Tags: Internet Censorship

South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has committed to repeal unpopular amendments to the South Australia Electoral Act 1985. The amendments would have made it illegal for people to anonymously comment on the upcoming state election online.

The decision to repeal came after harsh criticism from online news sites, bloggers and everyday Internet users who posted comments about the issue.

Atkinson can be seen apologising in an online video.

The amendments that are to be repealed by Atkinson were highlighted in this post.

[EDIT]: South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has committed to repeal these unpopular amendments.

Amendments to the South Australia Electoral Act 1985 that came into effect on the January 6 will mean that anyone wishing to post a comment about the SA state election will be legally required to include their real name and postcode. The restriction will only apply during the election which extends from after the writs have been issued until 6pm on polling day.

Many supporters for the introduction of the R18+ for games debate are hoping for SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to lose his seat in the upcoming election as he is strongly opposed to an R18+ for games and has the power to veto the change.

The change to the act was included in a number of amendments that were made last year and was supported by the Opposition. The part of the act that has been changed is quoted below with the changes emphasized.

116—Published material to identify person responsible for political content

(1) A person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet, unless the material or the programme in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material.

Maximum penalty:

(a)     if the offender is a natural person—$1 250;

(b)     if the offender is a body corporate—$5 000.

(2)     This section does not apply to—

(a)     the publication in a journal (including a journal published in electronic form on the Internet) of a leading article;

(b)     the publication of a report of a meeting that does not contain any comment (other than comment made by a speaker at the meeting) on any candidate, or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors;

(c)     the publication in a journal (including a journal published in electronic form on the Internet) of an article, letter, report or other matter if—

(i)     the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material is provided to the publisher of the journal and retained by the publisher for a period of 6 months after the end of the election period; and

(ii)     the journal contains a statement of the name and postcode of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material;

(ca)    the publication of a letter (otherwise than as described in paragraph (c)) that contains the name and address (not being a post office box) of the author of the letter;

(d)     a news service or a current affairs programme on radio or television or broadcast on the Internet;

(e)     any other prescribed material or class of material.

(3)     In this section—

journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical.

Grow up Australia supports the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games. We believe that adults are responsible enough to protect children from inappropriate material within the home. Our view on the government’s plan to censor the internet is a similar one.

This week over 450 websites are participating in The Great Australian Internet Blackout. An initiative that seeks to raise awareness and urge people to speak out against internet censorship. Internet service provider iiNet are participating as are the Greens.

Below are some points copied from GetUp! A form is provided on the GetUp! site to help you send your views to Senator Conroy.

  • The scheme is opposed by child welfare charities, civil liberty groups and professional bodies – and with good reason.
  • Both the mandatory blacklist and the optional filter miss the vast majority of unwanted content, which is normally shared using email or file-sharing networks – not through web traffic.
  • ISP filtering will detract resources from tackling child abuse and waste tens of millions of dollars.
    Senator Conroy has reneged on a promise to have a public consultation process on his proposed mandatory internet censorship scheme.
  • His alleged public consultation is narrowly limited to one aspect of the scheme, and does not invite question of the central issue, which is whether to have a mandatory internet filter.
    GetUp! has gathered over 120,000 petition signatures in opposition to mandatory internet censorship scheme.
  • There are plenty of alternatives – like distributing software to parents to use at home, or making the filter opt-in rather than mandatory.
  • Alarmingly, the Department has indicated that it may not publish all submissions, singling out submissions made by individuals using online tools like GetUp’s website. In short, they are threatening to censor a public consultation on accountability and transparency.

You can find more information at the following websites: