|
|
| UNOFFICIAL |  VERSION 0.02 | |||||||||||||||||||
. They have to be better than mine. |
special announcement on exam Email Webmaster with errors |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Today, when creating a web page, one has to take into account all the policies involved so as not to breach any. Although when attempting to create a web page one does not need to have limitations drawn out so as to hamper the creativity. It is an accepted fact that Internet censorship is virtually impossible due to the nature of the Internet but measures have been taken to regulate the content provided, national and international.
The ABA, in 1996, put out a report of its findings in regard to whether
on-line services needed a tighter regulation, due to calls for censorship.
These have been the most common response to concerns such as, children being
regarded as especially at risk, due to the graphic nature of the material
available, and the apparent ease of access.
When investigating the need of introducing regulation of on-line services,
the ABA had to take into account the submissions that were presented. The
majority of these submissions expressed "the concern that adults would
not be able to visit adult sites, and thus would be treated as children
in order to protect children." (Webb; 1996, pp11).
The ABA took into account that "The Internet and other on-line services
provide the infrastructure for communications and information used by millions
of individuals and organisations around the world". (ABA; 1996, pg3)
But one of the problems the ABA faced when investigating the potential regulation
of the Internet is that it had also emerged as being the forum for the freedom
of expression.
Peter Webb, the chairman of the ABA in 1996, refers back to Roger Buckridge and Terry Cutler, who in 1995, produced a report called The On-line Economy in which they proposed an on-line forum for content, network and service providers. The purpose of this was so that there would be a continuos dialogue with the legislature and the regulators so as to create a strongly competitive, self regulatory framework for the on-line industries. (Webb; 1996, pg12) It is in agreement with Mr. Webb that this might be a good idea so that there is some feedback on the effects of regulation but it still does not address the restriction imposed on everyday Internet users.
Even today regulation is a controversial concept. The Internet community
sees regulation as a threat rather than seeing it as a means of protecting
children. Although the Internet abounds with web pages and web sites created
by individuals, that might be slightly easier to regulate, what creates
big problems for regulators is private proprietary networks. "On-line
services can also be provided over proprietary networks, with Compuserve
and the Microsoft Network (MSN) representing the main examples. In some
ways, these networks may be regarded as closed systems, but are usually
linked to the wider Internet. This poses problems for regulators, in that
the proprietary networks are effectively private communications channels
(like the telephone), but also public through their connection to the Internet."
(Finn; 1999)
By now it is obvious that on-line services are very difficult to regulate.
The ABA has posed questions like how they would stop children accessing
adult sites, how they would be able to ensure copyright. But if the regulations
become too tight how do they avoid concentration of ownership. The main
question lies in whether regulation has a negative affect on encouraging
local content. Australians need to use the Internet as a means of communicating
their culture to the world and regulation will possibly have a bad affect
on this.
It is believed that it can have a negative affect because when looking
at the statistics 80% of the Internet is dominated by unregulated American
content. If Australia were to regulate on-line service providers and on-line
services then there is a possibility that the U.S. will remain dominant
in the Internet and Australian content would be overshadowed. At present,
the Broadcasting Services Act contains no specific restrictions on ownership
of on-line services, and creating such restrictions may prove difficult
given the inherently global nature of the medium. Regulators see that on-line
services tend to be global by their very nature, and that they as local
regulators would have no control over international content producers.
Finding a solution to the problem of regulating the Internet was not
the easiest for the ABA. "The best solution the ABA could find was
some kind of voluntary labelling system, in which Web-sites would carry
a label which could be read by Platform Internet Content Selection (PICS)
software. Under PICS, all Internet sites would be encoded with a classification
within their HTML giving info about their content, which could then be read
by filtering software." (Finn, 1999)
On April 21, Sen. Alston introduced new legislation to regulate on-line
services.
1.- A complaints mechanism to be administered by the ABA
2.- An incorporation of on-line content under existing guidelines produced
by the OFLC.
3.- The ABA would be given powers to issue notices to service providers
regarding content hosted in Australia or sourced from overseas. The ISP
must take reasonable steps" to prevent access if "technically
and commercially feasible".
4.- A graduated scale of sanctions against service providers if notices
are not complied with.
5.- A community advisory body will be established to monitor material and
operate a hotline.
6.- In attempt to homogenise state and territory offence provisions.
The legislation will obviously breach the culture and identity of Australia on the Internet and be created by only a minority of the population, whilst the majority looses access to certain knowledges that they could obtain via "The Net". This liberal stance of regulation against, the development of possibly the most global form of cultural expression could sacrifice that expression. If Australia alone were to regulate the Internet, the possibilities of Australian Internet growth would be thwarted. Protection of the child is great reason for. However as the "Electronic Frontiers Australia" web page said on the 29th of September 1999 in response to state censorship laws, "EFA believes that the draft legislation is a profoundly flawed document. Rather than address the intention that "what is illegal or controlled offline should also be illegal or controlled online", it criminalises material online that is not illegal offline". The inconsistency of the regulation obviously lies within access and theories of "whose hands it may fall", but in the case of Internet regulation, as with most moral censorship, the best form of regulation is a parent hovering over their child with a careful eye. The responsibility for internet regulation for the meantime should be parental not the state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Webb, P. (1996) 'Examining the regulatory and legislative future of Australia's
on-line economy and society' ABA update, 44, June, pp. 11-14.
ABA (1996) 'ABA recommends codes of practice and labelling scheme for in-line services', ABA update, 45, June, pp 3-5.
Osborne, I. (1997) 'House rules for children on-line', ABA update, 54, May, pp15 -17.
LECTURE NOTES
Finn, Mark (1999) Week 10 "Online Services" for FMC3010 at Griffith University Nathan Campus.
WEBSITES
ABA web site http://www.aba.gov.au/
EFA web site http://www.efa.org.au
Based on an original web site design by Jotham Ritorze, Web Developer.
