[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am.

Proposed new laws, that critics say would grant the government, sweeping powers to effectively censor the internet, were debated in parliament this week.

The Online Safety Bill is being framed as a way to modernise how Australia regulates the internet.

But concerns have been raised about how broad ranging it is, and what the consequences could be for freedom of expression.

Today, lawyer and chair of Digital Rights Watch, Lizzie O'Shea on the new laws that could change how every Australian uses the internet.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

Lizzie, the Australian government is, really grappling with how to update our laws, to better suit the age that we live in -- the age of the internet. And, back in 2015, it created this new agency to help regulate the internet. Can you tell me about that?

LIZZIE:

So there are a range of different laws that govern many different activities that we engage with online, There was a law that was passed in 2015 which looked at protecting people's safety online, and it created the Office of the eSafety Commissioner as the responsible office for dealing with that.

Archival tape -- Unidentified person 1:

“The legislation will establish the Children's e-Safety Commissioner as an independent statutory office within the Australian Communications and Media Authority to take a national leadership role in online safety for children.”

LIZZIE:

So the original idea of the safety commissioner was to look at protecting children online. But we've seen that expand, to also involve some content as it relates to adults.

And then this is the latest iteration of this online safety bill that's been introduced recently, which again expands the powers of the eSafety Commissioner and gives them opportunities to take down content where they think it's harmful.

There was a lot of discussion about this bill being proposed over previous years, but it's been tabled and consultation has been extremely short through the parliamentary process, which suggests to us that they don't really want to have a conversation about this. They'd rather implement broad ranging powers for a commission and then leave it to them.

RUBY:

Ok, Can you tell me a bit more about the intention of the online safety bill and how it's being sold to us?

LIZZIE:

So how politicians talk about it, is around promoting and protecting safety online.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“Cyber bullying, cyber crime, identity theft, abuse and so much more that are faced by Australians of every age and every background. As a father, I can't tell you how much that upsets me.”

LIZZIE:

So there's a lot of talk about things like, protecting children from online bullying, from online abuse. And adults as well, through making complaints to the eSafety Commissioner to deal with content, that might be considered abusive or bullying.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“With a funding boost of close to 50 million over three years. My government is supporting the commissioner's efforts to keep everyone safe online. It's very important to us.”

LIZZIE:

So that's the idea, that online life can be very harmful, particularly for children, but also for adults. And we need somebody who can be complained to, who can monitor this, and make sure that what we consider to be safe is reflected in our online spaces as well as in the real world.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“With new laws to push back against those online abuses. And we are setting requirements for digital platforms, the big companies, to keep their users safe and reducing the amount of time harmful content can stay up online. We want to take it down.”

RUBY:

OK, we're being told that it's something that we need to to keep us safe online and particularly to keep children safe online. But what other effects might it have?

LIZZIE:

Yeah, well, one of our big concerns, I suppose, is that it actually provides broad powers to the commissioner to look around for content that the commissioner might consider harmful and then, be able to issue notices to take down that content and to set expectations as well as to what constitutes harmful content. So often without any appeal rights, without any transparency as to why a decision might be made.

The current safety commissioner is Julie Inman Grant, She's got a background in industry. She used to work for Twitter, among other things, and she's well versed in these kinds of issues and is a big advocate for expanding her powers.

Archival tape -- Julie Inman Grant:

“Hello my name is Julie Inman Grant, and I'm Australia's eSafety Commissioner. A better internet is one where everyone feels safe and respected online, so they are able to identify risks, use technology safely and report unsafe behaviour.”

LIZZIE:

When the current eSafety Commissioner is interviewed about this, she talks about harmful content, which is a very broad term and might mean many different things to different people.

When you look at the legislation. It's not just harmful content, but it is a very broad set of content. It generally draws on the classification regime that exists for film and television that people might be familiar with, when you go and see a film.

RUBY:

So like the R rating, the MA rating, that sort of thing?

LIZZIE:

Exactly.

Archival tape -- Australian Ratings Advice ad:

“But when it comes to ratings classifications, well it's seriously important to choose the right movie for every member of the family.”

LIZZIE:

R rated includes lots of films that many people have probably watched who are listening to this.

Archival tape -- Australian Ratings Advice ad:

“Movies rated R are restricted to adults, eighteen years and over, rrrr.”

LIZZIE:

Kill bill. Lots of Quentin Tarantino films are actually classified in that way.

Archival tape -- Uma Thurman:

“Go home to your mother!”

(sword fight)

LIZZIE:

And so that content could be subject to a takedown notice by the commissioner. And if you look at the classification regime itself. R18+ talks about violence and sex, but it also talks about any content that's not suitable for a minor. And that's a lot of material, as you can imagine.

And we have an Internet that's full of material that isn't suitable for minors, but we don't take it down because we expect people to be able to consume some of that content consensually and safely.

Archival tape -- Julie Inman Grant:

“Of course we believe the online safety legislation that is proposed will enhance our ability to protect Australian’s of all ages from online harms and this is precisely our primary mission.”

LIZZIE:

So the commissioner talks about targeting harmful content, but I think the powers are much broader than that.

Archival tape -- Journalist 1:

“Have you thought through how the eSafety Commissioner will deal with political pressure, or public pressure to take down content or to issue those notices that would take that content down?”

LIZZIE:

There are plenty of groups who have entrenched interests in advocating for certain kinds of content to not be available online.

Archival tape -- Julie Inman Grant:

“Will I bow to political pressure? That's not something that we've faced before or I think should influence any decision that we make, we have to make decisions based on the facts of the case…”

LIZZIE:

So religious groups might be concerned about sexual content. People who are against different kinds of sexualities might wish for that kind of content to be taken down because they consider it to be harmful. There's lots of different conservative organisations that might be well placed to put considerable pressure on the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices for certain kinds of content, which they consider harmful for children, I mean, as well as adults.

So it's not just the case that mums and dads might be worried about what their children are consuming online, then go to the eSafety Commissioner. I think there's entrenched interests that could advocate to the eSafety Commissioner if such broad powers are given to that office, to then use them and use them in ways that are quite socially conservative. And that's what we're up against here.

RUBY:

We’ll be back after this.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Lizzie, we are talking about the online safety bill, and the ways in which some explicit content, including things potentially like, R rated movies, could be affected - but what are the other ways in which this legislation would empower the eSafety Commissioner to regulate what we see online?

LIZZIE:

Yeah. So the other kind of material that she can issue notices for is violent and abhorrent content. And this is a term that came out of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, it was a term that was put into the criminal code to deal with that. And I think a lot of people would agree that it would be terribly inappropriate for it to be lawful, for that kind of live streaming content to be legal.

But we've seen in other parts of the world that when these kinds of regimes with terms that are loosely drafted are implemented, that it can also have an effect on content that's produced to hold power to account.

So the most obvious example being protests that turned violent or police officers that might inflict violence upon members of the public, this kind of content might be considered unsuitable for minors, but also violent and abhorrent material and might be subject to a takedown notice.

In parts of the world like India or Eastern Europe or Latin America, we've seen blocking regimes exist, to serve the purposes of censorship. So avoiding content that might portray violence towards minorities, or violence by authorities, blocking that preemptively by platforms or by the relevant office holder, serves a censorship purpose.

And we might not think that could happen here. But it's certainly possible. And other countries have tended to use these kinds of powers that are justified around safety for these kinds of purposes. And I think it would be naive to assume that that's not a serious risk.

RUBY:

And can you tell me about some of those examples from overseas?

LIZZIE:

So the obvious example comes to mind is the equivalent piece of legislation in the United States about online child sex abuse and trafficking that actually affected the sex industry considerably. So even educational sites about about people working in the sex industry were preemptively shut down.

And that's not content that is associated with prostitution, which was nominally the purpose of that bill. But it's associated with it in the sense that it's providing people with educational opportunities about the industry to work safely. So essentially what it's doing is encouraging those people to work underground instead.

RUBY:

Yeah and I know there have been similar concerns here in Australia from people within the sex worker industry… can you tell me about that?

LIZZIE:

They’re very concerned.

Archival tape -- Unidentified person 2:

“As evidenced by the high volume of submissions from the sex worker community, this is an issue in which workers have a great stake.”

LIZZIE:

Particularly people who work in the industry, but also just generally about kind of sex positive education that might be available online that then might be subject to these kinds of powers. And they're organising and agitating, and I think we owe them an obligation to listen to them seriously.

Archival tape -- Unidentified person 2:

“When we lose access to advertising platforms or when we're no longer able to even remotely discuss our services on things like social media, we also lose income, and of course there's a cascade of harm that occurs when that happens.”

LIZZIE:

And I would like to see the eSafety Commissioner set up a proper channel for discussion of those things, rather than just assuming that all sexual content online is inherently risky or unsafe. And setting that assumption amongst the public.

RUBY:

And what does all of this tell you about this particular government and the way that it sees its role in this space? Because it seems we're entering into territory that many people would say is, I think, you know, moral decisions being made rather than legal ones.

LIZZIE:

Yeah, I think that it really demonstrates that the government treats us like children.

It doesn't think it can have a public discussion about where the boundaries are between autonomy and responsibility, which is what we really need.

There's no doubt we need to have discussions about how people can use platforms safely, particularly children, because children are more dependent on than ever to access things like their education on the Internet.

And we need to find ways to help them do that safely. But we also need to have discussions about what kinds of content we think should not be available, where our red lines are, and not make these assumptions, not allow the government to make these assumptions on our behalf.

RUBY:

Lizzie, thank you so much for your time today.

LIZZIE:

Thank you so much for having me.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today...

Australia will send 8,000 doses of its COVID-19 vaccine supply to Papua New Guinea next week, as well as masks, gowns, gloves, ventilators and sanitiser.

The COVID-19 crisis in the region is worsening, with more than 1,400 active cases in Papua New Guinea… though health experts fear the real figure is much higher, with massive undetected community transmission.

And the next phase of Australia’s vaccination rollout is due to begin on Monday.

From next week adults aged 70 years and over, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults over 55, non-frontline healthcare workers and adults with chronic health conditions will be eligible for the vaccine.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am. See ya tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]