International Law

The ACMA classifying this anti-abortion website as prohibited content or potential prohibited content highlights several serious flaws inherent in the policy to filter the internet. 

First, it is indicative of the difficulty associated with defining ?political speech?.  Legal scholars, judges and philosophers have wrestled with the boundaries of political speech for centuries, from John Milton to Alexander Meikeljohn, and it ludicrous to suggest that the ACMA or the Government is magically imbued with the ability to determine which websites have an element of political content and which do not.  And nor should that be the role of the ACMA or the Government.  Citizens in a liberal democracy should be lawfully able to inform themselves on matters that are of political interest of them, and not have the debate framed or restricted by Government classification.

Second, it demonstrates the inflexibility of the classification standards.  It is probable that this website does indeed constitute prohibited content or potential prohibited content under the Broadcasting Services Act, but that is only because the definitions in the Act inevitably treat all content in the same way; the same standard applies to political and non-political content.

Third, it is a good example of the dangers inherent in prior restraint.   Once a website like this gets added to the blacklist is becomes impossible for Australian citizens to determine for themselves whether this website should be banned or not.  The proposed filter means that the public cannot review the decisions made by the ACMA or the Government.  This lack of accountability should be very troubling to anyone living in a liberal democracy.

Ultimately the fate of this website is an illustrative example of the dangers inherent in any Government censorship scheme.  Issues of political speech, classification and accountability are without doubt both complex and important, and any notion that they can be adequately addressed and balanced by a Government regulator engaging in prior restraint is somewhere between being unbelievably naive and downright dangerous.