Internet censorship of "hate" sites on the cards

[Ahknaton]

Law chiefs plan ban on race-hate sites

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23464021-5013945,00.html

Imre Salusinszky, NSW political reporter | April 01, 2008

RACE-HATE websites could be banned under an internet censorship proposal being considered by state and federal attorneys-general.

The plan, which is in its early stages, has aroused concern among civil libertarians who fear it could be used to stifle political debate.

The attorneys-general, meeting in Adelaide last week, commissioned a report on the viability of authorising the Australian Communications and Media Authority to combat race-hate sites by ordering internet service providers to take them down.

At present, ACMA polices websites that breach copyright, promote terrorism or publish extreme pornography.

"There are racial vilification laws, but the problem with the internet is you can't trace down the people," NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday.

"Any material that incites vilification and hatred is of concern. Material on the internet is a particular concern because it provides a cheap and easy means of dissemination to a very wide audience."

The proposal, which would be open for public consultation before any decision was made, followed a referral to the attorneys by state and federal police ministers, Mr Hatzistergos said. Concerns had also been expressed by non-English-speaking groups about comments on white-supremacist websites.

For the ACMA to be able to take down sites, it would require a new definition of the "refused classification" category used by the federal Government's Classification Board to deal with violent pornography and similar material. The proposed system could affect websites such as the one operated by the Australia First party, which was involved in the civil unrest at Cronulla in December 2005.

An article on the group's website, signed by "Joni", compares Muslims to mould. "You have the innocent, healthy, cheese block sitting in your fridge minding its own business til one day you peel back the wrapper to see a tiny section of mould on the surface," she writes.

"Just when you think it's safe to appreciate your cheese in your own environment again you see it's back. Now darker, deeper, growing, invading, insidious."

But Dale Clapperton, from the online civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said a problem with banning such sites was that "it inevitably turns them into martyrs and gives more attention to the type of material you are trying to suppress".

"The best cure for 'bad' speech is more speech," Mr Clapperton said.

[Scryllak]

"There are racial vilification laws, but the problem with the internet is you can't trace down the people," NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday.

!!! That's the best part about the Internet - free speech without the dual constraints of government interference and social ostracization. If unpopular ideologies or opinions become more popular through a freer medium, that's wonderful. It proves that the marketplace of ideas can function without directives from on high.

A truly 'progressive' society must (almost by definition) tolerate and protect the speech and ideas of its most vilified citizens.

[whydoyouwanttoknow]

Great plan, except they can then just host it off fucking shore.

[Ahknaton]

I'd like to see an end to kiddy porn websites but I don't want to see governments censor websites. I don't think there is an easy answer to this.
I don't think that kiddy porn and political sites should be mentioned in the same breath. This is a result of the (stupid) contention that has entered our culture resulting from the Larry Flynt court cases in the USA that pornography is a type of "speech" so censoring pornography and political websites are somehow related issues. It also sets up a slippery slope: "you support censoring kiddy-porn, so obviously some intrusions into free speech are necessary, so why not hate sites?"

Child porn (and porn in general) isn't "free speech", especially since in the case of the former an actual crime has to be committed just to produce it. Shutting down child porn isn't a free speech issue any more than busting internet fraudsters (such as phishing sites) impinges on their free speech, since molesting children and stealing people's money are both a priori crimes before free speech issues are even considered, whereas hate speech becomes criminal only as a result of anti-free speech legislation.

Like yourself, I don't think any political content at all should be censored, but I don't have a problem with shutting down kiddy porn sites obviously. However, I don't think the latter is in any way related to free speech.

[Cadavre Exquis]

I don't think that kiddy porn and political sites should be mentioned in the same breath. This is a result of the (stupid) contention that has entered our culture resulting from the Larry Flynt court cases in the USA that pornography is a type of "speech" so censoring pornography and political websites are somehow related issues. It also sets up a slippery slope: "you support censoring kiddy-porn, so obviously some intrusions into free speech are necessary, so why not hate sites?"

Child porn (and porn in general) isn't "free speech", especially since in the case of the former an actual crime has to be committed just to produce it. Shutting down child porn isn't a free speech issue any more than busting internet fraudsters (such as phishing sites) impinges on their free speech, since molesting children and stealing people's money are both a priori crimes before free speech issues are even considered, whereas hate speech becomes criminal only as a result of anti-free speech legislation.

Like yourself, I don't think any political content at all should be censored, but I don't have a problem with shutting down kiddy porn sites obviously. However, I don't think the latter is in any way related to free speech.

I think what you say here makes sense and agree with the sentiments.

Another problem may arises, however, when sites that promote pedophilia but do not feature actual material spring up. Do you think such sites should be banned?

As much as I believe in the freedom of speech, I feel very uncomfortable knowing that such sites exist.

[Baron_Corvo]

I agree with this;

'"The best cure for 'bad' speech is more speech," Mr Clapperton said.'

[Jake Featherston]

Child porn (and porn in general) isn't "free speech", especially since in the case of the former an actual crime has to be committed just to produce it. Shutting down child porn isn't a free speech issue any more than busting internet fraudsters (such as phishing sites) impinges on their free speech, since molesting children and stealing people's money are both a priori crimes before free speech issues are even considered, whereas hate speech becomes criminal only as a result of anti-free speech legislation.

Yes, the issues are entirely separate. If some asshole wants to host a website, for example, including essays extolling the philosophical, moral, and esthetic "virtues" (such as they are) of pedophillia and child pornography, that should not be restricted by the state, anymore than any other website disseminating the philosophical/political/ideological, etc. opinions of any person. No opinion should be censored. A film file showing an 8-year old girl performing sexual acts on an adult man is not an opinion, but rather a piece of criminal contraband.

[Jake Featherston]

As much as I believe in the freedom of speech, I feel very uncomfortable knowing that such sites exist.

You can't have freedom of speech without a degree of discomfort. Some people are just scum, but they still have rights. To many people, that would include many/most posters at The Phora ie., we're "scum" with rights too, in the eyes of many classical liberals who believe in freedom of speech. The ACLU might one day defend Don Black from some sort of speech-related persecution, yet I'm sure StormFront makes them uncomfortable.

[delete]

I think I demand will grow for software that let's you surf anoymously outside government controll, the more the government try to restrict and monitor content and access to information that they don't like.

People might even start to make money from this, as corrupt officials will try to get confidential information from businesses, and the businesses will try to protect themselves, thus creating a demand for software that let's them do that.

[Felix the Cat]

Having willingly imported hordes of strange and volatile foreigners into your country, it makes no sense to then complain about loss of freedom of speech. Multiracial societies are unfree societies

This isn't just a black/white issue either: if you walk around Derry or Belfast shouting "fuck the queen" or "fuck the pope" you'll quickly find yourself sitting in a prison cell. Freedom of speech has limits there.

How else should situations like this be handled?

[harjit]

You can't have freedom of speech without a degree of discomfort. Some people are just scum, but they still have rights. To many people, that would include many/most posters at The Phora ie., we're "scum" with rights too, in the eyes of many classical liberals who believe in freedom of speech. The ACLU might one day defend Don Black from some sort of speech-related persecution, yet I'm sure StormFront makes them uncomfortable.
I recall having seen cases where Jewish lawyers with a civil libertarian bent defended "white supremacists".

[Kodos]

I'd like to see an end to kiddy porn websites but I don't want to see governments censor websites. I don't think there is an easy answer to this.

Kiddy porn is a trojan horse.

[dave_931]

I agree with this;

'"The best cure for 'bad' speech is more speech," Mr Clapperton said.'

So do I.

We are supposed to be a most rational society today, with our production lines, technology, and specialised fields of profession at every turn, yet underneith it all we are simply obsessed with emotion rather than logic and reason.

Surely statements/ideas should be rebutted if the thoughts transmitted by them are incorrect and simply not true of reality, not because they might offend the emotions of some interest group? We need to clear away the bullshit like political correctness and focus instead on addressing which ideas will work in the long run and which won't. Offending some individuals shouldn't be the first thing we worry about, or we might find ourselves on the wrong side of common sense before too long :)