Is internet regulation an affront to free speech, or needed to protect children?
When asked if it could take on such a task, Ofcom's Jeremy Olivier said " were Ofcom be given such a task we would undoubtedly embrace it". But he also warned "the internet isn't a service or something that lends itself to taming".
Can Ofcom regulate?
Parliament could, should it choose, order Ofcom to regulate the internet but could the organisation actually do so? Mr Olivier agreed that "access to illegal material poses less of a challenge" as "we don't want to manage access, we want to restrict everyone's access". But he added that "the position gets more complicated when talking about content that is legal but inappropriate for some ". He went on to explain that, although Ofcom is able to effectively regulate the material shown to children on television, doing so on the internet is far more difficult.
Anyone wishing to transmit television broadcasts in the UK needs a licence. This licence binds them to a set of rules that dictate what is, and is not, acceptable. In the UK this includes the rule that any programming suitable only for adults must be broadcast after the 9pm 'watershed'. EU legislation effectively guarantees that any television broadcasts anywhere in Europe are licensed in this manner.
The broadcast licensing system means that most of the regulation is actually performed by the broadcasters. A similar process applies to radio, and newspapers and magazines, where editorial staff who are expected to prevent the publication of obscene or defamatory content.
On the internet, however, there is no single editorial body creating or broadcasting the material: It comes from millions of companies and individual users and is hosted in millions of locations. "One of the real challenges when it comes to content regulation on the internet", Mr Olivier told the forum, "is deciding who makes these editorial judgments".
Mr Olivier also stressed the difficulty of regulating content produced largely outside the jurisdiction of the UK legal system. "Given the global nature of the internet," he said, "we're going to struggle. Rules won't cover most of the content."
"I don't think it's right to consider that we can make the same promises for the internet that we can for broadcast," he said. "The priority must be to ensure that audiences understand the limits of regulation and to make sure that parents are aware of their own responsibilities."
Who wants regulation?
Adults who use the internet regularly might wonder why the idea of regulation is even being suggested. After all, most of us learn to use the internet in a way that avoids offensive sites.
One key concern, though, is that of legal but offensive material being available to children. Peter Johnson of the British Board of Film Classification, which rates and censors films and some video games in the UK, warned of the popularity of pornography websites that allow users to upload videos. These websites are so popular that several rank in the list of the UK's most visited websites, but many make no effort to prevent children from viewing their content.
Another concern is that of the internet being used to access copyrighted material that is being illegally reproduced. Richard Mollett, representing the British Phonographic Industry trade association, said that the Wild West is a " good metaphor" for the internet. He asked whether it had the potential to become "a digital Somalia". By this he meant a 'failed state' where the rule of law was no longer enforced because many people use it to obtain music or films they have not paid for.
Filtering
So if the internet should be regulated, then how? Some believe that automated filters should be used to limit access to offensive or harmful content just as the IWF's blacklist is used to block illegal sites. The pressure group Media March, whose online manifesto calls for the Government to "strengthen Britain's obscenity laws", demanded that computers should be sold with a "default setting "to filter adult content. It cited the Chinese government's censored internet access as an example of effective filtering.
Article tags
Related articles
Q.Is my phone’s Bluetooth any use?
Q.Can I switch boot drives so that I can work on older...
Q.Can I open my old genealogy files or have they gone...
A 'small British village' in the mid-Atlantic is in need of funding to get it connected
|
|
|
|
|
Computeractive Excel (2010) Online tutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Computeractive Word (2010) Online TutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Computeractive Powerpoint (2010) Online TutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Angry BirdsPrice: £9.99 |
Back Issue CD-Rom 14 (2011)Price: £15.99 |
regulation of the internet
with all the gaurding angel attitudes of the british government, i would have though as we can only know what we have to think is the doctrine of salanist labour properganda, surely in todays adult world we can be trusted to make up our own minds as to what we want to see or watch. or is it that 1984 has been here for the last ten years of the over zealous labour party to control our every thought!!!!!!! if printed please withhold my name thank you, and i must say computer active is by far the best of all the computing magazines.
Posted by Eric T Ellis, 12 Mar 2009
Regulating the Internet
Once again the nanny state is 'coming to our rescue' because as adults we can no longer make informed decisions about what is obscene, offensive, profane, illegal etc. Who are these people to tell us what we can or can't access. It is the beginning of what will become total governmental control over what information we can and can't access. Eventually it will become a total propaganda machine for whichever the government of the day is and In whichever country is doing the regulating. The internet is a tool for the people of the free world with an unprecedented freedom of choice of information, not a tool for governmental control or regulation as they call it. Governments do not want you to have access to something they cannot control. Yes, there is content on the www that a majority of people do not want to access or view, but wonder upon wonder they do not search for it, If it shows up in a search engine they choose not to access it. Tools are already available to stop children accessing unsolicited content in most of the search engines.Other software is also available. But it doesn't matter how effectively you try and police their use of search engines, if they want to find this content and are determined enough,they will do so. There are on the other hand those people who do choose to search and view this material and however perverted and abhorrent they are who are we to judge? It is their right to view and our right to not to. Should this not always be the case? Where will the interference from the nanny state stop? When will this then turn to banning of religious sites because they don't agree with their teachings or beliefs? Then banning racial sites because they might offend people not of that race? What they are proposing to do is the tip of the iceberg and believe me, will not stop until they have total control. The latter is what they fear the most : No control. I for one would like to keep my choices personal. It is the right of every person in the free world to make his or her own choice......isn't it?
Posted by Don, 12 Mar 2009
It's about CONTROL
Talk of regulation is just a smokescreen. what governments want is control of the internet so they can decide what you can write, post or read. The English government invented concentration camps during the Boer War and now they have turned England into one. Inmate Hampshire Camp UK
Posted by David Seagrave, 12 Mar 2009
Regulating the net
I feel that it would be almost impossible to regulate such a large and vast field as the internet. Besides, as soon as web ratings start, then you would have restricted sites, that the government felt, would be harmful, in their eyes, to people. If people want the net restricted, then start at home with your children!
Posted by bill, 13 Mar 2009
time to act
Anything that can be done to make the internet cleaner and safer would be an improvement, I would also like to see the banks improve their password choices, at the moment this appears to be only letters & numbers and there is a vast array of alternatives available to make it more difficult for the criminal.
Posted by Bill Wright, 17 Mar 2009
Ineptitude
After reading your interview with the home office spokesperson where it was stated that they have no knowledge of how the IWF works. I feel that this government is likely (despite recommendations of its impracticality) to direct the IWF or a similar body to block all the content in question. Consider the implications of this: People using programs like TOR or OpenDNS to enable access to the content will become commonplace. This is already done with content blocked by the IWF (mainly child porn and race hate sites). The resources required to catch so many "moving targets" would be immense. Currently 6 people in the IWF are capable of blocking 35000 URLs per year. Pornographic, offensive, indecent, and race hate sites would make up a significant proportion (I would wager in excess of 25%) of total web sites. That equates to approximately 30000 people required per year per billion websites. Who's going to pay their wages? This government has no idea what its talking about.
Posted by john, 20 Mar 2009
PC Brigade
regulating the net would be un-managable, one persons idea of whats right and wrong will always differ from someone elses. Protecting children is vital, however the onus on this should be with parents!! they wouldn't let a child play with a loaded weapon so why give them unsupervised access to the net. As a tech i cannot believe how many parents have no idea what their kids are doing. Education will work better than restriction.
Posted by Mark Leyton, 20 Mar 2009