Australian government blacklists prolife webpage
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, radio communications, telecommunications and online content. ACMA threatened a web host with a $11,000 per day fine unless it removed a link to a pro-life web page that ACMA blacklisted in January 2009. The web host removed the link.
The blacklisted page, displayed here, showed a graphic photo of an aborted fetus.
There are two issues that I will discuss with this post. The first is why some pro-life websites use graphic photos and the second is the danger of government censorship.
Graphic Photos
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director for Priests for Life feels that the use of graphic photos is effective for the following reasons:
· Not even the most vivid description, in words alone, can adequately convey the horror of this act of violence. Abortion is sugar-coated by rhetoric which hides its gruesome nature. The procedure is never shown in the media. Too many people remain either in ignorance or denial about it, and hence too few are moved to do something to stop it. Graphic images are needed. A picture is worth a thousand words -- and in this battle, it can be worth many lives as well.
· Graphic images of abortion have saved lives. Some women who have seen the photos have decided not to abort.
· Graphic photos are used in campaigns against tobacco use, against drug use, and to feed starving and malnourished children.
· The fact that the use of such images is disturbing does not mean such use is wrong. The free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment apply even to speech which is disturbing.
According to Fr. Pavone, if we find it difficult to explain images of abortion to our children we will find it even more difficult to explain why we didn't do more to stop abortion itself. We need to expose the injustice, and then direct our displeasure toward those allow the injustice to continue, not toward those who speak against it.
Censorship
Despite the fact that there are graphic photos of all sorts of things that can be seen all over the Internet, the Australian government arbitrarily decided that a particular webpage from a pro-life group was disturbing.
Is the Australian government censoring political views with which it disagrees? Based upon the information that is available, it seems to be.
Could the same thing happen in the United States? Could the United States government start to censor pro-life groups?
The U.S. government has recently launched a major crackdown on online copyright infringement, seizing dozens of website domains linked to illegal file sharing and counterfeit goods. There hasn’t been much of an outcry against this because the websites are regarded as being “bad actors,” and were breaking the law.
Perhaps we should be more concerned.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in September 2010. The COICA would be similar to the Australian law. It would create blacklists of Internet domain names.
When we start to blacklist websites we are on a slippery slope.
Would the government use such a law to target pro-lifers?
In April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report on right wing extremism. Among groups the groups listed as being extreme were pro-life advocates.
The current administration has been more supportive of the abortion industry than any other administration in U.S. History. Would it be so unbelievable if it chose to target a group with which it disagrees?
No comments:
Post a Comment