it's for the children....

[Twitch]

Check your PM inbox, Pirra.

[Pirra]

Originally Posted by Volkov

Ah... well, that sucks. Legacy of the British way of doing things, I suppose. They don't have a single document with specified rights either.

I discovered today that the UK does have a document that protects their freedom of speech. The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 10.

Article 10
Freedom of expression
1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Australia is the only democratic nation that does not have some kind of legislation to protect freedom of speech. (Expression and information included in this spectrum)

Like the rest of the UN we did sign the Declaration of Human Rights Treaty but in order for it to be passed into Australian Law it has to have been passed as a specific Parliamentary Act, which no Government has yet done, even though they have passed some parts of the treaty such as the Human Rights Act 1985, but it doesn't cover freedom of speech. (As a point of interest, Our Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is not actually entrenched in our constitution so any Government at any time can opt to amend or repeal it.)

Looking at this and knowing that our Government wants to implement a mandatory filter that will effectively censor us with an excuse that simply does not make sense, it paints a very grim future.

[Volkov]

I discovered today that the UK does have a document that protects their freedom of speech. The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 10.

Interesting. Not as binding as our Bill of Rights, since it's just an Act passed by Parliament in the normal way, but still, I didn't think the UK had one.

Australia is the only democratic nation that does not have some kind of legislation to protect freedom of speech. (Expression and information included in this spectrum)

Like the rest of the UN we did sign the Declaration of Human Rights Treaty but in order for it to be passed into Australian Law it has to have been passed as a specific Parliamentary Act, which no Government has yet done, even though they have passed some parts of the treaty such as the Human Rights Act 1985, but it doesn't cover freedom of speech. (As a point of interest, Our Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is not actually entrenched in our constitution so any Government at any time can opt to amend or repeal it.)

Looking at this and knowing that our Government wants to implement a mandatory filter that will effectively censor us with an excuse that simply does not make sense, it paints a very grim future.

I'd have to agree, it appears your country is the only Western democracy that actually could legally pass the censorship bill that is currently being proposed.

[Pirra]

Originally Posted by Volkov

I'd have to agree, it appears your country is the only Western democracy that actually could legally pass the censorship bill that is currently being proposed.

Do you have a link for that? I'd love to read that and see what it entails.

(I hadn't actually heard about it, so thanks for bringing it to my attention)

[Volkov]

Do you have a link for that? I'd love to read that and see what it entails.

(I hadn't actually heard about it, so thanks for bringing it to my attention)

Er... what? I meant the thing that you had first linked too.

[Pirra]

Oh right, you mean our Mandatory ISP filter.....my bad, I obviously need more caffeine. It's not being proposed as a censorship bill, it's a "cyber-safety plan". The government are very emphatic in "telling" us that this is not censorship, it is cyber-safety. (It's censorship at it it's ugliest) And the fact that our government can blatantly lie to us about their initial proposal, (though the word Mandatory was there, it was phrased so that we the public could only conclude that the filter would mandatory for ISP's to offer, but voluntary for us to opt in. ) It's that kind of shifty double talk that makes me incredibly wary of the real reason behind the filter.

“The EFA noted that, since last election, the Federal Government’s cyber-safety plan had shifted away from providing tools to shield minors on the web to a black list of almost exclusively Refused Classification content aimed at adults. “

The EFA is Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation that protects the rights of internet users.

Interestingly enough, one of the reports I read noted that Reporters Without Borders (RWB) intends to list Australia on it's "Under Surveillance" list. (It also has a "Enemies of the Internet" list that lists 12 countries including China, Iran, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Enemies are defined as countries that not only censor news and information online but also their almost systematic repression on Internet Users.
The Under surveillance list lists countries that alternate between harassment and censorship of internet users and our mandatory filter plan would make Australia the only Western Nation on the list , ranked alongside countries like Bahrain, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Zimbabwe. (and another five countries)

And yeah, what really sucks is the government cannot be prosecuted for it.
I don't think the UN can do anything either, because we rejected article 41 of the Declaration of Human Rights Treaty which enables the states of the UN to intervene on our behalf. (At least that's assuming I have interpreted that correctly, I may have read that wrong.)

[Volkov]

Oh right, you mean our Mandatory ISP filter.....my bad, I obviously need more caffeine. It's not being proposed as a censorship bill, it's a "cyber-safety plan". The government are very emphatic in "telling" us that this is not censorship, it is cyber-safety. (It's censorship at it it's ugliest) And the fact that our government can blatantly lie to us about their initial proposal, (though the word Mandatory was there, it was phrased so that we the public could only conclude that the filter would mandatory for ISP's to offer, but voluntary for us to opt in. ) It's that kind of shifty double talk that makes me incredibly wary of the real reason behind the filter.

Yeah, I'd be wary too.

And yeah, what really sucks is the government cannot be prosecuted for it.
I don't think the UN can do anything either, because we rejected article 41 of the Declaration of Human Rights Treaty which enables the states of the UN to intervene on our behalf. (At least that's assuming I have interpreted that correctly, I may have read that wrong.)

That does suck, though I think the UN might be able to interfere if things get too bad. I'd hate to see Australia move down the path towards totalitarianism. I hope things never get that bad though. I don't think they will, just because Australians are too used to freedom, but then again, a frog won't notice the water is boiling if you heat it up slowly. Just keep an eye out I suppose, and raise awareness.

[Pirra]

Originally Posted by Volkov

.....but then again, a frog won't notice the water is boiling if you heat it up slowly.

Awesome metaphor. Am going to totally quote you on that at some point!

[Volkov]

Awesome metaphor. Am going to totally quote you on that at some point!

LOL. I take no credit for that one.