While everyone was freaking out about the Coalition's short-lived plan for an internet filter, a move to restrict internet use under the guise of "e-safety" went unnoticed, writes Asher Wolf.

The Australian Government is once again pushing legislation to censor the internet. And the sky is up, the grass is green and there's nothing new under the sun.

This time, Canberra is angling to appoint a new e-safety commissioner and create new legislation in a supposed crusade against online bullying. To that end, the Government is proposing new powers for the rapid takedown of offensive material published on social media networks.

Of course, Australia already has laws dealing with online bullying. S474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 applies a penalty of three years imprisonment for using a carriage service to "menace, harass or cause offence".

The Coalition's "Enhancing Online Safety for Children" policy was announced just two days before the 2013 federal election, along with mandatory opt-out internet filtering of all adult content.

While the Coalition backflipped on their mandatory opt-out internet censorship plan just hours after the policy became public knowledge, the "Enhancing Online Safety for Children" policy lived on, unnoticed for the most part. Until last week, when the Commonwealth Department of Communications released a discussion paper.

There's now a creeping suspicion that perhaps we were all too busy freaking out about the Coalition introducing a mandatory opt-out internet filter on all adult content (oh noes, not our p0rn!) to notice the new e-safety for children derp.

Of course, Parliamentary Secretary for Communications Paul Fletcher's office had no comment when asked if he'd met with the Australian Christian Lobby to discuss his e-safety shamboozle.

The internet is not some Cthulhu to be feared, but a living text, a shape-shifting communication medium to be explored. While everyone's busy yelping for someone to flick the censorship switch to stop the bullying, perhaps we should consider: do our under-aged sprockets actually have a right to uncensored access to the internet? We shouldn't be so quick to overlook the fact that back in 2011 the UN declared the internet to be a basic human right.

The discussion paper released by the Department of Communications includes a number of options, one of which says the e-Safety Commissioner may issue "infringement notices to individuals, which may include an appropriate fine" and that "careful consideration will be given to circumstances under which the Commissioner might serve an infringement notice to an individual under 18 years old".

Another option is modelled on New Zealand's Harmful Digital Communications Bill (2013) civil enforcement approach to online bullying. While the Australian approach set out in the discussion paper appears to focus on modeling the civil enforcement elements of NZ's bill, it should be noted that NZ's potential legislation also mandates new criminal offences that propose "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000".

For now, however, the options in the Australian Safety discussion paper don't raise the possibility of criminal sanctions for offensive posts, but instead suggest the potential introduction of a $1,000 fine (see page 25 of the e-Safety discussion paper) for behaviour that in the schoolyard would attract only a much-needed chat with an adult, potential counselling or some mediation.

The discussion paper also suggests the e-Safety Commissioner will have "rapid" takedown powers (see pages 7, 9 and 11), to be used against large social networking in response to offensive posts directly aimed at children.

Under the proposal, the threshold for intervention would be determined by the e-Safety Commissioner, based on factors including the age of the child an offensive online post was specifically aimed at and the likelihood of "triggering suicide or life-threatening mental health issues for the child" (see page 15.)

The e-Safety discussion paper suggests operators of sites which fail to meet the definition of "large social media site" will be invited join the scheme on a voluntary basis. It also appears the government is at a loss on how exactly it plans to enforce its e-Safety proposal, as the discussion paper turns to readers for comment on "what would be the best way of encouraging regulatory compliance by participating social media sites that lack an Australian presence?"

Heck, nobody tell the Government about the issue they'll face trying to take down anonymous hidden services at .onion addresses.

Based on the general internet-savviness demonstrated by the government so far, the current trend suggests we'll end up with Facebook officials citing the concerns of some ultra-conservative-naysayer-cum-government-adviser when they claim the decision to censor photos of breastfeeding mums was a necessary tactic to ensure child safety. Which is pretty close to Facebook's current censorship strategy anyway.

The biggest problem with the proposed e-Safety policies is the potential surveillance, censorship and infantilisation of our society in the name of protecting children.

As a parent, I want to be the one holding my child's hand as he explores the world online - not some grey-suited bureaucrat from a government agency or a religious busy-body. And as an adult, when I use the internet, I don't want to be potentially surveilled and censored in the name of protecting my child.

Nobody would deny the internet is a big wide place full of dazzling wonders and scary monsters at times. But we should all be questioning if we really want the government holding our hands every step we take online.

Asher Wolf is a disruptive journalist, citizen technologist, Internaut and founder of cryptoparty.org. View her full profile here.