Government Expands "Black List" Of Banned Websites

Greenpeace Get Nervous

The Howard government has a "black list" of websites they have decided should not be viewed by any Australians. At least, not while they're in Australia. Some are porn sites, some are sites that supposedly disseminate terror propaganda, or information on how to build bombs or stage terror attacks.

But some of the sites on the government's "black list" are information sites related to terrorism and jihad, software "mashing" and peer to peer sharing.

Now the government has back-doored a new "web ban bill" described as a "bombshell" into to the Senate on the last day it sits before the federal election. No warning, no briefings. It was just suddenly there.

And the "black list" of web sites that are already blocked to all Australian users of the internet is about to grow much, much longer under the new "web ban bill".

More alleged terrorist and cyber-crime websites will be included.

But what is a terrorist or cyber-crime website under the new Howard government legislation? Nobody's sure. The wording is vague, and basically leaves it up to government ministers and the police to decide what information should disappear into the black hole of Australia's new wave of censorship.

Today, it's websites that demand violent retaliation for the slaughter of Muslims in Iraq. Tomorrow it might be a pro-conservation website explaining how locals can organize themselves into legal action groups and protest groups to stop a local forest from being chainsawed.

What few Australians now realise is that the Howard government's anti-terror legislation also includes vaguely-worded provisions stating that the disruption of a corporation's daily business practices could also be categorised as an act of terrorism.

In fact, a bunch of protesters don't have to actually chain themselves to a mining company's head office front doors to be acting like a bunch of terrorists. They merely have to have the intent, the plan, to do so.

Pre-crime in Australia is a growing reality.

From The Australian :

Australian Privacy Foundation chair Roger Clarke expressed disbelief that "the government of any country in the free world could table a Bill of this kind".

"Without warning, the Government, through Senator Coonan, is proposing to provide Federal Police with powers to censor the internet," Dr Clarke said.

"Even worse, ISPs throughout the country are to be the vehicle for censorship, by being required to block internet content."

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said the Bill would give the Police Commissioner "enormous power over what political content Australians can look at" on the web.

"This gives the Commissioner sweeping powers which could potentially be applied to millions of websites," she said. "The Government has dropped the Bill into the Senate on the eve of an election with virtually no explanation."

Senator Nettle said environmental organisations such as Greenpeace had been accused of crime or terrorism-related actions. "Will the Police Commissioner call for Greenpeace's website to be shut down?"

Anti-terror legislation in Australia, the US, the EU and the UK was purposely crafted, and worded, to allow governments to decide that this action group or that dissenting protest organisation is actually conducting a form of terrorism, should any of these governments ever decide it is necessary to do so.

Non-government groups don't have to be conducting, or staging, terrorism against civilians to be regarded as terrorists. Merely planning protest actions against a corporation is also defined as an act of terrorism.

The Australian government, as part of its alleged fight against children being exposed to pornography or "shocking images" online, now offers free "content filters" through its NetAlert program. They sell it as a means to stop children from being exposed to pornography, but it's also about blocking "inappropriate material".

Once the software is installed, websites that the Howard government and the Police Commissioner decide should be locked out of Australian computer screens will be instantly blocked.

There are no set limits to what the Howard government or the Police Commissioner can determine is "inappropriate material."

The Howard government stealthily introduced the "web ban bill" to the Senate at the last possible moment because it didn't want the bill to come under intense scrutiny.

Not exactly a reassuring sign that their moves to ramp up censorship of the internet is being done in the best interest of the Australian people.

Howard's $200 Million War On The Internet

Porn, Violence, 'Terror' And Social Networking Sites In Firing Line

Prime Minister John Howard has announced a war to "clean up" the internet. With a proposed budget of almost $200 million, and plenty more to come, Howard's internet war will be one of the most expensive programs in the world to filter, censor and screen internet users and content.

Howard used an internet-televised speech to some 100,000 Christians to launch his war, claiming he wanted to help parents to protect their children from unseemly content and online predators.

Oh, and he also wants to block and/or ban "terror" and "violent" websites :

Every Australian family will be provided with a free internet filter and the federal Government will enter an unprecedented partnership with service providers to filter pornography at the source. Communications and Australian Federal Police resources will be boosted immediately to expand checks on internet chat rooms to detect child predators, and privacy laws masking sex offenders on the net will be altered.

Last night, as Mr Howard talked about Christianity and family values, he revealed the government plan to upgrade the protection for families from internet pornography, violence and sexual predators.

As well as practical tools to help families put internet pornography beyond the reach of children, the Government will form partnerships with leading computer providers in upgraded steps to block porn sites and detect predators using popular websites such as MySpace and Facebook to contact children.

Of the $189 million, $43million will be provided immediately to double the size of the online child sex exploitation branch of the AFP and establish a working group to find ways of getting around privacy laws that protect sexual predators.

A "black list" drawn up by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which covers Australia-based pornographic and terror sites, will be expanded internationally after consultation with the Attorney-General. The AMCA will also receive 14 additional internet regulators.

Behind the clearly good intentions of stopping online predators and children from being exposed to pornography and violence, there will likely be second and third waves of content control connected to Howard's war on the internet.

------------------------
More blogs by Darryl Mason

Latest News From 'Your New Reality'

Latest News From 'Planet Of Strange Things'

Latest News From 'The Fourth World War'

-------------------------


The Howard government's plans to roll out broadband across the nation provides them with the opportunity to do what China, Iran and other countries have tried to do : block content they don't like, or that they deem dangerous, or threatening, or even too dissenting.

The Australian anti-terrorism laws has already led to the banning of books and DVDs that are claimed by the Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, to "glorify" and advocate terrorism.

That the Howard government wants to do the same across all internet content reaching Australians is hardly a secret.

But the definitions of what constitutes 'terror' or 'glorification' of violence are broad and open to vast interpretation.

The Tamil Tigers and Hamas are classed as 'terrorist' groups by the Australian government. But does that mean Australians would be blocked from reading their press releases online, or visiting their websites?

Columnist Tim Blair's blog has allowed thousands of comments from readers, over the past three years, discussing ways they think politicians, community leaders and even actors and musicians and Muslim taxi drivers should, could or can be killed and tortured. Would the blog of Tim Blair, opinion editor for the Daily Telegraph, fall under such anti-violence, anti-intolerance and anti-terror related bans on internet content?

Or would it just be those of Islamic extremists discussing terror and violence?

Would future bans on religious intolerance or 'hate speech', both of which the Howard government are considering, apply to all religions?

Or what about the blog of Herald Sun opinionist Andrew Bolt?

In a post today about a New York Times blog where readers were invited to concoct terror attack scenarios on America, Bolt's commenters said the New York Times should be bombed or that journalists should be killed. Clearly such comments are said in jest, but could they also be deemed to be advocating both violence and terrorism? Would Andrew Bolt's blog then be subjected to filtering regimes and bans on its content, and comments?

We also covered the New York Times blog on thinking up terror attacks on the United States over at Your New Reality. Would the New York Times blog post, and Australian websites discussing such a post and open discussion among commenters fall under anti-terror and anti-violence censorship and content control?

To take but one example of successful historical terrorism, the Zionist Irgun group launched dozens of terror attacks on Arab civilians, and army bases and hotels filled with British nationals in Palestine in the late 1930s and the 1940s, killing and wounding hundreds of innocent people. There are numerous websites that openly praise the Irgun terrorism that helped lead to the establishment of the state of Israel. Would such websites be blocked from the eyes of Australian internet users because they glorify and justify the use of terrorism?

Or will bans and blocks only apply to groups advocating and justifying terrorism in the current 'War on Terror'? And what about state-sponsored terrorism?

As with any censorship, particularly censorship of new media, the slippery slope is easy and tempting to climb onto, particularly under the positive auspices of blocking online predators and children's exposure to pornography. When told technology exists to control and censor internet content, control freaks like John Howard are easily tempted.

But once the 'Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?' argument has been used to break down public objections, where do such controls on content, and outright censorship, stop?


'Terror' Books, Video Games And Movies To Be Banned Under Extraordinary New Censorship Law

Books, Movies, Videos Games That Glorify War Won't Face Ban Under New Censorship Laws

"Patriotic" Movies That "Glorify War" Won't Face Ban Under New Anti-Terror Censorship Laws


This from the Sun Herald :

Patriotic movies or games that glorify war will be specifically excluded from tough new anti-terrorism censorship laws.

So Australia faces a new regime of media censorship that will aim to define what acts of violence and bloodshed constitute acts of terrorism, and which are patriotic and glorify war?

What's the difference between glorifying acts of war that decimate civilian populations and glorifying acts of terrorism that decimate civilian populations?

It may all come down to what is deemed to be "patriotic" by a censorship board.

So what about the peoples' movement of Fretelin in East Timor? They rose up against the Indonesian government - a government backed by Australia and armed by the United States (amongst the many nations that sold them weapons of mass destruction) - in the mid-1970s, and fought back against the depopulation of their nation. They used what would now be called terrorism to fight for their freedom.

Would an Australian made movie about this 'terrorist group', that showed how they waged their insurgency against the Indonesian government, not be deemed to be "unpatriotic" under these new guidelines? After all, Australia was a close ally of Indonesia during the very worse years of East Timor's depopulation, which may have claimed more than 200,000 lives.

Or what about the insurgency waged by the Kooris in New South Wales against the English occupation of their native lands in the late 1700s and early 1800s?

There is no doubt that the Aboriginal warriors terrorised the civilian population of Sydney and Parramatta back then, as the English terrorised and decimated the Aboriginal tribes.

In a movie about the Aboriginal uprising against the English invaders, which side would be deemed "patriotic"?


Go To 'Your New Reality' For The Full Story

'Terror' Books And Movies To Be Banned Under Extraordinary New Censorship Law

If You Don't Know What "Glorifying Terrorism" Means, Just Look At The Empty Book And DVD Shelves To Get An Idea

A significant new layer of censorship will be introduced in Australia, where books and DVDs that "glorify" and "advocate" terrorism will be banned outright, and removed from store shelves.

The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, is clearly aware that this will be controversial, but he is aiming to cut off any debate on what books and DVDs should disappear through this censorship by claiming that public safety overrides any issues relating to free speech.

In short, debate all you want, freedom and free speech freaks, it won't make a lick of difference :

Books and DVDs glorifying terrorist acts will be pulled from the shelves and prevented from entering the country under new Federal laws to be unveiled today.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has declared a "zero-tolerance approach" to material that "advocates" terrorism.

Under the existing Classification Act, material can only be removed from sale if it is deemed likely to "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence".

But the amended law - to be discussed at a meeting between Mr Ruddock and the state attorneys-general in Canberra today - makes it an offence to circulate material that "advocates" a terrorist act.

"We are not going to allow material to be out there saying terrorism is a good idea," Mr Ruddock told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

"This is a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. Terrorism acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. Material that advocates people undertake such acts should not be available for this reason alone."

Ruddock intends to change the laws about material that could be seen to "advocate" or "encourage" terrorism because the post-9/11 sedition laws required "a very high standard of proof."

Ruddock intends to change the laws about material that could be seen to "advocate", "encourage" or "glorify" terrorism because the post-9/11 sedition laws required "a very high standard of proof."

Curse those standards of proof.

It was too hard to find and prosecute the people who produced the targeted DVDs and books before, so instead, they all come off the shelves and/or be seized by customs.

"This proposal is intended to get inflammatory material inciting terrorism out of circulation without having to conduct a criminal prosecution."

Yeah, why bother with criminal prosecutions? It's refreshing to hear such talk coming from the attorney general himself.

You should probably pick up a copy of Stephen Spielberg's film 'Munich' while you still can.

While I think it is a brilliant and powerful movie, it clearly advocates and glorifies the use of terrorism, and also provides information on how to form a terror ring, set telephone bombs and stage ambushes.

Damn shame that, but the Attorney General has spoken.

Next thing you know they'll be telling us books and movies that "advocate" and "glorify" war, or discuss the long-term benefits of firebombing civilian-filled cities, or just plain nuking them instead, are going to be taken off the shelves as well.

They'll clearly have to be, eventually. You only have to look at war-related death tolls and the destruction of infrastructure to know that even the smaller wars of the 20th century proved to be a greater risk to society and humanity at large than the biggest acts of terrorrism ever committed.

What we obviously need is a federal government-approved list of books and DVDs that are acceptable to read and watch in these troubled times.

Well, actually, we don't. What the government decrees is unacceptable will simply disappear. And you won't know any different.