abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

4 Apr 2019

Author:
UN Special Rapporteurs David Kaye & Fionnuala Ni Aolain

Statement from the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion & expression and the Special Rapporteur on human rights & fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

See all tags

[W]e would like to offer the following comments on the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Law 2019... which raises serious concerns regarding freedom of expression... [According to T]he Law, internet, content and hosting service providers are obliged to report to the Australian Federal Police the existence of “abhorrent violent material” that records or streams relevant conduct occurring in Australia. The failure to report such material “within a reasonable time after becoming aware” of it constitutes an offense. Offences committed under section 474.33 are punishable by fines of up to $168,000 AUD for an individual or $840,000 AUD for a corporation.

... [C]ontent and hosting service providers commit an offence if they fail to “expeditiously” remove “abhorrent violent material” that is “reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia.”... [This offence] is punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment, fines of up to $2,100,000 AUD or both for an individual, and fines of up to 10% of the provider’s annual turnover for a corporation.

... [W]e are especially concerned that the unusually compressed timeline for debating and passing the Law failed to provide your government or members of Parliament with sufficient opportunity to consult with civil society and the public on the complex issues it raises... Ambiguities in the Law demonstrate why public consultation and debate are warranted... We urge your government to, withdraw the Law and to provide additional time for legislative and public consideration of the issues contained in the Law, and evaluate the Law to ensure its consistency with international human rights standards.