[LINK] Gambling sites on blacklist (was Re: the Bill Henson 'mistake' - Conroy)

[Michael Skeggs mike@bystander.net]

Remember also, when considering "bracket creep" there are a number of
other laws that proscribe unencumbered speech. Off the top of my head
this includes electoral comment in the 24 hours before an election,
hate speech, misleading advertising, instruction in crime, incitement,
reporting of some judicial proceedings and probably a bunch more. Not
to mention the can of worms the classification board have with
classing web sites as computer games, disallowing R-rated and
insisting on age verification for >PG.
Is the government really going to oppose blocking these more marginal
free-speech cases once the tools are in place.
Best quote of the night was "you can want an Internet filter and still
*believe* in free speech."
Regards,
Michael Skeggs

2009/3/27 rene <rene.lk at libertus.net>:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:17:09 +0100, Kim Holburn wrote:
>> He didn't address a lot of the other issues like the gambling sites
>> on the ACMA list.  Were the gambling sites R-rated?
>
> The matter of compulsory blocking of 'prohibited internet gambling content'
> is one that the Minister has been able to escape answering to date, because
> he hasn't been asked.
>
> Gambling URLs on ACMA's blacklist/s are not on there due to being rated
> R18+, but because ACMA considers them to be 'prohibited internet gambling
> content' under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.
>
> ACMA notifies such content to the makers of the approved Family Friendly
> Filters (same as it does 'prohibited content' under the Broadcasting
> Services Act).
> http://www.acma.gov.?au/WEB/STANDARD/196656/pc=PC_90135
>
> According to ACMA in Senate ECA Estimates, Feb 2009, gambling content is a
> 'separate' blacklist they provide to Family Friendly Filters makers which
> then had 25 URLs on it.
> http://www.aph.g?ov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11635.pdf
>
> Unknown whether Labor's policy is to require blocking of 'prohibited'
> content under only the BSA, or also under the IGA. Difficult to imagine a
> (logical/rational) govt explanation for why 'prohibited' content under one
> law would be blocked but not that 'prohibited' under another law.
>
> Irene
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>