Australian Communications and Media Authority - Internet Censorship and Criticisms

Internet Censorship and Criticisms

Further information: Internet censorship in Australia

Since January 2000, internet content considered offensive or illegal has been subject to a statutory scheme administered by the ACMA.

Established under Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the online content scheme evolved from a tradition of Australian content regulation in broadcasting and other entertainment media. This tradition embodies the principle that – while adults should be free to see, hear and read what they want – children should be protected from material that may be unsuitable for (or harmful to) them, and everyone should be protected from material that is highly offensive.

The online content scheme seeks to achieve these objectives by a number of means such as complaint investigation processes, government and industry collaboration, and community awareness and empowerment. While administration of the scheme is the responsibility of the ACMA, the principle of ‘co-regulation’ underpinning the scheme reflects parliament’s intention that government, industry and the community each plays a role in managing internet safety issues in Australia. The ACMA has a significant cyber safety education program called CyberSmart which provides resources for youth, parents and teachers.

Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the Federal Government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies. The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled. Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship.

On 10 March 2009, the ACMA issued the Australian web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice" due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an anti-abortion web site. The web page, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted babies, had been submitted to the ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing the ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice. This came with an A$11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.