By Dominic Walsh
It seems that governments worldwide are finally catching on to the fact that the internet has a lot more on it these days than pictures of dogs dressed as bees and innumerable football discussion forums. With sites such as YouTube and Google Video now delivering a seemingly unstoppable stream of video content, even Gordon Brown has joined the party, and only a couple of years late.
The first response to the Chancellor’s proposal for a new media ratings system is, do we really need this? Is he suggesting that the current age rating used on cinema releases, DVDs and games, the watershed on TV and radio and the advisories of explicit lyrics in music are somehow too arcane for the average member of society?
The second response, especially regarding ratings on websites, is how will it be enforced? Will ISPs in the UK be required to flag up all inappropriate content a user tries to access, or will the websites themselves be asked to supply age ratings? What effect will this have on those sites based outside the country, such as YouTube? Of course, we could also bear in mind that this is a politician looking for party leadership tackling “family values” and engage all relevant cynicism.
The same questions are likely to be asked in France, where laws are making it illegal for non-journalists to film or broadcast violent events in the country. But if a YouTube user uploads a video of, for example, rioting in Paris, what authority will the French have to order its removal from the site or to obtain the identity of the person who originally uploaded it?
Of course, there is always the option taken by China and, more recently, Turkey, of simply denying access to any content that doesn’t take the government’s fancy. With luck, actions taken by repressive regimes and countries that evidently aren’t that desperate to join the EU won’t be repeated over here – but you never know. In the future, exactly how much control will governments have over the content their citizens can access?
Right now (well, not right now, as I respect the company internet policy!) I could access any number of images, documents, videos or sounds that would offend and disturb me and, perhaps more importantly, the government. How much power should they have to protect us and themselves? Is it a proportionate response to a minor national insult to deny access to a site such as YouTube that, when it’s not showing dangerous videos of William Shatner singing Rocket Man, provides an invaluable service to immigrants looking to stay in touch with their home country, friends and family (I speak from experience here)?
Whether the access granted by the web can draw communities further together or push them further apart, isn’t that a choice to be made by the communities themselves?
Do I detect the hand of the Blogmeister General here in the Bee Dogs mention by any chance?!
Posted by: Claire Gibson | 16 March 2007 at 10:10
Errr, maybe. This was only because I couldn't find the 'Cats That Dress Like Hitler' site...
Posted by: Joe Banks | 16 March 2007 at 18:12