The following is the text of an email I sent to Senator Conroy

Senator Conroy

Re: Internet Censorship

On 20 January 2009 you addressed the ALIA Information Online Conference and Exhibition and said (amongst other things) the following (I quote from your website http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/speeches/2009_-_minister_speeches/001):

“Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified”

While I agree that this should be so, it appears that it is not.

The day after your speech the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) sent the following email to a complainant.

Subject: Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:00 +1100

From: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Complaint Reference: 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278

I refer to the complaint that you lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 5th January 2009 about certain content made available at:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm

Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited or potential prohibited content.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has a code of practice (http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=415&Itemid=33) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which, among other things, set out arrangements for dealing with such content. In accordance with the code, ACMA has notified the above content to the makers of IIA approved filters, for their attention and appropriate action. The code requires ISPs to make available to customers an IIA approved filter.

Information about ACMA’s role in regulating online content (including internet and mobile content), including what is prohibited or potentially prohibited content is available at ACMA’s website at www.acma.gov.au/hotline

Thank you for bringing this matter to ACMA’s attention.

The particular page that ACMA is satisfied is “prohibited or potential prohibited content” is a page from the website http://www.abortiontv.com/index.html

This website would best be described as educational, it seeks to inform.  And while the images are graphic, they are not pornographic, they are not paedophilic nor are they violent, except in as much as the topic they seek to illustrate is violent.  The listing of that particular page by ACMA would seem to be more political in nature.

If as you say “there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content”:

• can you explain why this particular page would be listed as containing “prohibited or potential prohibited content”?

• can you explain which category of “potential prohibited content” this would fall into?

I look forward to receiving your answers.

Thank you

(signed)

Owner

Political Animal Australia