Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 In September 1995, the Committee tabled a Report on Regulation of
Computer On-Line Services Part 1. The report described the proceedings
of a public seminar which the Committee had convened in Canberra on 4
April 1995 in order to examine the computer industry's concerns about
the Government's proposals for regulation in the wake of the BBS (Bulletin
Board Systems) Taskforce report to the Standing Committee of Censorship
Ministers. The Committee's main concern at that time was that unclassified
computer games, pornographic and other material unsuitable for children
were accessible to them through BBS and other on-line services.
1.2 The Committee held public hearings in Canberra and Sydney before
tabling its second report in November 1995. In that report, the Committee
made a number of recommendations relating to the transmitting of certain
types of material (including objectionable material and material refused
classification "RC") through computer on-line services and to
the need for age verification procedures to be put in place by on-line
service providers. The Committee also recommended that a system of self-regulation
based on codes of practice be developed by the on-line industry. A list
of the Committee's recommendations from Part 2 of its inquiry can be found
at Appendix 1.
1.3 While Part 2 of the Committee's inquiry was still underway, the Minister
for Communications and the Arts directed the Australian Broadcasting Authority
(ABA) to conduct an investigation into the content of on-line information
services and to consider the development of a regulatory regime for on-line
services which took into consideration issues relating to community standards.
The ABA released a comprehensive report [1]
in July 1996 which contained more than 40 recommendations including as
its key recommendation, the pursuit of a self-regulatory regime through
the development of codes of practice as recommended by the Senate Committee
in its November 1995 report.
1.4 Other developments since the Committee's last report include the
establishment by the federal government of an Information Policy Advisory
Group and, of more direct relevance to the issues of interest to the Committee
in this inquiry, of the On-Line Government Council. The Council includes
representatives of all the States and Territories government and has a
stated aim of co-operating to promote consistency on on-line issues. [2]
1.5 The rapid pace of change in the on-line industry, including particularly
the explosion in the number of Australian users of the Internet [3]
and developments in the area of content labelling and blocking devices,
prompted the Committee in early 1997 to decide to revisit the subject
of its 1995 inquiries. It was not the Committee's intention to revisit
all of the areas covered by the ABA in its 1996 report to the Minister.
Rather, the Committee wished to make an assessment of developments since
the ABA's report and it was mindful also that its inquiry might be a useful
forum for the major on-line players to put forward their views of recent
developments at a time when a national approach to the regulation of the
on-line industry is still being finalised.
1.6 The Committee received 46 submissions from both Australia and overseas.
The bulk of the submissions was received via the Internet. A list of the
submissions can be found at Appendix 2. The Committee held public hearings
in Brisbane on 30 April 1997 and Canberra on 5 May 1997 and heard from
witnesses from around Australia. The Committee wishes to state its appreciation
to all those who contributed to the inquiry through submissions and appearances
at its public hearings.
1.7 Submissions to the Committee fell in three broad categories:
- those that opposed any form of regulation
- those that recognised that some regulation might be necessary and
strongly supported self-regulation
- those that supported a regulatory regime that adequately protected
minors from material that is inappropriate for them.
1.8 The majority of submissions came from individual users of on-line
services and expressed concern at what they perceived to be a move towards
censorship of the Internet and of other media. [4]
This was also the stance of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) a major
association of on-line users in this country. Those submissions argued
that present laws are adequate to deal with developments in the on-line
environment and no additional legislation or restrictions should be contemplated.
However, some submissions supported both an anti-censorship approach and
measures to combat child pornography on the Internet:
For reasons which are never elaborated, small numbers of individuals
and small groups have decided that the Internet should be censored and
controlled. Apart from the fact that these people seem unable to demonstrate
a specific problem, it is clear that these individuals and group have
no cultural, philosophical or technical understanding of the Internet...
In a free society, people should be allowed maximum individual
expression and freedom of access to information. Of course, there are
some limits to this access and expression, but in a free society these
limits must be small. For example, child pornography is clearly unacceptable
and requires an actual criminal act to produce, as well as gross violation
of individual rights. There should, of course, be prohibitions of such
criminally-produced material. [5]
1.9 The Committee also received submissions and heard from groups specifically
concerned about the protection of children from material that is inappropriate
for them. These included the Association of Heads of Independent Schools
of Australia, the Institute for Values Research and Young Media Australia.
The Committee notes that a major concern of those groups is the use of
on-line services to target children with advertising material specifically
directed at their age group.
1.10 The Executive Council of Australian Jewry said in its submission
that it was concerned because it had "documented a dramatic increase
in the volume of antisemitic and other racist material on the Internet"
since its last submission to the Committee in 1995. The Council keeps
a watching brief on this material and put forward the view that service
providers should specify in their codes of practice that "account
holders with them must not use the Internet to promote racism, antisemitism
and other prejudice. In the Council's view, service providers should cancel
the accounts of those who breach that stipulation. [6]
1.11 Submissions from industry groups and other on-line user's associations
recognised the need for some form of regulation but expressed the view
that any regulatory regime adopted by the government should not place
unduly onerous costs or unnecessary restrictions that would stifle the
growth of the emerging on-line services industry. Telstra and the Australian
Internet Industry Association were among submitters who took that view.
Together with the Australian Computer Society, they argued for self-regulation
according to codes of practice devised by the players in the industry
and provided the Committee with useful material.
1.12 Self-regulation was not universally supported by users in the industry.
There is a sizeable group that is opposed to all forms of regulation.
Submitters in this category tended to perceive all filtering software
as "over-restrictive" and to object to codes of conduct as well.
[7] One submission argued that self-regulation
is another form of (stricter) censorship:
Self-regulation can result in harsher censorship than official
regulation. This is particularly relevant to the regulation of Internet
Service Providers. This approach can see ISPs censoring anything which
they think may offend any of their customers. They have to do this to
maintain the image of a "good" ISP. [8]
1.13 Among that group, there was a tendency not only to perceive all
attempts to regulate on-line services as "censorship" but also
to see those attempts as a response to unfounded media sensationalism
regarding objectionable or illegal material on the Internet. The argument
is that, since the amount of illegal material on the Internet is small
and control difficult to impose, no attempt should be made to control
it. A number of submissions listed successful challenges to overseas legislation,
including the challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
the Communications Decency Act in the United States, as evidence that
it is pointless to legislate for any form of regulation.
1.14 The expression "objectionable material" has been used
in this report to refer to the meaning that it is given in the legislation
of the two States (Victoria and Western Australia) and the Territory (Northern
Territory) that have passed legislation relating to on-line services.
The relevant definitions are to be found at Appendix 4, followed by a
description of what is described as being RC material in the National
Classification Code (a schedule to the Commonwealth Classification (Publications,
Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. This is because some of the State
legislation define "objectionable" in terms of RC (Refused Classification).
However, the Committee wishes to point our that it does not find in any
way acceptable for publication and dissemination through computer on-line
services, material that may be legal but that is nevertheless likely to
cause offence to a reasonable adult as described in the National Classification
Code.
Footnotes
[1] Australian Broadcasting Authority, Investigation
into the content of on-line services, report to the Minister for Communications
and the Arts, ABA, Sydney, July 1996.
[2] Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister
for Communications and the Arts, Press Release, 7 Mar.1997
[3] N.B: Telstra told the Committee that in
its estimate, there are approximately 1.5 million Internet users in Australia
and that the market is growing at around 12% per month. Telstra, Answers
to Questions on Notice, 13 May 1997.
[4] Foe example, Submissions Nos 14, 15, 16
20,24
[5] Submission No 12 (Dr Maddison)
[6] Submission No 4 (Executive Council of Australian
Jewry)
[7] Submissions No 24 (J. Stokes)
[8] Submission No 22 (A. Burke)