The media release can be seen here.

AIMS issued an interim draft in September 2008, consulted the public, and submitted its final report to MICA in December. In my opinion, while the AIMS recommendations would be an improvement over the existing regulatory regime, they fell considerably short in three ways: (1) AIMS took a tinkerer's approach rather than a consistent and radical one (2) it failed to resolve contradictions within its own arguments, e.g. saying that banning 100 websites didn't achieve anything except give parents a false sense of security, and then arguing for the retention of the ban, and (3) it was still in never-never land with regard to arguing for (albeit more relaxed) controls over "political films" when technology has gone way ahead.

Now the government has even rejected many of these mild recommendations. The overall conclusion I make is that they really do not want to do anything progressive.

Let me just mention four key recommendations that MICA rejected:

 
AIMS' recommendation: Engage voices outside of current government platforms.

MICA said it is "not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings." That's a red herring. Nobody suggested that they should.

Instead, the government will continue to "channel its resources to the dedicated REACH portal for e-engagement."

The problem here is that REACH sets its own agenda for its consultation. Today, we want to talk about this, and we invite your feedback on this subject. Next month, we talk about that. It ignores the reality of people having their own priority concerns, which they express increasingly online. True citizen engagement requires one to take cognisance of the topics and issues that people raise for themselves, and then to respond to them. If responding on private citizens' platforms is not practical -– I suspect it's also an ego thing, in that the government cannot stomach the idea that a private citizen will have the right to edit what they say -– then at least the government should take note of, say, the top ten issues each week and respond to each of them on the REACH portal.

MICA did say, however, that government agencies will "reply to online letters carried in the online letter forums of the local mainstream media," (though "as with forum letters in printed newspapers, not every online letter would warrant a reply.") That's convenient, isn't it? For they can rely on the editors of mainstream media to filter out such letters that are too difficult to respond to, and never publish them in the first place. 

AIMS' recommendation: Update the Class Licence Scheme by removing the registration requirement for individuals, bodies of persons and political parties.

AIMS wanted the government to remove this type of pre-emptive censorship because, as it said in its report, "the rules unnecessarily deter free speech". Lifting of the registration requirement was coupled with another proposal -– to make the processes of the Class Licence Scheme more transparent (AIMS report, Executive Summary, 2.29b).

Clearly, AIMS agreed with the commonly-held view that the registration requirement had a chilling effect on speech. Opacity and arbitrariness in the Class Licence Scheme did likewise. There are laws in place for hate speech, for example, and doing away with the Scheme does not leave the authorities powerless in dealing with seriously dangerous views.

The government said no to lifting the registration requirement, while staying mum on the call for greater transparency with the Class Licence Scheme. It maintained that its much-vaunted "light-touch regulation, coupled with the registration requirement, has enabled political parties and individuals to engage in lively discussions on politics and current affairs on new media platforms."

But it misses the point. Is the discussion as lively as it can be? You don't know until the Class Licence Scheme and registration requirement is abolished.

MICA seems to be taking the position that they want to continue holding an axe over people's heads.

MICA said that "certain party political films will be allowed", and during an election period too. However, these must be "factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture." Because MICA intends to be so gracious about it, they will keep the law making it a criminal offence of make party political films, but amend it to allow for the above.

Is that overly narrow? I think so. It really means newsreel type material, and even then it is problematic. If the film records someone making an exaggerated claim about some matters, e.g. saying "tens of thousands were laid off last month", when factually, "only" 9,990 were, would the poor film-maker be liable for penalties for producing a "non-objective" film that produced a "distorted picture"?

Even dealing with this tiny concession finds the government reserving powers to itself. In deciding whether a film is factual and objective or not, MICA says an "independent advisory panel" will be set up. Firstly, you can trust it to be stuffed with "reliable" people and will probably be required to operate under the Official Secrets Act, keeping its deliberations out of the public eye, but more importantly, it's only advisory. The (partisan) minister has the final word.

 
AIMS' recommendation: Greater transparency re Section 35 of the Films Act

This section of the Films Act is distinct from Section 33 that pertains to party political films. Section 35 allows the minister to ban any film he considers "against the public interest" without giving reasons. 

AIMS called for "spell[ing] out clearly on what basis the government should ban a film contrary to the public interest." Furthermore, the group recommended that an "independent advisory panel for party political films should advise the Minister before a film is banned under Section 35 and the Minister should be obliged to give reasons for the ban." MICA rejected all three suggestions. Long live arbitrariness, opacity and non-accountability! 

© Yawning Bread