“How could the Australian Internet Filter possibly affect the film industry?”, I hear you ask.  Well, truthfully speaking, there’s no direct evidence to say that it will. However, there is a great deal of concern that the mandatory internet filter proposed by Senator Stephen Conroy will prohibit the viewing of content that the Australian Government labels as ‘inappropriate’. Given that the medium of film has traditionally been a place where controversial or challenging themes are depicted, there is a chance that the filter will blacklist perfectly legitimate film hosted online, or even video blogs, that deal with sensitive themes.  Couple this with the fact that the internet is increasingly being used as a platform for distribution of film, I believe there is just reason for Australian Cinephiles to be concerned.

Let me digress for a moment; most of us have  seen, or at least know of, the recently acclaimed film Slumdog Millionaire. Director Danny Boyle’s 7 time Academy Award winning film takes no reservations when depicting the harsh reality of child exploitation in India. Similarly, Sean Penn won his second Best Actor’s Oscar for Milk, a film which skilfully documents the rise of the first openly gay Senator in the USA. Going back a few years, the 1999 Academy Award winning film American Beauty depicts a middle aged man’s sexual fantasy with a teenage school girl. All of these acclaimed films are regarded by many as modern masterpieces, treating confronting yet relevant issues of society with great honesty and tact.

Will Conroy’s filter be able to determine the difference between a video that tactfully deals with sensitive issues and one that illicitly promotes it?

Yet if Senator Conroy gets his way, this is also the kind of ‘sensitive’ content that could be blocked online if the Australian Internet filter goes ahead.

Obviously, big-budget Hollywood films such as Slumdog Millionaire will be mostly unaffected given their method of distribution is predominantly in cinemas and on DVD. But what about the huge number of short films whose entire method of distribution, thereby audience, is over the internet? Many short films and video blogs also deal with real, sensitive issues with the same intent as Hollywood film-makers;  to inform its audience of the issue and deal with it tastefully, not to pleasure perverted individuals like one insular Senator might think.

Don’t think the government will go as far as blacklisting content that deals with such issues if the internet filter goes ahead? Think again.
The filter, primarily aiming to prevent child pornography being distributed over the internet, also is intends to block sites containing “sensitive material” that fits within these broad categories:

Adult material, sex, nudity, swimsuits;
Gambling;
Games;
Illegal or questionable content;
Racism and hate;
Tasteless;
Violence and weapons.

How many legitimate films/videos deal with these themes? Arguably, most.
Whilst I agree many of these themes should not be exposed to young audiences, a mandatory filter is not the right way to go about preventing it. With traditional cinema, we have classification ratings that prohibit individuals of a certain age from seeing a film. On the internet, enforcing such a classification is near impossible. Which is where it becomes the responsibility of the minor’s parents to supervise their children and webhosts to provide adequate warning if mature content is being accessed. However,  A filter to prevent this material from being seen by all Australians is not only absurd, it’s un-democratic.  It’s also unlikely that the filter will be able to determine whether it’s a film or video blog dealing with a sensitive issue such as child abuse or an illicit video promoting it.  Wendy Carlisle, a correspondent for ABC national radio, shares my concern;

“Already filters have trouble telling the difference between a black and white cat and a black and white rabbit. So how does it know the difference between child abuse material and a video of a toddler bouncing innocently on the knee?”

Whilst children should not be accessing mature content, a nation-wide mandatory internet filter is not the right way to prevent it.

But does the Government really have the capability to blacklist videos, and not just websites? Yes.
Bjorn Landfeldt, a Professor at the University of Sydney, rightly assumes that “just about anything can potentially get on the list”. When the Government’s internet blacklist was leaked recently, one Australian video blogger discovered that her YouTube account was blacklisted because her videos were pro-Euthanasia. Along with a slew of YouTube links, even the websites for an Australian tour operator and dental association found its way onto the blacklist. That’s right, a ligitamate dentist in Queensland is considered by the Government to be providing ‘inappropriate content’.

 

So if you’re an emerging Australian filmmaker or simply a blogger with an opinion on a sensitive issue, you might just have to look for another form of distribution other than the internet, because the Australian Government might just label you responsible for polluting the minds of our youth.

Yeah, right…

 

Note: This article was written for the purpse of a University assignment, which required students to post a blog article regarding their opinions on the  Australian internet filter. With the medium of film the focus of this blog, it then became my goal to deal with the issue from a film industry perspective.

Follow the author Anders Wotzke on Twitter.