About fibreculture
Fibreculture was established as an email list in 2000, We organised several events in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane between 2001-2004. More recently, the Fibreculture journal has become an active and well respected critical new media studies journal.
Convenors:
Chris Chesher Digital Cultures, University of Sydney,
Kate Crawford and Kath Albury, Journalism and Media Research, UNSW,
Geert Lovink, Institute for Network Cultures, Amsterdam
Background
Just before the forum, Senator Conroy announced the introduction of mandatory internet filtering in Australia. Internet filtering Live Pilot report was released (December 15 2009)
Fibreculture Roundtable Draft Program
Freedom and Control in the Australian Broadband Internet
December 16, 2009Rogers Room, Woolley Building
Science Road, University of Sydney
Detailed outline of roundtable presentations
10.00am Arrive
10:30am Introductions (intro.mp3 4.9MB)
Everyone attending introduces themselves and their interest in the roundtable theme.
11.00am Histories of Regulatory Policies Around New Media
Peter Chen (session1.mp3 8.9MB)
Department of Government and International Relations
University of Sydney
The political history of the internet content regulation debate in Australia.
This talk focuses on some of the factors that shape the development of the current filtering proposal, where it comes from and why it looks the way it does. In doing so it will attempt to show the political logic behind the current system.
In summary:
1. The issue has a long genesis, and it is a result of a successive of media scares about new media in Australia and failures by different governments over the last 20 years to systematically adjust content regulation / censorship given technology change;
2. The reasons for this ad hoc development are varied, but largely relate to the tendency for policy to be framed in terms of crisis events (e.g. that a lot of the players don't engage with the policy until, like now, there's a very public dispute underway, but also the entrenched power of commercial interests (see pt 5) encourages governments to use "crisis" to force change), the development of policy prior to experiential understanding, concerns with the moral acceptability of content aimed at a large and undefined "middle ground" of Australians, and - importantly - limitations on government action due to federalism and industry development issues;
3. The current regulatory system is not the result of a key group of religious organisations who dominate this topic politically, but they are active and remain engaged in the debate over time and need to be considered by governments because of this;
4. The current regulatory system is not the result of systematic planning, but tends to conform to a given set of policy instruments designed to de-emphasise censorship as political (partisan) and cast it as administrative in character;
5. Industry has tended to be the most significant non-government actor, and is responsible for moderating regulation proposals in the late 1990s and limiting incremental change 2000-6;
6. While the policy debates and proposals appear largely unchanged from the late 1990s, the industrial environment has changed significantly, making the political character of the debate more complex, with a wider range of commercial interests less opposed to filtering systems than were mobilised in the late 1990s, and;
7. The current government has defined the existing regulatory system as broken, and thus is committed to change in some form.
Jason Wilson (session2.mp3 - 3 7.9MB)
School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication
University of Wollongong
This paper will offer a history ‐ encompassing the period from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s ‐ where the classification regime for videogames was developed in Australia. It will consider the role of ‘media panic’, a convergence of censorious political programmes, the acquiescence of the games industry, the lack of player representation, and importantly, the absence of media and cultural studies scholars, just as the infamous ‘policy moment’ was unfolding. It will consider the lessons it has for current considerations around Internet policy ‐ the contest around emerging cultural capital and technological literacies, the desire for states to implement symbolic regulation, and the key role for media and cultural studies in intervening in the regulatory process.
12.00pm LUNCH (Buy food at Manning)
1.00pm Kate Crawford and Kath Albury (session3.mp3)
Centre for Journalism and Media Research, UNSW
'In conversation' about mobile phones, regulation and sexual citizenship.
The practice of young people ‘sexting’ – sending sexually suggestive texts and images via mobile phone – has been the source of considerable public and legal concern. A recent study concluded that one in five teenagers have sent nude images of themselves via mobiles and online. But while sexting is increasingly common, key contradictions are emerging in the surrounding regulatory frameworks. Although people between 16-18 years old are legally permitted to consent to sexual activity, it is deemed ‘child pornography’ if recorded. Australian Classification Guidelines do ”not permit any depictions of non-adult persons, including those aged 16 or 17, nor of adult persons who look like they are under 18 years”. Sexually active 16 and 17 year olds are thus excluded from all legitimate visual representation. What does this mean for the concept of sexual citizenship? Is the regulation of mobiles creating new criminal categories for self-representation?
This 'in conversation' will consider the ways in which teenagers are actively using mobile technologies as part of developing their own sexual identities, despite these activities being criminalised. We will also draw on recent findings from fieldwork around Australia about how young people are using mobiles.
2.00 Chair: Anne Dunn (session4.mp3 - 11.1MB)
Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts
University of Sydney
Lobbying strategies and research agendas around broadband and new media practices and policies
2.30pm BREAK
3.00pm Geert Lovink (session5.mp3)
Institute of Network Cultures
Institute of Interactive Media
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Towards a Theory of National Webs
Some remarks and examples by Geert Lovink
The shift of global internet culture away from the West, combined with a general decline (or normalization) of the role of global English, are two on a list of many factors that contribute to the rise of so-called national webs. With the democratization of the Internet provokes the growing interference of federal legislation. The deep penetration of internet in society comes with a cost: the rise of control of privacy and content by both national and international agencies and corporations such as Google. Within language-defined national borders, defined by the national IP address range, new internet cultures arise that are by and large unaware of what's happening elsewhere. Is the global Web a new subversive agenda to escape and resist the national control mechanisms?
4.00pm CLOSE
_____
Fibreculture Forum
Interactive Entertainment Conference
2pm December 19th 2009
Building K17 meeting room at CSE UNSW Kensington
Fibreculture Forum: What's behind the regulation of interactive entertainment?
The fibreculture forum will focus on the cultural and institutional processes driving government regulation of interactive entertainment platforms. From games classification to the proposed internet clean feed, changes in government policy, legislation and regulation have been driven by different actors, agendas and framings. What has been the role of key lobby groups, political parties, bureaucracies, industry groups and University players in forming digital media policy? How can those involved in interactive entertainment industries be most effectively involved in the achieving fair and balanced regulatory regimes?
Blog Posts
As I mentioned at the roundtable, here's a far longer version of my talk about the background to filtering in Australia, from the workshop held at the University of Woolongong on 30 November 2009.
This is before the release of the current policy and consultation document.
http://www.vimeo.com/8088468
This is before the release of the current policy and consultation document.
http://www.vimeo.com/8088468
Posted by Peter John Chen on December 17, 2009 at 9:19pm
News from the land of the Long White Server.
Does control of the Internet fall under the jurisdiction of the courts (in any country)? Talk back radio can come atcha from outside the national radio spectrum, and offshore Internet backchat can talk back to authority with impunity. The loss of boundaries (between private and public, and between the nation state and the global fog of the Internet) is upsetting state control mechanisms.
In New Zealand, the enforcement of suppression orders (say, naming an underage offender) is a current issue. In August 2008, a judge made headlines for "banning news websites from naming two men charged with murder while allowing newspapers, radio stations and TV networks to reveal who they are". http://bit.ly/76KZFz
On 16 Nov. 2009, the Law Commission released a report, “Suppressing Names and Evidence,” that includes a recommendation that ISPs and content hosts who know about a breach of suppression but do not block access to the content should face criminal sanctions. http://bit.ly/72dNvA
Earlier this month (Dec. 2009) InternetNZ hosted a seminar on this topic. http://bit.ly/3voATz
Attempts to hold water in a seive continue.
markmcguire.net
Does control of the Internet fall under the jurisdiction of the courts (in any country)? Talk back radio can come atcha from outside the national radio spectrum, and offshore Internet backchat can talk back to authority with impunity. The loss of boundaries (between private and public, and between the nation state and the global fog of the Internet) is upsetting state control mechanisms.
In New Zealand, the enforcement of suppression orders (say, naming an underage offender) is a current issue. In August 2008, a judge made headlines for "banning news websites from naming two men charged with murder while allowing newspapers, radio stations and TV networks to reveal who they are". http://bit.ly/76KZFz
On 16 Nov. 2009, the Law Commission released a report, “Suppressing Names and Evidence,” that includes a recommendation that ISPs and content hosts who know about a breach of suppression but do not block access to the content should face criminal sanctions. http://bit.ly/72dNvA
Earlier this month (Dec. 2009) InternetNZ hosted a seminar on this topic. http://bit.ly/3voATz
Attempts to hold water in a seive continue.
markmcguire.net
New Media Research and Policy
Among the goals of this week's roundtable is to discuss the most effective forms of research and lobbying to contribute to the best public policies in new media.
This topic is particularly timely, with the anticipated release of the outcomes of the Federal Government's internet filtering trial, and the release this week of the Public Consultation on the R18+ Classification for Computer Games. The papers from Peter Chen and Jason Wilson will provide salient histories of the previous patterns of new media regulatory policy as crisis management. Anne Dunn will chair a session on research and lobbying in new media policy.
One possible outcome of this event would be to form a working party on either of these issues, to work on a response to government.
This topic is particularly timely, with the anticipated release of the outcomes of the Federal Government's internet filtering trial, and the release this week of the Public Consultation on the R18+ Classification for Computer Games. The papers from Peter Chen and Jason Wilson will provide salient histories of the previous patterns of new media regulatory policy as crisis management. Anne Dunn will chair a session on research and lobbying in new media policy.
One possible outcome of this event would be to form a working party on either of these issues, to work on a response to government.
Posted by Chris Chesher on December 14, 2009 at 3:40pm
No comments:
Post a Comment