Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's list of banned websites.
The move by the Australian Communications and Media Authority comes after it threatened the host of online broadband discussion forum Whirlpool last week with a $11,000-a-day fine over a link published in its forum to another page blacklisted by ACMA - an anti-abortion website.
Article Link : [smh.com.au...]
Not just blacklisted sites.
.... what are the broader legal implications of linking to sites that don't want you to link to them , or indeed illegal sites ?
I can't see why it's a big deal, just don't link to "questionable" sites. If anything, this will help most of you rather than hurt you as it will help clean up the web a bit.
A news story today[1] says that wikileaks is about to publish the .au filter list. The newspaper has seen the list. Among many illegal and horrible sites, it also includes a tour operator and a dentist.
This is a secret list.
If your innocent site mistakenly makes it way on there you will only know because you can't reach it - and we all know how many reasons there could be for that.
There is no appeal mechanism.
None.
Nil
At all.
Its not enough to 'not link to questionable material', you also have to not be mistaken for it.
I repeat - a tour operator and a dentist.
(I mean - I know I am afraid of going to the dentist, but I think filtering out the website is an overkill way to help me avoid going!)
Not enough of a reason for it to be a bad thing? - this is going to slow down everyone's connection across the country.
In a world where business is increasingly going online, what sane politician would deliberately slow down how the entire nation works?
[1] I'd give you the link, but, you know, this is WebmasterWorld...
(oh, and for those who asked - no, nofollowing UGC will not get you off. This isn't about instructing the search engines that you don't want to be responsible for raising the rank of the target page, its about whether or not your site is linking to objectionable material. For example, the recent Whirlpool forum thread that had to be edited to avoid prosecution is a nofollow site.)
Onya
Woz
"and is a pretty cheap shot. the statement is flat-out wrong"
Try a google search for "Australian police corruption" buddy, seems like you are out of touch.
BTW Did you know your politicians, civil servants and particularly your federal officers do not have to disclose any financial interests they have in Indonesia, where ownership details are protected by "law"? Know any federal police officers? They all seem to have very nice holiday homes in Bali - perhaps a "thank you"?
"you don't know what you're talking about."
How are the 5 Aussie pensioners still trapped on Papua doing after having been acquited of spying where Aussie has flat out refused to help them? You know, Papua, the great land mass to Australia's north, whose people saved you from invasion in WW2 and yet you turned them over to an axis power (the fledgling RI)!
hughie
"yeah, you dont want to live here"
Amen, plenty of other great beaches and climates without having to listen to Aussie whining (Freud would have something to say about your label for Brits) and making yourself subject to high taxes and 2nd world corruption ;-)
Try a google search for "Australian police corruption" buddy
This is using a major ISP that is supposedly not participating in the government's "trial" of the filtering system.
This is beyond the pale. I hope it blows up in the Government's face.
ditto here in WA, rather odd but lets hope it's just something technical
Cleaned up by whom?
you see it now with the amount of bloggers and webmasters that are getting sued for libel.On who's behalf?
organizations being defamedBy who's standard of 'clean' (religious fundamentalists and tree-hugging hippies take different views, as will different countries)?
a court of law's
Sued for libel is not the point. Its about pointing links at sites some self-appointed "authority" deem unacceptable.
Who's making those decisions, and how can they enforce across borders. Without trying to stir up debate on the relative merits of various beleif systems, we can surely all agree that Muslims, Christians and Atheists are going to find different things acceptable.
For example, Islamic doctrine forbids the depiction of people, and I suspect there would be Islamic community support for blacklisting sites depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Certain Christian groups might want to stop evolutionary or big-bang websites that fail to mention that Creationism is an alternative methodology. Secular authorities might see some religious sites as militant indoctrination, and ban those. Who decides who is right?
(Note to mods and fellow members: I have listed divides that WILL cause friction. I have done so in a way to illustrate the dilemas that will be faced; NOT as an invitation to debate these dilemas)
If you think a court will make these decisions, I think you will be dissapointed. Plus, how would Americans feel about a European court making these decisions, or vice versa?
[edited by: Shaddows at 11:09 am (utc) on Mar. 19, 2009]
The Australian Communications and Media Authority is aware that a list purporting to be the ‘ACMA blacklist’ has been posted on an overseas website.ACMA does not consider that the release and promotion of URLs relating to illegal and highly offensive material is responsible.
The regulatory scheme for online content that has been administered by ACMA since 2000 is underpinned by the National Classification Code that also applies to traditional media platforms (including cinema, DVDs and publications). ACMA’s role is to investigate complaints and take such actions as prescribed by the legislation on materials assessed to be prohibited or potentially prohibited content.
The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday provided ACMA with a list of some 2300 URLs, purported to be the list of URLs of prohibited content and potential prohibited content maintained by ACMA as part of its regulatory responsibilities for online content under Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act (this list is often referred to as ‘the ACMA blacklist’).
release continues here [acma.gov.au...]
It's worth reading what their objective is , irrespective of whether it fits with your views on censorship. They seem to be saying simply that it's illegal material , subject to Australian laws , and their job is to administer it.
We seem to have drifted a little bit into the policy and opinion side.
But what i prompted to question is, the implication of "illegal" linking , not just the promotion via a link of illegal material.
The core of what I am saying is that there are greater implications in linking to another site .
-Is it potentially litigious ?
-Government censorship issues ? .. as discussed.
-Intellectual property issues , effecting branding ? ... we know Google recognises the protection of brand names in Adwords .... so what of the web or site to site [ arguably the search engines are linking to illegal sites ][ we know the interference of say Chinese regulators on subject matter accessable via the web ]
etc etc
So i kind of thought there is a commercial and regulatory angle to this ...
Again, how is this going to pan out i wonder ? any lawyers out there ?
