problem because it casts a chilling effect on speech. How can you tell what never gets said, written, filmed, sung, etc. when there is such a censorship regime in place, with the everpresent threat of regime expansion?

“Proud” isn’t the right word. “They have almost no impact on my daily life and so therefore I generally don’t care that much” would be a better summary.

As a journalist, a broad set of censorship laws does not affect you (or anyone else) by chilling or squelching prior publication, even if there have been few examples of things censored post-publication?

Really, you feel that way? Isn’t it contrary to everything a journalist is taught about his career, the ethics of his profession, and his role in society as a watchdog of the public?

Personally I see librarians and journalists in a similar role that way. I am shocked that a journalist from Aus./NZ is expressing such a point of view.

Is it widespread, or just you in your profession?

I’m sorry, but you’ve simply got no idea what you’re talking about wrt to “Censorship in Australia” and until you’ve actually lived here- and ideally worked in either the media or publishing or a related industry- you’re never going to grasp or have an understanding of how things actually are, not what Wikipedia says or what you’d like to pretend they are

Is wikipedia incorrect? Are there other sources that describe the situation more clearly in your opinion? Are there blogs or other sites that discuss the ongoing censorship laws wiki mentioned? I will read more if you can provide me the sources you think best. Maybe even a syllabus from one of your classes that might cover this?

Greater legal minds than ours have been arguing over this one for over a century, last time I checked.

but

That would be censorship. They don’t “censor” magazines (except pornographic ones),

So how do they know which ones are pornographic? Are there guidelines for publishers? If not, how would they even know they have to submit materials? What is the process for getting prior approval for porn and non-porn magazines? Is it as easy as driving through a RBT?

You’ve misinterpreted what I was getting at. My point was that we have porn here despite not having a Guaranteed Freedom Of Speech. And even if we did have guaranteed FoS, pornography wouldn’t be protected by it- but rather by the principle that adults should be allowed to see what they like as long as it isn’t offensive (“obscene”) to community standards.

So then your standards are more like ours in that the standard is obscenity, not porn. Not all porn is obscene, and not all that is obscene is porn, right? If so, that is very different indeed than saying “porn is an issue”. Here, I doubt the measure of porn of a piece is relevant at all in determining its level of obscenity. Is it different there?

I’m not holding the UK up as a shining beacon for freedom at all- they’re far, far closer to being a Police State than Australia is.

And they got there by bits and pieces didn’t they?

Look at it this way: There are several works of fiction depicting the UK as being run by a Fascist/Totalitarian/Authoritarian Party as a Police State. Australia? Not so much.

That is your standard? Really? That’s how you want me to look at it, rather than thinking that Australia is a smaller market, and hence not as likely a location for a plot?

Or that back in the real world, Australia might be headed down a similar path that UK took?

[not_alice]

@greendestiny

In fact I think not having to legislate via supreme court appointments is a good thing.

You probably mean something metaphoric here, right? The Courts can’t legislate, only the Legislative branch can. The Court can only rule on cases that come before it, and use prior existing laws (=legislation) to justify the decision.

The one constitutional guarantee that I think is worth the trouble is freedom of speech. The High Court having to imply such a right for political communication kind of points to a fairly big hole in the constitution in that regard.

All the rest flows from that here. I will add it to my list of things to do to learn more about Aus. history and why that is missing.

AS a film producer, it gives me a new appreciation to the question of why more films are not made in Australia, and why there is no local film industry to speak of.

So I guess more generally I’d say I don’t find Australia to be less free despite its lack of constitutional guarantees. It does mean that we may have less tools to fight against unreasonable restrictions of rights such as that proposed by the internet filter, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to fight.

That is fair, but can you give examples where that fight has led to successes given the long list of restrictive laws already in place?

And BTW, I would hardly make a comparison of “more free” or “less free”, that is just too broad a metric. I am more interested, in all places, of the trends of laws or regulations restricting freedom. That is more measurable I think, E.g., no one is saying life here is ideal, it is not, but the long term trends of our history are always about extending freedoms to those who have been restricted in the past. It feels to me like Australia may be building the opposite trend lately, even if few are directly feeling effects yet.

[Princhester]

@not_alice

AS a film producer, it gives me a new appreciation to the question of why more films are not made in Australia, and why there is no local film industry to speak of.

While I share the broad thrust of your concerns, this is nonsense unless you are talking about fairly extreme porn. There was a whole thread recently on this issue, but broadly the lack of film industry here is to do with size of market.

[Martini_Enfield]

@not_alice

Does it bother you as a journalist that your work is subject to prior censorship? I don’t know your interests or fields, but can’t you see either you or a colleague ready to report on something that would be squelched? Doesn’t that bother you?

No, because my work isn’t subject to prior censorship. Also, at the moment I’m not a journalist; Feature Writing is my forte. And it’s still not subject to prior censorship.

Even if I agreed you are the perfect source on that, and I don’t, Americans would still find it a problem because it casts a chilling effect on speech. How can you tell what never gets said, written, filmed, sung, etc. when there is such a censorship regime in place, with the everpresent threat of regime expansion?

Tell you what, suggest something you think might be subject to censorship here and I (or someone else) will tell you if it is. I think you’ll find it’s a very short list.

Really, you feel that way? Isn’t it contrary to everything a journalist is taught about his career, the ethics of his profession, and his role in society as a watchdog of the public?

I’m a cynic. And don’t get me started on my opinions on the whole “Journalists as the Fourth Estate” or “State of the Media” thing.

Personally I see librarians and journalists in a similar role that way. I am shocked that a journalist from Aus./NZ is expressing such a point of view.

I see librarians as “People who know how to work computer databases and tell people where to find books on the shelf”. A valuable job, but in no way related to what journalists do.

Is it widespread, or just you in your profession?

Since I don’t have any peer reviewed studies handy for your perusal, you might as well just take it as my personal view and leave it at that.

s wikipedia incorrect? Are there other sources that describe the situation more clearly in your opinion? Are there blogs or other sites that discuss the ongoing censorship laws wiki mentioned? I will read more if you can provide me the sources you think best. Maybe even a syllabus from one of your classes that might cover this?

I don’t generally read blogs, FWIW. My course notes are probably around somewhere, though… if I get time I’ll look into them and see if I can find something for you.

So how do they know which ones are pornographic? Are there guidelines for publishers? If not, how would they even know they have to submit materials? What is the process for getting prior approval for porn and non-porn magazines?

No prior approval is needed for “non-porn” magazines; you can just publish one if you’ve got the money and the content. As for “what constitutes pornographic” the edited highlights appear to be “naked people doing sex stuff in such a way as the average person would could get off from it”

That is your standard? Really? That’s how you want me to look at it, rather than thinking that Australia is a smaller market, and hence not as likely a location for a plot?

Or that back in the real world, Australia might be headed down a similar path that UK took?

That’s not my standard. I’m just saying that it’s popularly acknowledged that the UK is closer to being a Police State than Australia is. True, we might be headed down a similar road to the UK, but if anything I’d say the US is going to get there before we do.

[not_alice]

@Princhester

While I share the broad thrust of your concerns, this is nonsense unless you are talking about fairly extreme porn. There was a whole thread recently on this issue, but broadly the lack of film industry here is to do with size of market.

I agree with the size of market as a huge factor.

More interesting to me is the willingness of investors to invest could be squelched by risks of being held liable for censorship, by loss of market share due to censorship, or even because of reputational issues dues to being associated with a film even targeted for censorship. By the last one, I mean something that would carry over to other aspects of the investor’s life and/or business.

[leander]

not_alice, your ignorance is astounding. As an American living in Australia (and one who has worked extensively in the film business in the US) I am embarrassed by your arrogance and ignorance.

I would strongly suggest you open your ears instead of your mouth. You have a lot to learn.

[not_alice]

[quote=“Martini_Enfield, post:13, topic:525298”]

Tell you what, suggest something you think might be subject to censorship here and I (or someone else) will tell you if it is. I think you’ll find it’s a very short list.

[QUOTE]

OK, here is list of 28 items off the top of my head to start.

Can you tell me if each is subject to either censorship prior to publication or post-publication by law. Not if it would be prohibited, few can predict that, but if it is subject to censorship.
Journalism of any type in any medium
Magazine Publishing.
Book Publishing.
Film Production and/or distribution and or exhibition.
Web site publishing.
Music publishing.
Performance of music.
Performance of theater arts.
Radio broadcasting.
TV Broadcasting.
Satellite TV and/or Radio.
Cable TV.
Video game creation, distribution, and sales.
Mobile phone content creation and distribution.
Political content regardless of media
Reviews of any prohibited material
Any publication or other adaptation of works by Marquis de Sade in any media
Publishing the list of prohibited web sites Princhester mentioned.
Instructions about how to avoid being subject to the internet firewall
Hacking instructions regarding any device at all
Security procedures of government and airlines in Australia
Images of Mohammed in any media
Blog publishing
p2p file sharing
encryption algorithms and software
flyers posted on campus by students
flyers posted on campus by non-students
hate speech in any medium

I’m a cynic. And don’t get me started on my opinions on the whole “Journalists as the Fourth Estate” or “State of the Media” thing.

You will make a fine Features Writer I predict you will later spend the larger part of your career as a PR spokesperson for the government.

I see librarians as “People who know how to work computer databases and tell people where to find books on the shelf”. A valuable job, but in no way related to what journalists do.

Maybe the professional title of librarian is different there? Here, librarians as a profession see themselves as the independent guard of access to information, they are not to be used to restrict access or to encourage or enforce censorship. Not only do they see that, but they are politically active in these matters.

Since I don’t have any peer reviewed studies handy for your perusal, you might as well just take it as my personal view and leave it at that.

You are a Master’s level student in Journalism, and you are not prepared to speak to the professional and ethical standards of your profession? Really? I spent some time as a subject on a story about 6 months ago covered by a Masters student in journalism here in the US, she was just about to graduate, she was very prepared to discuss these topics with me after the story was done.

No prior approval is needed for “non-porn” magazines; you can just publish one if you’ve got the money and the content. As for “what constitutes pornographic” the edited highlights appear to be “naked people doing sex stuff in such a way as the average person would could get off from it”

So such material, when published on paper in magazine form, is illegal to publish in Australia? A quick google search didn’t find anything about magazines, although it did find this canadian lawyer discussing " the list"

That’s not my standard. I’m just saying that it’s popularly acknowledged that the UK is closer to being a Police State than Australia is. True, we might be headed down a similar road to the UK, but if anything I’d say the US is going to get there before we do.

All countries head down that path by virtue of its citizens not actively protecting their rights. We have issues, sure, one of them was the topic of another thread, for which you position was basically for us to advocate our rights, let the cops do what they feel like they need to do, and to remove any restrictions on their behavior in a wide and threatening category of behavior. Thanks for the help!

On the other hand, it seems like now you are in fact agreeing with my earlier assessment that in Australia at least, the trend is troubling. Not being the MOST troubling trend is hardly comforting to you I would imagine. Is it comforting to you?

[Carmady]

The US has its own censorship issues:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/24/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/

This is a story of a US citizen convicted of collecting “obscene” Japanese comics and facing up to 20 years in prison. Sentencing should be coming up soon.

[not_alice]

@leander

not_alice, your ignorance is astounding. As an American living in Australia (and one who has worked extensively in the film business in the US) I am embarrassed by your arrogance and ignorance.

I would strongly suggest you open your ears instead of your mouth. You have a lot to learn.

Tell me what I have got wrong, about either Australia or the US. I am listening. I sincerely hope you are better at explaining than the last two (ME and bengangmo have been.

[not_alice]

@Carmady

The US has its own censorship issues:

MTV | Homepage - Shows & Schedules

This is a story of a US citizen convicted of collecting “obscene” Japanese comics and facing up to 20 years in prison. Sentencing should be coming up soon.

Of course, all countries have issues. No one is holding up the US as a perfect example of anything, but this thread is about Australian Free Speech Issues.

A list of US issues would be a huge hijack, so, just as this thread is a spinoff of another, may I ask if you want to discuss US Free Speech Issues (of which there are plenty), that you open a new thread for it?

Thanks!

[greendestiny]

@not_alice

You probably mean something metaphoric here, right? The Courts can’t legislate, only the Legislative branch can. The Court can only rule on cases that come before it, and use prior existing laws (=legislation) to justify the decision.

Well I wasn’t being literal. The application of the constitution to law and the interpretation thereof is very important to the laws under which Americans live.

@not_alice

All the rest flows from that here. I will add it to my list of things to do to learn more about Aus. history and why that is missing.

AS a film producer, it gives me a new appreciation to the question of why more films are not made in Australia, and why there is no local film industry to speak of.

Well to expand upon my point about the legislative effect of the Supreme Court I did a quick bit of wikipedia research on censorship on the US. It claims that the first amendment wasn’t taken to restrict local and state governments until the 1950s. Further films weren’t taken to be speech at all until 1952.

The lack of film industry in Australia just isn’t true. Australia doesn’t have a very successful mainstream film industry, but its had an arty and political film industry for a long time. I am not aware of any filmmaker in Australia being hampered by censorship. That’s at least part of the point Martini Enfield was making - we haven’t had much censorship in a practical sense.

That’s why I find the proposed net censorship so unpleasant. I think this government is pushing a seriously worrying agenda of political control.