Submission on measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material
Publication name: Terry, optimistically a citizen of a rational and civilized state.
Submission ID: 226
Option 1: Refer all material to the Classification Board
Position: Don't support
Comments:
The "Classification Board" is not transparent or accountable. Who are they? What qualifications do they have to classify things for the entire country? Internet users should have a significant role in the selection of this board in order to make them representative.
Option 2: ACMA notification procedure
Position: Don't support
Comments:
The definition of "Refused Classification" needs to be publically debated and decided upon before the public is able to decide whether or not it fits. Any public complainant must be willing and able to be identified and articulate their argument for inclusion of any site, and be cross-examined in any appeals process.
Option 3: Blocking notification page and appeal mechanism
Position: Don't support
Comments:
A blocking notification page should be used, but only AFTER any and all appeals have been heard and publically and transparently decided upon (arguments for and against, votes for and against). Any appeals need to go before a truly independent arbiter. The RC content list (and arguments/decisions underlying each inclusion) will obviously need to be publically available to allow a fair appeals process.
Option 4: Incorporation of content from international lists
Position: Don't support
Comments:
It is ridiculously overbroad to consider "international lists". Every single site proposed needs to be considered individually and the person proposing the site needs to articulate their reasons for doing so. The person proposing the site should also be willing and able to be identified for any appeals process.
Option 5: Review by an independent expert and report to Minister and Parliament
Position: Don't support
Comments:
A panel of independent experts representative of internet users should be used. They should have the power to veto anything on the RC content list, effective immediately.
Option 6: Review by industry group of RC content list classification processes
Position: Don't support
Comments:
The definition of "Refused Classification" needs to be publically debated and decided upon before it can be used. Industry are not representative of internet users. A report on the administrative process is all very well, but the report should also address the rather more important aspects of potential harm or cost to society/culture/democracy of the use of the RC content list.
Other comments relating to the proposed measures to increase transparency and accountability arrangements for the RC content list
The proposed measures to increase transparency and accountability arrangements for the RC content list remain biased and narrow and unrepresentative of internet users. There would be no need for the additional and additionally expensive measures to increase transparency and accountability arrangements if we did not implement this flawed censorship scheme. Censoring the internet is irrational, impractical, undemocratic, authoritarian, expensive and unnecessary. A public debate on the definition of "Refused Classification" must be held. Any blacklist of refused classification material must, in the best interests of society, be made public. "Accountability" should include measures for recompense in the case of harm done by the RC content list (e.g. resulting from lack of access to information, from wrongful inclusion of a business, due to harm done to one's name).
