CONSULTATION
PAPER
The Regulation of Obscene Material on On-Line Information Services
SUBMISSION
by Roger Clarke, Chair, Economic, Legal and Social
Implications Committee of the Australian Computer Society
29 August 1995
SUMMARY
I
understand the proposal to be for a regulatory regime affecting networks of all
kinds, in relation to obscene materials. The mechanism is to be
self-regulation by the industry (through a code of practice, a complaints
procedure and an education program), with a formal control (comprising criminal
offence provisions, to which a defence will be 'compliance with the code of
practice').
I draw attention to the substantial amount of material already made available
by myself and others to the two Departments and the Senate Select Committee on
Community Standards. I understand that the information we have provided is
cumulative, and that the process has been one of convergence towards a common
position. This understanding is particularly important in view of the
impending change in organisational responsibility for the matter, and in staff
dealing with it.
I draw attention in the body of this submission to a number of areas of concern
to the electronic community.
The largest single concern relates to the scope of the 'censorship' being
imposed. The terms 'offensive', 'objectionable' and 'restricted' are all used
at various points in the document. This has caused some people to infer that
the government proposes to intrude to a considerable extent on free expression
and on open public access to documents.
I have intentionally used the word 'obscene' in this submission. My
understanding has been that the only material which is to be subject to the
offence provisions is that which would be obscene under current laws relating
to other media such as magazines and videos. It is critical that the proposal
be limited to this class of material, and that it be clearly communicated to
the public as relating only to these extreme kinds of material, and not to
materials which would be considered by many people to be tasteless, but which
are not generally regarded as obscene.
Subject to these concerns being satisfactorily addressed, I believe that the
approach the government is proposing to adopt is a sensible application of
mixed-market-economy principles. The key features are that it is
firm-but-flexible, will not enshrine technical definitions within legislation
and thereby create more problems in the future than it solves at present, and
places a clear onus on industry associations to address the issue.
Roger Clarke
29 August 1995
BODY OF THE SUBMISSION
1. Background
During the last two years, I (in common with several other people) have made a
succession of submissions on this matter to, and held a succession of
discussions with, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of
Communications and the Arts, and provided a presentation to the Senate Select
Committee on Community Standards. I have written this document on the
presumption that the reader is familiar with those previous documents.
The document comprises discussions of matters of concern arising from the
Consultation Paper dated 7 July 1995.
2. The Scope of the Regulated Material
Many different terms are used in the document to describe the material to be
subjected to regulation, including:
- 'offensive' (e.g. Introduction, page 2, line 1, Background, page 5, at
(c), Scope, page 9, 2nd para.);
- 'harmful' (e.g. Introduction, page 2, 2nd bullet);
- 'unsuitable' (e.g. Introduction, page 2, 2nd bullet, Proposed Strategy,
page 6, 2nd bullet, Proposed Strategy, page 7, 5th para.);
- 'contentious' (e.g. Introduction, page 3, 2nd para.);
- 'material corresponding to' the 'refused classification' and 'restricted
classification' (e.g. Background, page 4, 2nd bullet, Proposed Strategy, page
6, middle para.);
- 'material likely to harm or disturb [minors]' (e.g. Background, page 5, at
(b));
- 'depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly secual violence'
(e.g. Background, page 5, at (d)(i));
- 'the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner' (e.g. Background, page 5,
at (d)(ii));
- 'child pornography' (e.g. Background, page 5, 2nd last para.);
- 'objectionable' (e.g. Proposed Strategy, page 6, 3rd last
para., Proposed Strategy, page 7, 2nd last para., Scope, pages 7-8 generally,
Offences);
- 'restricted' (e.g. Scope, page 8, 3rd last para.,
Offences);
- 'inappropriate' (e.g. Proposed Strategy, page 8, 3rd bullet);
There is also explicit reference to the existing censorship laws (Introduction,
page 2, second para., and page 5) and 'existing classification systems' (e.g.
Introduction, page 3, 3rd para.); although these are not clearly explained.
My understanding is that the object of concern is what the public calls
'obscene' materials, and I urge that this be the term used.
In any case, the definition of 'objectionable' used in the draft legislation on
page 15 needs attention due to an apparent mis-typing at the end of the first
line of (ii), and the apparently very different degree of (iv) compared with
(i)-(iii).
The definition of 'restricted material' on page 15 also requires attention.
Sub-clause (i) should be simply deleted, because it implies a serious degree of
government intervention, and is open to wide interpretation; whereas (ii)
embodies some guidance as to how the definition should be interpreted.
It is critical that the scope of regulated material be expressly discussed, the
intent explained, and the number of adjectives reduced. This would
significantly lower the current public confusion about the extent to which
censorship is justified.
3. The Scope of the Regulated Persons
There are benefits in using a meaningful but not unduly specific term, i.e.
'on-line information service' rather than 'bulletin board system'. However
there remain problems:
- the primary term used in the document is 'on-line information service',
but the slightly different term 'on-line computer-based
information service' is used on several occasions;
- the definition of 'on-line information service' is highly
inclusive. It probably encompasses bulletin boards, ftp sites,
web-servers, and electronically-accessible databases of all kinds made
available on both a commercial and a community-service basis; and possibly
even includes email, EDI, CALS, chat, video-phone, video-conferences, remote
login, CD-I, electronic shopping and video-on-demand. It might also apply to
electronically-accessible databases which are used only within a corporation or
agency, although I gather that this may be subject to some constitutional
limitations.
- the term 'bi-directional transfer of files and messages'
is not in common usage in the information technology industry, and is subject
to a variety of possible interpretations. Would it be feasible to couch the
definition in terms of the provision of 'documents in electronic form'?
- as a result of these factors, it is unclear just what services are and are
not to be regulated. It is essential that the scope be clarified before any
legislation to brought before Parliament.
4. The Process of Formation of the Code of Practice
The Proposed Strategy on page 6 and the detail on page 9, 1st para. contain a
rendition of the proposal different from that which I understood from prior
discussions. The statement is that the code of practice is to be "developed /
determined in consultation with the industry and the community" (the two
instances differ). I understood that it is to be "developed by the
industry, in consultation with the government and the broader
community".
If it is to be genuine self-regulation, and companies operating in the industry
are to be genuinely committed to it, then the industry must be the driver, but
subject to a real need to consult with relevant representatives of government
and multiple representatives of the broader community.
In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the differences in perspective
inherent within a free society are such that it will not be possible to
entirely satisfy the wishes of all parties, and at any point in time the code
will have to embody compromise judgements, and practicable mechanisms and
solutions.
5. Reversal of the Onus of Proof
The offences are phrased in such a manner that the onus of proof is placed not
on the prosecutor to prove that the defendant was not in compliance with the
code of conduct, but rather on the defendant to prove that he/she was.
This is a dangerous and inappropriate change in the approach to criminal law,
and should be reverted to the norm. This can be most readily achieved by
adopting a formulation in the draft Section 2 such as "must not have 'obscene'
material on an on-line service under his or her control ..." "unless the
defendant complied with an industry code of practice ...".
6. Compliance with the Code of Practice a Sufficient Defence
There is a loose expression on page 7 which causes concern (2nd last para.).
Rather than compliance with a code of practice merely being one step to achieve
safety from prosecution, it is essential that compliance with the code of
practice be a sufficient condition to protect against prosecution (and
not just conviction) under draft Sections 2 and 5. This is consistent with the
subsequent discussion on page 8, and the use of the word "or" in the draft
Sections 2 and 5.
An additional expression which causes concern is that "there is no intention to
prosecute operators who ... conduct their systems ... with reference to
the code of practice" (page 12, 1st para.). The statement should be that there
is no possibility of prosecution of persons whose operations are so
compliant.
The requirements relating to restricted material (draft Sections 3-5) are
highly onerous, and essentially impractical, because it will probably never be
possible to verify age over the net. It is therefore especially
important that Section 5(2)(b) provide effective protection from prosecution in
the event of compliance with a code of practice.
7. Control over 'Obscene' Material
For those service providers who act as publishers, a requirement that they
exercise control over 'obscene' material is reasonable. But for those many
providers who simply rent out storage space, and do not take responsibility for
content, it is not reasonable to impose such a requirement. The mention
of "random checks of material available through [a defendant's] information
service" (page 12, 2nd para.), and the phrase "objectionable material on an
on-line service under his or her control" in the draft Section 2 appear to
conflict with that principle.
Renters of space should not be forced to inspect materials stored in that space
unless reasonable grounds for suspicion arise that the space is being used to
store 'obscene' material. Their contract with the storer needs to empower them
to, under such circumstances, inspect the materials in question and require
that they be removed or amended in the event that they infringe.
8. The Interplay Between Information Technology and Social Patterns
Consideration should be given to the question as to whether the current round
of information technologies is in the process of influencing social norms, and
hence the existing classification scheme for 'obscene' materials should be
re-considered.
The new media's greater immediacy, quality and interactivity may be heightening
concerns about 'obscene' materials (or even 'offensive' materials more
generally), in which case the public might seek a more restrictive regulatory
regime. Most members of contemporary electronic communities, however, would be
likely to judge tighter controls as futile, and damaging, both socially and
economically.
On the other hand, the new media might be in the process of encouraging a more
permissive view to predominate, i.e. 'the images can't be avoided, so work
harder to educate people, especially the young, co cope with them'.
9. Occasional Lapses into Paternalism
There are a few points at which the Consultation Paper appears to adopt a
perspective inconsistent with the self-determination which Australians expect
to be able to exercise:
- it is not the role of Parliament, nor of government agencies exercising
Parliament's authority, to make judgements on matters of taste. Only those
materials which are repulsive to a preponderant majority of the public are
proper subject-matter for censorship (and even then the existence of offending
materials needs to remain public knowledge);
- on page 5 at (b), the principle that "minors should be protected from
material likely to harm or disturb them" is phrased in a manner consistent with
decision-making by the State on behalf of its subjects. A much more
appropriate phrasing of the principle would be "mechanisms should be devised
such that carers for minors (such as parents and teachers) should be able to
implement such forms and levels of protection from offensive materials as they
judge to be appropriate";
- on page 5 at (c), it is illogical to protect "everyone" from "exposure to
unsolicited material that they find offensive". For a person to find something
offensive, that person has to have first been exposed to it;
- on page 7, the possibility is floated of an accreditation scheme, to
assist schools and parents in selecting service providers. Given the dynamic
nature of the services, and the contentious nature of accreeditation, it would
be at best premature to establish such procedures;
- there is also some misunderstanding of the role of the EdNA initiative
(page 7, 5th para). This has been conceived as not just a service for K-6, or
even K-12, but as a comprehensive primary, secondary and post-secondary
service. There are therefore distinctly different levels of protection which
will need to be implemented within EdNA.
Roger Clarke
29 August 1995
Navigation
Go
to
Roger's
Home Page.
Go to
the
contents-page for this segment.
Send
an email to Roger
Last Amended: 15 October 1995
 | These community
service pages are a joint offering of the Australian National University (which
provides the infrastructure), and Roger Clarke (who provides the content).
|  |