Being a form of new media technology, the internet has always created a moral panic surrounding the content that is available online (Whitaker, 1999, p.111). Content regulation of the internet has traditionally focused on the restriction of offensive or illicit material such as pornography. With the implementation of recent online anti-terrorism legislation, the issue of acceptable and legal content on the internet has been revived. With the rapid uptake of the internet in Australia (Goggin, 2004, pp.55-62), the implications of content regulation for internet users, becomes increasingly relevant. Below is a case study of Bilal Khazal, charged in June, 2004 under the new anti-terrorism laws in Australia. The case is an example of the potential implications of new online legislation for internet content in Australia.
Contents |
Bilal Khazal was arrested on 2 June 2004 under new Australian anti-terrorism legislation. He was charged with producing online documents that urged Muslim attacks on many Western countries, in a book published on the internet, titled, “Provision in the Rules of Jihad-Short Wise Rules and Organisational Structures that Concern every Fighter and Mujahid Fighting against the Infidels� (ABC, 2004b). The book was published in Arabic and included an assassination list, it was deemed by his prosecutors as likely to incite acts of terrorism (Coultan and Connolly, 2004).
Khazal’s arrest has sparked debate in the Australian media over the impacts of the new anti-terrorism laws on the judicial system in this country. Khazal, a Sydney resident, has been on ASIO’s (Australian Security Intelligence Organsation) watch list for over ten years and was listed in a CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) report as part of Al-Qaeda’s Australian presence (ABC, 2004b). He was released on bail after providing $10,000 days after his arrest. However, government officials, including Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, moved to introduce new legislation that would deny bail to anyone charged with serious terrorist-related offences (ABC, 2004b). This move has incensed civil liberties groups and lawyers, who believe it is “an erosion of basic legal rights and principles� (ABC, 2004a).
Law enforcement officers considered the release of Khazal as astounding, as he was charged with a serious offence (ABC 2004a). But, Mr Khazal’s lawyer, Chris Murphy believes his client is under unfair attack for holding Muslim opinions (ABC, 2004a). Murphy argues Khazal only published his opinion on the internet, which were then removed once police drew attention to it (Coultan and Connolly, 2004), but is now being unfairly targeted by authorities. Lawyers argue Mr Khazal does not pose a direct threat to society as he only published militant material on a website and therefore should not be deprived of his liberty (ABC, 2004a), while the Federal Government retains its hardline stance on anti-terrorism offences, with the denial of bail for charges of this kind. This case study is evident of the Federal Government’s shift towards prioritising the war on terrorism and national security, through legislative measures which may be infringing upon basic legal and judicial rights of Australians. It is a timely example of the implications of the newly introduced anti-terrorism measures on internet content.
Katrina Yuen 11:44, 29 Oct 2004 (EST) Katrina Yuen 16:33, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Online Political Activism
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Effects on the Communications Industry
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Privacy and Surveillance Issues
Online Anti-terrorism Legislation - Recent Developments
Back to Online Anti-terrorism Legislation
Katrina Yuen 11:44, 29 Oct 2004 (EST)
