An interesting article was posted in The Australian this morning in regards to an apparent “retreat” by Prime Minister Rudd and Senator Stephen Conroy in regards to the legislation that would be required to enact their proposed mandatory internet filter.

Some will see this as a massive victory for the cause against the filter – but do not celebrate just yet, if at all. This so-called “retreat” is nothing more than a political ploy.

Given the current balance of power in the federal senate, the government is nervous that it simply won’t get the numbers to see the legislation pass through the upper house. It would pass the lower house without any problem at all, but the senate is a whole different ball game.

By postponing the legislation until after the coming election, Rudd and Conroy are hoping that the balance in the senate will change dramatically, and that that will allow them to easily pass the legislation through both houses of parliament, thereby introducing mandatory filtering in Australia with a minimum of fuss.

This is a small victory – it certainly demonstrates that the government is worried that the legislation is not as widely supported as it thinks it is, or would like it to be. However, the only way to defeat this legislation permanently is a two-fold process.

Make sure that Senator Conroy does not retain his senate seat after the election – as a Victorian senator, the people of Victoria need to make sure that their federal senate vote directs the tally completely away from the Labor Party. That will take Conroy’s scalp – he will be the poster child against any future attempt by any government to try again. He would be the scapegoat. This is a good thing.

Then with the House of Representatives – as many Australians as possible need to vote away from Labor, and any preference deals they may put together, to see the government fall completely. Remember, only 43.31% of the national popular vote went to the Labor party at the last federal election. Less than half of all Australian voters ultimately wanted this government as a first preference vote.

Let us make sure that we show them just how many Australians don’t want them now! The homes of hard working Australians burning down as a result of the insulation debacle. The penalising of pensioners who spent money installing solar electricity systems. Internet filtering that will not work, and most people don’t want.

Seriously, how could anyone vote for these people at all?

Here is a fantastic piece of satire, made primarily against internet filtering proposals in the European Union – but which is perfectly applicable to the same proposals we currently have here in Australia.

It clearly shows how ridiculous the idea of actually applying a mandatory internet filter will be anywhere – not just in Australia.

The removal of an article by the Fairfax group of websites, which discussed the possibility that the Nine Network program Underbelly: The Golden Mile broadcast what technically might have been child pornography, has demonstrated that some “overpowering force” already has the ability to censor our internet, or at the very least, the weight to influence fair and reasonable reporting of a politically sensitive topic.

When you try and follow a link to the page here, you get a completely blank white page. There is also nothing in the page source. If you try and get the page in a more “mechanical” way, you can see the error code that is returned:

HTTP error code 410 is an interesting beast. Here is how it is defined in IETF RFC 2616:

The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent. Clients with link editing capabilities SHOULD delete references to the Request-URI after user approval. If the server does not know, or has no facility to determine, whether or not the condition is permanent, the status code 404 (Not Found) SHOULD be used instead. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.

The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed. Such an event is common for limited-time, promotional services and for resources belonging to individuals no longer working at the server’s site. It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as “gone” or to keep the mark for any length of time — that is left to the discretion of the server owner.

Clearly, this appears to be a very deliberate removal of the article. Who ordered that it be removed? Someone at Fairfax? Or someone from the “overpowering force”?

This is why we hate your censorship Senator Conroy. What is basically political discussion – something you are at pains to enforce will not be censored – has been stripped down. Political discussion. This is not about stopping kiddie porn – this incident is about covering up your stupid mistakes. You need to explain what happened here Senator Conroy, or resign for producing all of your misleading bullshit!

Of course, nothing on the internet is ever really “GONE” – here’s a cached copy of the article.

You need to become a 410 error yourself – GONE! I hereby declare you “Senator Stephen Four-One-Oh”.

Throughout this entire internet filtering debate, everyone has heard Senator Conroy’s favourite sayings. You know, like “100% accurate”, and “you can’t buy this material on DVD, in bookstores, in newsagents, watch it in cinemas, or see it on television.”

Oh really? What about this:

There’s a few interesting quotes in this article, such as:

In the first episode of Underbelly: The Golden Mile, Kings Cross identity John Ibrahim (played by Firass Dirani) has sex in a school stairwell with former schoolmate Michelle (Rebecca Slade).

While both Dirani and Slade are in their 20s, the show features repeated references by other characters that the character of Ibrahim is under-age.

The term “underage” is interesting. Is the character considered “underage” in terms of consensual sexual activity (16 in Australia)? Or the drinking age (18 in Australia)?

Here’s another:

Professor Gans said the NSW law would apply for the offence of production. Anyone found disseminating or in possession of the episode would also be liable under both states’ laws. ”It would fall within the definition of child pornography, but there is a broad defence of classification,” Professor Gans said.

Underbelly was classified M by Nine’s in-house censors. The defence of classification applies to all works unless they are refused classification.

Interestingly, Underbelly was NOT refused classification, else it wouldn’t have been on, would it? However the interesting quote is the so-called “defence of classification” loophole.

There was no clear definition during the show as to the age of the characters involved, but lets say for example that the characters involved in the sex scene were both fifteen – therefore minors – which by technical definition would make the scene child pornography. Channel Nine classified the show as “M”, and it was not refused that classification. It was broadcast to a massive national audience.

If the characters were “underage”, and the sex scene was shown – (and it was) – shouldn’t it have been refused classification? Then would it have been shown? Under the current laws, it shouldn’t and wouldn’t have been shown.

Channel Nine gave it the “M” rating, and this seemingly was approved. So there is this grey area, where a program is classified, but if the “official censors” miss questionable scenes, and it is approved to keep that rating, if they WERE underage, what is technically child pornography was just shown on television.

All of this is a moot point though, as if the character of John Ibrahim was written into the story with his correct age, he was not underage at all. The story of this third series of Underbelly is clearly quoted at the start of each episode as being set in the period between 1988 and 1999. According to his Wikipedia entry, John Ibrahim was born in 1970, making him eighteen years of age, if the writers have stuck to the basic facts. If there were some kind of legal challenge, Channel Nine would have this to fall back on.

However, clearing away the clutter, it boils down to this. If the producers of a program give that program a certain classification, and Office of Film and Literature Classification Australia misses a scene that might have seen the program refused classification, it can still get to air, and the producers are protected by this “defence of classification” clause.

Ultimately, this means that child pornography CAN be seen on television in Australia – although it is worth noting that the scene in question was certainly not graphic in any way. However, Senator Conroy says that it can’t happen, that “you can’t see child pornography on television” doesn’t he?

I think this Underbelly example is just a storm in a teacup, but clearly there are potential situations where it technically can be seen on television. Another lie or another complete misunderstanding of his portfolio?

EDIT: Follow up post can be found here.