Government principles for regulating
online content

11 August 1997

Mr Brian P Stewart
Assistant Secretary
online Industry and Communications Technology Branch
Department of Communications and the Arts
GPO Box 2154
Canberra ACT 2601

Dear Mr Stewart

The Australian Library and Information Association welcomes your invitation to comment on new government proposals to regulate online content. Our Association has been a party to many of the myriad government initiated inquiries on this matter in recent years and our position has been expressed in some detail on those occasions. In short we believe that regulation of online content must ultimately be the responsibility of the content providers and the users of online services.

In summary, the position we put to the ABA's online Services Investigation in February 1996 is:
The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) favours the creation of an online code of practice and an online regulatory body which represents the interests of community, industry and government. The Association seeks to ensure that equity of access to information is not compromised in the new medium, while still being responsive to community concerns relating to the nature of the information which is accessible online. ALIA believes that, in time, technological solutions can be found for technological problems. It is the content of online services, particularly in the context of community standards and the protection of intellectual property interests, which requires immediate consideration. Existing regulatory mechanisms which apply to the distribution of current media have application to online information and the development of new media should not alter our society's fundamental commitment to freedom of information and access to a broad range of materials. Where these regulatory mechanisms have limited applicability, such as in the case of content generated beyond our national boundaries, online service providers can not be held responsible for material accessed by users.

In general we are satisfied that the views we expressed to the ABA have been encapsulated in its Report of June 1996. The current proposals announced by the Minister for Communications and the Arts and the Attorney General seek to build on those recommendations. In essence we agree with the sentiments expressed in the Ministers' joint press release of 15 July 1997 but are concerned that the Principles for a Regulatory Framework for online Services in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 fail to translate these sentiments into a workable blueprint for the future of online regulation. Indeed these Principles introduce added complexities for those parties involved in the online sector.

Our Association believes that the roles of the parties involved in online service provision requires clearer definition. Carriers, Internet service providers, content providers, access providers and users of online services all have different roles and responsibilities. In some cases individual organisations may adopt more than one role. This is increasingly the case in respect of Australia's libraries where the role of access provider is often combined with that of content provider, ISP and user. Because regulation of online content involves matters such as censorship, copyright and privacy - each a complex field on its own - and because the origin of online information extends beyond Australian legal jurisdictions, the mechanisms which the Government elects to use require careful consideration and public debate. Above all they must be fair in allocating regulatory responsibilities where they are capable of implementation. Regulation of content must ultimately be the responsibility of the content provider and the user.

We urge caution in the introduction of legislative measures which may have unintended consequences or allocate responsibilities in an inappropriate fashion. Australia's libraries are confronted with the need to clarify responsibilities associated with public access to the Internet. This is well illustrated by a recent case in one of our public libraries. A fourteen year-old boy downloaded some 'inappropriate' photographs and other material on a public access terminal and printed them out. He took them back to his boarding school where they were found by his house master. Subsequently a complaint was lodged at the library which is, not unexpectedly, grappling with the complexities of screening material for specific classes of users while upholding the principles of freedom to access information for other classes of users. Their problems, inter alia, relate to:

• how to adequately define and identify classes of users whose access should be restricted;
• how to identify classes of information which should be restricted to these users;
• what screening technologies to use and their adequacy in performing this task;
• given that all screening technologies are imperfect, what responsibilities does the library face if it promotes the availability of restricted access terminals and the screening technology fails;
• what are the responsibilities of the users and, in the case of minors, their parents and guardians.

These are all questions which are raised either directly or indirectly in the Principles document. Unfortunately the incorporation of generalised terms such as "community standards" does not assist us in the resolution of the problems we already face and which will escalate as public access becomes more widespread. It should be noted that this is an issue not just for public libraries but also for libraries in schools, universities, TAFE, government organisations, the private sector and for cybercafes and information kiosks.

Public policy development and its conversion into a clear regulatory framework lags well behind developments in online communications and the demands of our community for access to services. We expect that public access facilities will be available in all of our 1500 public libraries by the year 2000 and the level of access is already high. Government support for these developments is evidenced in publicly funded programs such as the Online Public Access Initiative which is supported by our Association. The interests of equity of access to information and the promotion of information literacy demand such a response from our libraries and there has been enthusiastic support from the community. There is, after all, a direct relationship between information literacy and a competitive economy given the critical role that online services play in our industrial and commercial development. There is already an emerging and significant role in respect of our cultural heritage. Achieving a balance between commercial interests of promoting online services and protecting classes of users from illegal or inappropriate material is difficult. Most importantly the basic rights of access to information which our organisation has championed for sixty years must be maintained. This will not be assisted by the hasty development of inadequate legislation.

To accommodate the lag in regulatory development our Association is embarking on the development of guidelines for online public access in libraries. Such guidelines (or code of conduct) could be more easily developed in the context of a clear regulatory framework and in conjunction with the development of codes by other related organisations and we look forward to these developments.

The Department of Communications and the Arts is to be congratulated for the efforts it is making in communicating with all interested parties in the development of the Principles and is urged to continue its efforts in order to achieve an effective resolution of this important matter. We look forward to maintaining our dialogue with you as this process continues.

Yours sincerely

Virginia Walsh
Executive director