It is very widely believed by many Australians that we, as America does, have a right to the freedom of speech. However there is actually nothing in our Constitution that is the equivalent of the First Amendment (Thomson Routers Australia Ltd, 2014). Well, at least in a legal sense. But thanks to the wonderful invention of the World Wide Web we now have a freedom that is unparalleled to anything we’ve experienced before. Whilst Australia does have some internet censorship laws they are quite weak and mostly voluntary. In 1999 the Howard government made a big push to have the BSA amended to include that any R18+ rated material become prohibited if hosted on an Australian persons server, and recorded on a blacklist if on an overseas server (Jacobs, 2010). The silver lining for those of you currently deleting your Internet history is that for the websites on the blacklist to become ‘banned’ Australians must voluntarily elect to have it removed from their computers.

  Whilst some of you may be understandably outraged at this news you must first think about the benefits this censorship could bring. What if it prevented and eliminated access to child pornography sharing in Australia? Or websites that detail ‘instruction to crime’? Think about stalking, racial bullying, death threats, people posting nude photos of others without permission or the names of Australian immigrants fleeing from their evil dictators. Don’t these people deserve to be protected? It is very hard for even the firmest supporter of public liberties to argue these points without facing some problematic repercussions.

  Nonetheless while the situation for Australian Internet censorship can often look quite dire there are other countries facing far more tight reigns than we are. In Russia a new amendment to an anti-terrorism bill now categorizes blogs as media entities and “will allow Russian bloggers to be prosecuted for publishing content that is deemed a threat to national security” (The Moscow Times, 2014). Essentially this means that any time a blogger posts anything they must be able to back it up with facts and stats. Any posts seen as extremist or that contradict the rulings of the state could be fined anywhere from 10,000-50,000 rubles. In China bloggers have been causing such a stir with their comments on political corruption, pollution and other issues that last September the government instated new laws leading to the arrest of hundred of bloggers. Under these new regulations “Chinese internet users may face three years in prison for writing defamatory messages that are reposted 500 times. Web users may also be jailed if offending posts are viewed more than 5,000 times” (France-Presse, 2014).

  So where do we draw the line? Whilst it would be wonderful for their to be no internet repression on the views of users AND to have the ability to catch the ’villians’ of the internet it is difficult to a definitive line in the sand as to what is and isn’t considered ‘bad practice’. As Clay Shirky puts it in this weeks reading “It would be nice to have a flexible set of short-term digital tactics that could be used against different regimes at different times. But the requirements of real-world statecraft mean that what is desirable may not be likely” (Shirky, 2011). So what do you think? Let me know your views on internet censorship in the comments.

References:

France-Presse, Agence. 2014. Chinese Blogger Jailed Under Crackdown on ‘Internet Rumours’. The Guardian, April 17. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/chinese-blogger-jailed-crackdown-internet-rumours-qin-zhihui

Jacobs, Colin. 2010. “The Future of Internet Censorship.” Electronic Frontiers Australia, September 21.Accessed May 2, 2014. https://www.efa.org.au/2010/09/21/the-future-of-censorship/

Porter, Sergei. 2014. “State Duma Approves Bill Classifying Bloggers as Mass Media”. The Moscow Times, April 18. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/state-duma-approves-bill-classifying-bloggers-as-mass-media/498415.html

Shirky, Clay. 2010. "The Political Power of Social Media." Foreign Affairs, 20 Dec. 2010. Accessed May 1, 2014. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media

As children we are taught that wrong doings lead to negative responses and can result in punishment. Growing up, these punishments often become more severe with the potential for legal repercussions depending on the offense committed and our age. Often, we look at these acts of wrong doing as tangible offenses. Does this therefore mean that intangible offenses are more easily justified and or condoned? For example, as a society, do we consciously think of how we act on social networks and the possible consequences of our actions? Should Internet infringements be permissible as they are not tangible crimes? Terry Flew argues that ‘…digital information accessed through communication networks has the attributes of being intangible, geographically dispersed, recombinant and continually changing in both its form and character’ (Flew 2014, 179). Therefore, due to the difficulty in tracing back infringements to the perpetrator, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trace and charge offenders. This blog will explore the concept of Internet laws and policies and whose duty it is to regulate online media content.

  As is identified by Solum in Flew’s lecture, ‘the technical infrastructure of the Internet interacts with the ability of governments to regulate applications, content and human activities that are enabled and facilitated by use of the Internet. In other words, the technical infrastructure of the Internet is connected to the legal regulation of gambling and child pornography, to the efficiency and transparency of the world economic system, and to fundamental human rights, such as liberty of conscience and freedom of speech’ (Flew 2014).  Internet laws are simply an extension of media and communication technology laws for broadcast, print and telecommunications (Flew 2014, 180). They include, but aren’t limited to: privacy and security issues, freedom of speech, intellectual property issues and many more. One of the biggest laws society knows about is Internet Copyright, that is, the protection of original online content from becoming illegally reproduced or sold. Given Copyright is regulated by both governments and independent agencies, who regulates other Internet policies and laws?

  Below is a video of 2012 US Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney discussing why he believes the Government should play no part in regulating the Internet. In his words, ‘it’s working pretty well right now.’ Romney justifies his response by arguing that if there were to be a bill passed regulating the Internet, it would become slower, more expensive, content would become less interesting and would additionally deny freedom of speech within this network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1RSPpJQvg

Given an influential political leader has this opinion, who must therefore take responsibility for the regulation and governance of online media? Do people believe that there needs to be no regulation of the Internet?

  As Flew acknowledges in his recent lecture, initially there was a view that the Internet should be and was a space free from government interference. Flew identified this as the Cyber-libertarian perspective, that is, the view or belief that the Internet is a way of expressing individualized initiatives and content without central government controls (Flew 2014). Since the 2000s, the Internet is increasingly controlled through a combination of entities including: international governance, national governments, transnational corporations and hybrid models, that is, ‘self-regulation overseen by independent agencies’ (Flew 2014). Therefore, it is not simply controlled by one entity.

Given this information it is important to remember that although Internet offenses are intangible and often hard to trace, content is still being regulated (to an extent) by various entities, thus infringements conducted have similar consequences to tangible, legal misconducts.

  References:

Flew, Terry. 2014. ”Chapter 11: Internet Law, Policy and Governance.” In New media, edited by Terry Flew, 178-197.4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Flew, Terry. 2014. “Week 7 New Media Policy, Law and Governance.” Accessed April 27, 2014. https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/echo/presentation/975524be-671f-4042-a5fb-20d3e13e5aa0?ec=true

I've always been pretentious of the things I've always wanted to say on social networks because I was afraid it would someday be used against me in the court of law. Sure, the First Amendment can cover my ass, but not as much as we think these days among the inter-webz. Also, I'm a big fan of "Tweet, Delete, Repeat," so I may have been drunk and said something offensive and provocative on the internet that I did not mean (I actually may have done this too many times)… But what's the point of me deleting my tweets when these websites are teaming up with the government to collect all of my information through my Tourettes' minded thoughts? Websites need to figure out how to handle private consumer data and start learning how to be honest with it's users.  

There has been talk of a newly proposed Bill of Rights for all Social Media activity and it is something that brings music to my ears (as it should to your nosey ears as well).

“We the users expect social network sites to provide us the following rights in their Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and implementations of their system:

1. Honesty: Honor your privacy policy and terms of service.

2. Clarity: Ensure that policies and terms of service are easy to understand.

3. Freedom of speech: Don’t censor without a clear policy and justification.

4. Empowerment: Support privacy-enhancing and assistive technologies.

5. Security: Treat my data as securely as your own, and notify me if it is compromised.

6. Data minimization: Minimize the information I am required to provide and share with others.

7. Control: Let me control my data, and don’t share it with others unless I agree first.

8. Predictability: Don’t change who or what sees my data without my consent.

9. Right to know: Show me how you are using my data and allow me to see who and what has access to it.

10. Right to self-define: Let me create more than one identity and use pseudonyms. Do not link them without my permission.

11. Right to appeal: Allow me to appeal disciplinary actions.

12. Right to leave: Allow me to delete my account, and take my data with me.”

I know it's all old news. But I'm just so pissed off with how both the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill and legislation giving the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority more powers were pushed through Parliament under urgency this week.

It's absolutely disgusting that the Government has used the recent Christchurch earthquakes as an excuse for rushing through controversial bills and just generally circumventing democratic process. So GROSS.

I guess the part that I find so unbelievably frustrating is the fact that the whole Western world is up in arms about helping Libyans to achieve democracy, when examples such as this highlight the fact that even in somewhere like Aotearoa/NZ, the government fails to understand what democratic process is.

However, even without the government underhandedly sneaking through unpopular bills, I think that our 'democratic' status is still a joke. Voting every three years for a party that is just going to break its promises anyway is not how I envision democracy. Refusing to actively and comprehensively educate and inform people on political issues is not how I envision encouraging democracy. Furthermore. arresting people who take part in political protests and employing scare tactics to those who dissent against the status quo is not democratic. Lastly, I would argue that upholding a system that works in the interest of the few, rather than the majority is completely anti-democratic.