Submissions on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill are open until the 1st April 2021.
Submissions on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill are open until the 1st April 2021.
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies | Hatch | GoodSync
![]() ![]() |
Based on a quick read. Concerning.
The bad
Does not redefine objectionable, which is a definition I have long been critical of (I used to help run NNTP servers back in the early 2000s). The current definition uses extremely vague language that allows pretty much anything to be classified as objectionable should there be will to do so, e.g. Wicked Campers.
Empowers the DIA to implement nationwide blocking of any objectionable content (see the comment relating to vague definitions above).
Inspectors can issue take-down notices without a interim or final assessment of the content (see the comment relating to vague definitions above).
Inspectors and others enforcing the act are explicitly protected from civil or criminal liability (see the comment relating to vague definitions above).
Take-down notices can be challenged, but there may be a cost to doing so (see the comment relating to vague definitions above).
The good
It appears to exclude constables (who have some authority under the Act to assess material) from issuing take-down notices.
Content providers are protected from liability if they remove content. This is important as take-down notices may require them to keep a copy for investigation purposes. This should protect them in the edge case where content is proactively removed prior to receiving a take-down notice.
What would be an acceptable definition of ‘objectionable’.?
![]() ![]() |