>While it's true a few misguided Family First types have proposed mandatory filtering laws for Australia such laws are not in place
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement...
This is for obscene content but it appears that there is at present no legal barrier to the government just issuing further Section 313 orders that would block websites that breach other laws.
It's a robust debate and a complicated one, to be sure.
That's the state of play as a few months back, iiNet has agreed to filter the interpol list of serious child porn sites and that's:
- not the same as the initial black hole, black list initially proposed
- something I have far less of an issue with, particularly if a significant proportion and cross section of the population has access to the list (still being ironed out)
- the story's still not played out (and hopefully remains in play, forever, as a point of active debate for Australian society).
Thanks for posting the link, I was aware of that and deliberately simplifying above.
Coming back to the banning of Antigua from within Australia should the US do so, I can see that being proposed and raised up the mast here, I don't see it being pushed out and actually floated quite so easily.
If they are so serious why are they allowed to operate? Are there really jurisdictions that allow them to operate with impunity? Or are these sites really in legal grey zones[1]?
[1] e.g. Country A says that you must be 21+ to appear in porn, but Country B says that you only need to be 18+.
The last time I had the, ahh, privilege, of checking sites on a current Interpol watch list was nearly a decade ago.
The content I viewed was more along the lines of Country Z that effectively allowed trade in human beings and the hosting of images of interesting things you could do with pool cues and 10 year olds. The material wasn't really subject to the kinds of ambiguity that, say, /r/jailbait on reddit skated. If not image sites then forum sites more or less dedicated active discussion of an unambiguous nature.
Not all the world is policed effectively and the debate about what should and shouldn't be policed within your own local neighbourhood, your state, your country, and in other countries is ongoing.
Globally we also have the wholesale manufacture, marketing, and distribution of weapons; the indiscriminate asset stripping of regions in turmoil to further the manufacture of mobile phones et al; and the offshoring of hazardous wastes to become somebody elses problem. These are things that arguably do more damage than actual child exploitation but tend to trip the moral compass less.
Hopefully one of the benefits of the Internet is greater global communication about and engagement with all of these issues.
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/14/iinet-internode-implement... This is for obscene content but it appears that there is at present no legal barrier to the government just issuing further Section 313 orders that would block websites that breach other laws.