Australia says Web blacklist combats child porn

March 27, 2009

(AP) -- Australia's communications minister has defended a proposed Internet blacklist as necessary to combat child pornography but admitted that at least one site had been wrongly blocked during trials.

Stephen Conroy also told Australian Broadcasting Corporation television on Thursday night that the blacklist was not censorship of the type practiced by China or Saudi Arabia.

"It is possible to support a blacklist and support free speech," Conroy said. He did not explain how.

His comments came a week after a whistle-blower organization published a list of 2,400 sites that it said were on the government's secret blacklist, including a dentist's office, poker sites and a PG-rated site displaying images by a controversial Australian photographer.

Conroy said the dentist's site had been hacked and child pornography photos were posted. The office confirmed last week it had been hacked more than a year ago, and visitors were temporarily redirected to an adult Web site. The office said it quickly switched to a different Internet provider and hasn't had a problem since.

The minister said a site showing photos by Bill Henson, whose images of nude children have caused complaints by child advocates, was also wrongly blocked because of a "technical issue."

The blacklist, maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, is provided to creators of Internet filtering software that people can opt to install on their computers.

But Conroy wants a mandatory implementation of the blacklist by all Internet service providers. That would make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

The proposal has prompted protests across the country, with critics slamming it as censorship. Internet providers argue that a filter could slow browsing speeds, and point out that illegal material such as child pornography can be traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter.

Several Internet providers are conducting trials of the filter through June though three of Australia's biggest ISPs have withdrawn from the trial.

The authority said the list largely contains the addresses of Web sites promoting child pornography and sexual violence, but it has refused to release its contents publicly.

Conroy said the list was needed to tackle pro-rape, pro-child pornography and pro-incest Web sites, adding it would give parents the choice to block certain sites.

But opposition politician Greg Hunt warned there was a danger of the government encroaching on political freedoms to combat the "worst of the worst" Web sites.

"We need to increase the resources to take on people who will engage in child pornography and increase penalties for those acting illegally," Hunt said.

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Dot-xxx proposal under consideration

Related Stories

Dot-xxx proposal under consideration

March 22, 2006

While legislative pressure has been revived to create a dot-xxx Internet domain in order to better filter pornographic Web sites, some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, think the idea would bring nothing ...

Congress may clamp down on MySpace

May 11, 2006

New legislation from Congress would block access to social-networking sites like MySpace and Facebook in schools and libraries, including instant-messaging services.

Google eradicates pornography its own way

June 28, 2006

Google is showing signs of more resistance in complying with regulators even as rival providers are complying more with the federal government's guidelines.

Does the internet really influence suicidal behavior?

April 11, 2008

People searching the Internet for information about suicide methods are most likely to come across sites that encourage suicide rather than sites offering help and support, finds a study in this week’s issue of the BMJ.

Australian Internet 'blacklist' prompts concern

March 20, 2009

(AP) -- A whistle-blower organization claims a secret list of Web sites that Australian authorities are proposing to ban includes such innocuous destinations as a dentist's office.

Recommended for you

Tiny diatoms boast enormous strength

February 8, 2016

Diatoms are single-celled algae organisms, around 30 to 100 millionths of a meter in diameter, that are ubiquitous throughout the oceans. These creatures are encased within a hard shell shaped like a wide, flattened cylinder—like ...

Search engines will know what you want ... sooner

February 8, 2016

If you enter "Oklahoma" in a search engine, you might get a travelogue, news about the oil industry, Oklahoma State football scores or an article on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. What appears at the top of the list might ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2009

Take your tiny minded justifications of censorship and shove 'em.

People love to complain about the downward spiral of the US, but nowhere is 1984 more imminent than the UK or Australia. Disgusting.

Personally, I'd like the capital punishment instituted for purveyors of child porn, that was we would be rid of this girl:


The "Puritan Crusaders" are just as sick as the pedophiles themselves.
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2009
Lies, damned lies, and politicians... Inseparable.
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2009
a lie..

they shouldnt be in office...
but the incompetetnce outnumber the competent and think they are going to get something.

but i will point out that welfare recipients and homeless in the US have cell phones... talk about not seeing the trickel down of crumbs and that in bright times they waste a lot of crumbs
not rated yet Mar 27, 2009
If they're not blocking every proxy site and server too, it won't accomplish much.
not rated yet Mar 28, 2009
The author of this bullshit thinks people are idiots? That censorship list was put on wikileaks (the whistle-blower mentioned in the article) because australia's totalitarian govt did not make it public what's blocked and what's not which inadvertly leads to misabuse. why did they not block the other 3M sites that exist and did block the 3k?
not rated yet Mar 28, 2009
Of course, Australian goverment responds by blocking Wikileaks :)) Just like Communist China or any other totalitarian goverment would do. Read for yourself

It's basically the same as telling you what's allowed to read and what's not.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.