Comments on: Crikey: ACMA’s blacklist just got read all over http://stilgherrian.com/internet/crikey-acmas-blacklist-just-got-read-all-over/ All publication is a political act. All communication is propaganda. All art is pornography. All business is personal. All hail Eris. Vive les poissons rouges sauvages! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/internet/crikey-acmas-blacklist-just-got-read-all-over/#comment-16640 Stilgherrian Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:29:44 +0000 http://stilgherrian.com/?p=3721#comment-16640 <strong>@Brillat:</strong> You have of course identified one of the rather nasty problems with a secret, unaccountable censorship mechanism. Nic Suzor has commented further in his legal analysis <a href="http://nic.suzor.com/blog/2009/20090319-acma_blacklist_leaked#discussion__section">(fake?) ACMA Blacklist leaked; citizens threatened with prosecution</a>: <blockquote>There is a real legitimacy problem if the Australian public are not allowed to know what is blocked, and there is no recourse for blocked sites to appeal decisions by ACMA. What makes this much, much worse is that we face serious repercussions for simply wanting to examine the list and point out mistakes by ACMA or undesirable effects of the censorship regime... This is not only bad policy, but it's bad democracy. Solving the problem caused by leaked lists by silencing critique is not best way forward.</blockquote> Quite. @Brillat: You have of course identified one of the rather nasty problems with a secret, unaccountable censorship mechanism. Nic Suzor has commented further in his legal analysis (fake?) ACMA Blacklist leaked; citizens threatened with prosecution:

There is a real legitimacy problem if the Australian public are not allowed to know what is blocked, and there is no recourse for blocked sites to appeal decisions by ACMA.

What makes this much, much worse is that we face serious repercussions for simply wanting to examine the list and point out mistakes by ACMA or undesirable effects of the censorship regime…

This is not only bad policy, but it’s bad democracy. Solving the problem caused by leaked lists by silencing critique is not best way forward.

Quite.

]]> By: Brillat http://stilgherrian.com/internet/crikey-acmas-blacklist-just-got-read-all-over/#comment-16639 Brillat Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:51:20 +0000 http://stilgherrian.com/?p=3721#comment-16639 If releasing or linking to blacklisted sites is made illegal, then how can those politicially opposed to this inane piece of misanthropic shyte actually prove to the Australian public just how bad the proposed legislation is? If I state that the list contains (for example) a suburban dentist and Senator Conroy states that the 'alleged list' is a 'fake' and of course the secret 'real list' would only contain 'bad things', how can I prove my point under the secrecy provisions of the ACMA? If I claim that less than 5% of the list have anything to do with child pornography and the good ole Senator keeps claiming that 'most' of the sites are child pornography, how can I hold this representative of the Christian far right... er, I mean people... to account for his outright lies, without being able to bring forth the list as proof? I am not a lawyer, but perhaps someone who is might be able to see an implied right to political speech argument against the secrecy provisions of the legislation as currently proposed (<em>Levy</em> notwithstanding...)? If releasing or linking to blacklisted sites is made illegal, then how can those politicially opposed to this inane piece of misanthropic shyte actually prove to the Australian public just how bad the proposed legislation is? If I state that the list contains (for example) a suburban dentist and Senator Conroy states that the ‘alleged list’ is a ‘fake’ and of course the secret ‘real list’ would only contain ‘bad things’, how can I prove my point under the secrecy provisions of the ACMA? If I claim that less than 5% of the list have anything to do with child pornography and the good ole Senator keeps claiming that ‘most’ of the sites are child pornography, how can I hold this representative of the Christian far right… er, I mean people… to account for his outright lies, without being able to bring forth the list as proof?

I am not a lawyer, but perhaps someone who is might be able to see an implied right to political speech argument against the secrecy provisions of the legislation as currently proposed (Levy notwithstanding…)?

]]>