[Main][US Response][US Reasoning][Australia Response][Australia Reasoning][Comparison][Conclusion][References]
Country Comparison
American Culture:
American citizens have always depended on their essential freedoms provided by the first amendment of the US Constitution. The US was also founded during a revolution, and it's ideals were radical. The very basis for our country deals with challenging government and democratic participation. Thus, when freedom of speech is threatened by censorship, the American people do not take it lightly. Also in American society people tend to push or bend laws to their full extent.
Australian Culture:
Australian culture differs significantly from that of the United States. The government is a mixture of democracy and monarchy. The law is very important to Australian society and breaking the law in any way is a serious offense. It is not often that individuals will challenge a law. Even when it comes to speed limits, one mile over warrants a speeding ticket. Also there are not freedoms provided by the constitution like the United States has. The government has the right to pass any law they deem necessary to protect its citizens.
American Law:
Quoted from: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html#usa
"The USA Government has enacted two Federal laws intended to censor offensive online content. Neither of these laws are in force as at March 2002. The first law (the CDA) was struck down by the USA Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. The second law (the COPA), which is more narrowly focussed and covers only communications that are made for commercial purposes on the World Wide Web, is the subject of a Court injunction (also on First Amendment grounds) preventing its enforcement pending a decision of the Supreme Court. The Court decision is expected to be handed down in the latter part of 2002."
"Since 1996, four U.S. states, New York, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia have passed Internet censorship legislation restricting/banning online distribution of material deemed "harmful to minors". These laws have been struck down on Constitutional grounds."
Austrailian Law:
Quoted from: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html#aust
"In April 1999, the Commonwealth Government introduced an Internet censorship Bill into Parliament. This Bill, if it had been passed without amendments, would have required Internet Service Providers to, among other things, block adults' access to content on sites outside Australia on threat of fines for non-compliance. Following widespread criticism, the proposed law was amended to include provision for an additional access prevention method (other than ISP blocking of overseas hosted material at the server level)."
"The amended law, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, commenced operation on 1 January 2000."
"The Commonwealth regime is a complaints based system and applies to content hosts including ISPs, but not to content creators/providers. Content hosts are required to delete Australian hosted content from their server (Web, Usenet, FTP, etc) that is deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors" on receipt of a take-down notice from the government regulator, the Australian Broadcasting Authority ("ABA"). To date (March 2002), the law has been implemented in a way that does not require ISPs to block access to content hosted outside Australia. Instead, the ABA notifies filtering/blocking software providers of content hosted outside Australia to be added to their blacklists. Australian Internet users are not required by law to use blocking software."
"In addition, State and Territory criminal laws apply to content providers/creators. These laws enable prosecution of Internet users who make available material that is deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors". The detail of the criminal offence provisions is different in each jurisdiction that has enacted or proposed laws of this nature."
Last Updated 4/24/2002
© Evan Yeager, Kevin Tacke, Robert Spieldenner, Gergely Spolarics, Gregory Walker, and Greer Reichow