Stevie

because he's not your friend, pal.

This report contains information on government policy and/or laws regarding Internet censorship in various countries around the world. Information herein was compiled by EFA in March 2002 in response to a request by the Chair of the NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues for information on whether or not other countries have Internet censorship laws similar to Schedule 2 of the NSW Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001. (For detailed information about this Bill, see the NSW Internet Censorship Bill section of EFA's web site).

EFA subsequently undertook extensive research into the current status of laws and government policy outside Australia. EFA was unable to find any indication that any country broadly comparable to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has, or intends to introduce, Internet censorship laws as restrictive as the provisions of the NSW Bill, nor as restrictive as existing Commonwealth legislation. While numerous countries have laws of general application applicable to Internet content such as child pornography or incitement to racial hatred, they do not prohibit or otherwise restrict provision of "matter unsuitable for minors" on the Internet.

The lack of similar laws in comparable countries is not due to a failure of Parliaments or Governments to consider the problems of illegal content or content unsuitable for minors on the Internet. Rather, it reflects a different approach from that in Australia to dealing with the problems.

The remainder of this document contains an overview of governmental approaches to dealing with Internet content that is illegal, or is unsuitable for minors, followed by sections containing more detailed information about various countries. 

Overview

Since approximately 1995, numerous governments around the world have been addressing the problems of material on the Internet that is illegal under their offline laws, and also that considered harmful or otherwise unsuitable for minors. The nature of material of principal concern has varied substantially. For example: political speech; promotion of or incitement to racial hatred; pornographic material. Few governments have attempted to ban or otherwise legislatively restrict access to "matter unsuitable for minors" as distinct from material illegal to distribute to adults.

As at March 2002, government policies concerning censorship of the Internet may be broadly grouped into four categories:

a) Government policy to encourage Internet industry self-regulation and end-user voluntary use of filtering/blocking technologies. 
 

This approach is taken in the United Kingdom, Canada, and a considerable number of Western European countries. It also appears to be the current approach in New Zealand where applicability of offline classification/censorship laws to content on the Internet seems less than clear.

In these countries laws of general application apply to illegal Internet content such as child pornography and incitement to racial hatred.

Content "unsuitable for minors" is not illegal to make available on the Internet, nor must access to same be controlled by a restricted access system. Some (perhaps all) such governments encourage the voluntary use of, and ongoing development of, technologies that enable Internet users to control their own, and their children's, access to content on the Internet.

b) Criminal law penalties (fines or jail terms) applicable to content providers who make content "unsuitable for minors" available online. 
 

This approach is taken in some Australian State jurisdictions and has been attempted in the USA (although no such US Federal law is presently enforceable, and to the best of EFA's knowledge nor is any such US State law).

In these countries, in addition, laws of general application apply to content that is illegal for reasons other than its unsuitability for children, such as child pornography.

c) Government mandated blocking of access to content deemed unsuitable for adults. 
 

This approach is taken in Australian Commonwealth law (although it has not been enforced in this manner to date) and also in, for example, China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Some countries require Internet access providers to block material while others only allow restricted access to the Internet through a government controlled access point. 

d) Government prohibition of public access to the Internet. 
 

A number of countries either prohibit general public access to the Internet, or require Internet users to be registered/licensed by a government authority before permitting them restricted access as in (c) above. Information on countries in this category is available in the Reporters Without Borders/Reporters Sans Frontiers report Enemies of the Internet of February 2001.

In the many countries that have Internet censorship laws far more restrictive than those existing or proposed in Australia, governmental focus appears to be on prohibiting and/or restricting politically sensitive speech, criticism of the government, etc. These governments do not appear to have any focus on prohibiting or restricting content deemed unsuitable for minors as distinct from content deemed unsuitable for adults.

Commentary on the ineffectiveness of legislation like the NSW Bill to protect children on the Internet often focusses on the USA constitutional right to freedom of speech and the US Supreme Court having struck down a similar law. However, from a global perspective, the law in the USA is irrelevant. Even in the highly unlikely event that the USA and Australia enacted identical laws, these would remain ineffective in protecting minors on the global Internet.

Concerns about access to content on the Internet vary markedly around the world and regulatory policy reflects this. What is illegal in one country is not illegal in others, and what is deemed unsuitable for minors in one country is not in others. For example films classified R18 in Australia are often classified suitable for persons under 18 years in other countries, e.g. Intimacy (sex scenes) and Hannibal (violence) are classified 18 in Australia, but are classified 12 in France. However, France prohibits the display of Nazi memorabilia, including on web pages, which is not prohibited by Australian offline laws nor by existing or proposed online censorship laws. Many similar examples exist that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of national censorship laws to protect children (or adults) on the Internet.

The USA is not the only country where citizens have a right to freedom of expression. In contrast to Australia, governments in comparable countries including Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and various European countries have chosen to legislate to give citizens a right in domestic law to freedom of expression similar to that contained in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Such a right is by no means absolute and does not prevent governments from enacting or enforcing laws restricting freedom of expression. However, to the best of EFA's knowledge, governments in these countries have not enacted or indicated any intent to enact, Internet censorship legislation as restrictive of adults' freedom of expression, as that existing and proposed in Australia. 

Prior to La Belle Epoque, Europe had to sift through an age of reactionary and revolutionary uprisings, ranging from the classless ideology of socialism, to the radical freedoms demanded from European liberals, which all threatened the age-old conservative system Europe had worked so hard to maintain, even forcing powerhouse nations like France to submit to a republic.

The ideology of socialism was influenced by imaginative thinkers of the era, and brought political titans like Karl Marx to contribute to their ideas, and often receiving negative feedback from the conservative majority. Socialism during the 19th century was still in its stages of infancy, and needed to gain their walking legs as soon as possible, and that they did, due to the effects of the earlier Industrial Revolution, with the unrest of the working middle class fueling the soon-to-be wild fire of socialism. This classless, cooperative society was eye opening and accepting in the minds of the working class, who were becoming fed up with the harsh and outrageous work requirements demanded from the growing industrial nations like Britain and France. As this unrest grew, so did the support of socialism, with its ideology expanding as well, now expressing their views and emphasis on a planned economy as well as other classless forms of statehood. Soon enough, social experiments were conducted on socialist ideas, expressing their appeal to the working class even greater as some views of socialism was referred to as “Utopian Socialism”. Under this Utopian Socialism, a classless state could easily be formed based around the mythological and philosophical ideas of a utopian society, in which everyone was equal and had their proper share. But although the socialist fervor was widespread, few socialist regimes were formed, mainly due to the firm conservative grip and power the conservative aristocracy still held.

Socialism was not the only ideology that rose to influence Europe in the 19th century. The ideas of liberalism also demanded radical change from old conservative ways, and demanded freedoms such as freedom of the press to be established and withheld, weakening government censorship. Liberals often derived their philosophy from the government of the United States, and were soon demanding such articles as a constitution being implemented into their own nation’s government. The debate of the economy was also argued, with liberals supporting a laissez-faire approach, with little government regulation, again being much unlike a planned economy of socialism. The liberal movement saw its rise and support so quickly due to the class supporting it, which was the businessmen and educated enlightened thinkers who had grown sick of conservative restrictions and censorship. Crying for democracy and suffrage, the liberals only wanted to see their conservative “tyrants” overthrown and a newer, freer, government replacing it.

Talks of reform, demanding of freedoms, and even threats of revolution all plagued 19th century Europe as the conservatives looked on as their once praised Concert of Europe crumbled beneath their feet, but the conservative aristocracy did not sit by and let this happen. Throughout this time period, both socialism and liberalism were strongly criticized and unsupported by the upper class of society, and would not allow the age old European conservative system to change so drastically or collapse so quickly. And with this tenacity and support, the conservative aristocracy managed to keep the infestation of liberalism and socialism at bay for the time being, often using force and strict policies to ensure the status quo issued by the Congress of Vienna was kept.