THE Gillard government will scrap its voluntary internet filtering grants program to save $9.6 million over three years.
A combination of reasons led to the decision, including moves by Telstra, Optus and Primus to voluntarily block child abuse websites.
"Consultation with industry has identified limited interest in the grants due to the increasing range of filtering technologies readily available to online users, including browser and search engine filters," the government says in the 2011-12 budget papers.
"Savings from this measure will be redirected to support other government priorities."
Labor intends to introduce mandatory ISP internet filtering -- a policy championed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy -- once a government review is completed.
Treasurer Wayne Swan's fourth budget today is aimed at delivering $22 billion in savings to meet the government's surplus target in 2012-13.
auDA has constituted a policy review panel to review virtually all domain name policies in Australia, as well as to recommend a policy to implement direct registration in Australia. I am chair of this policy review panel.
This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?
Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?
This is a very topical class, with a number of relevant decisions from the past two weeks. Thus, there is a lot of reading for this class.
The main reading for the class is the iiNet case: Trial Judge DecisionFull Court Appeal Decision
The iiNet case is currently on appeal to the High Court of Australia. Oral argument has been heard, and we are waiting for judgment. It is reported that judgment will be handed down on Friday, 20 April. Transcripts and written submissions can be found on the High Court website.
Please also read the very recent case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. FCAFC…
Here are some other recent stories relating to content regulation in China: The Chinese government continues to prosecute people for subversion for online writings. For example, on Tuesday the AP reported that a Chinese journalist has been whose reports on rural poverty and unemployment riled local officials has been charged with subversion after posting essays on the internet.China is cracking down on spam and piracy.Much to the chagrin of the US government, various internet companies have agreed to China's censorship demands.For a detailed study, see this report from the OpenNet Initiative: Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005. Of course, the Chinese government defends its righ…