YouTube videos should be given '18' certificate, MPs say
Thursday, 31 July 2008
enlarge
Films posted on video-sharing websites such as YouTube should carry age certificates and those with pornographic or violent content should be subject to a television-style "watershed", MPs say today.
Warning about the internet's "dark side", they also protested over "shocking" delays by the industry in taking down images of child abuse once they have been spotted.
The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee warns in today's report that many social networking and video-sharing sites carried material that was unsuitable for youngsters. It said: "We are concerned that user-generated video content on sites such as YouTube does not carry any age classification, nor is there a watershed before which it cannot be shown."
The MPs expressed their anger that the operators of such sites did not routinely screen clips posted on them by the public.
They said the practical problems of sifting through vast quantities of material could be overcome as technology is being developed that can rapidly spot hardcore pornography when it is uploaded. Explicit images could also soon be spotted because of the "tags" used to describe them. Filters could be developed to block them.
"In a lucrative market, the cost to internet service providers of installing software to block access to child pornography sites should not come second to child safety," the committee said.
The MPs were told that the "industry standard" for removing images of child abuse was within 24 hours of their being reported, but there was no guarantee that the deadline was always met.
John Whittingdale, the committee's Conservative chairman, said a warning about such material should be checked "within hours, if not minutes, and taken down instantly and reported to the police".
The committee called for video-sharing sites to include a "one-click" facility that enabled users to report clips appearing to contain images of abuse directly to the police.
It said there was "growing public concern" over the content of the internet, including videos of fights, alleged rape and bullying, and sites promoting suicide and anorexia. Some sites allow users to create "avatars" which then simulate sex with children.
The committee wants children to be given stronger warnings that the personal information they post on websites could potentially be accessed by millions of internet surfers.
The MPs called for the industry to set up a body, similar to the Advertising Standards Authority, to enforce minimum standards of material allowed on the internet. But they believe the Government should ultimately force the industry into line if self-regulation does not work.
Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, welcomed the committee's conclusions. He said: "The internet now has a great impact on our lives and we need urgently to find a consensus about the standards of the future, standards to help navigate this vast and rapidly evolving world if we are to protect young people."
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
What might they classify as violent content? Police beating up strikers or anti-war protestors, maybe? Would they go on to remove anything they found particularly distasteful, such as Police beating up strikers or anti-war protestors, maybe?
Thin end of the censorship wedge if you ask me. Maybe we should all use newspeak and have only the words to think what they want us to think.
Posted by Simon | 01.08.08, 09:36 GMT
right. I think anybody should be allowed to post anything. Like bloody bodies in www.youtube.com/ watch?v=vsEJLzbyBHw even. Some people ask youtube to remove those things but youtube doesn't really police their system. They just tell politicians that to get them off their back.
Posted by lance | 31.07.08, 21:16 GMT
I wish people would stop trying to put nation-state boundaries on the internet, there are enough already, we don't need anymore. It's inevitable really though, the internet basically ignores traditional control of media (for the most part) and a lot of powerful people are getting VERY scared of it!
Posted by Stuart | 31.07.08, 16:49 GMT
Great comment by blithe. I'm with David Icke on this when he says that we should should oppose all measures of increased control by the government.
Whilst in principle there is nothing wrong with the proposal that pornographic material should have an '18' certificate online, the issue is much bigger than this. It's about increasing the control on the internet and allowing the government to control our access to information. It many not seem like it yet, but as the stepping ston process goes on, that is what it will lead to. Just as people were led to believe that the EU will be a just free trade area and nothing to worry about, and then we see it ruling over us.
The saying 'give satan an inch and he'll take a mile' comes to mind.
Posted by Sarah | 31.07.08, 10:24 GMT
Calls for a cesnored internet are being made in more than one country. "They" don't like the internet because "we" are using it to spread information (rather than the offical spun version) of events. The web is now SO huge that no one person could view half of it even if they spent the rest of their life in front of a monitor. And of course, the call for a "censored internet" is being made "in the name of the children". The very same children who are left alone by parents forced to work, bombarded by unsuitable adverts, over-sexualised, sent to dumbed down schools, forced to eat junk food and chemicals and generally surrounded by a predatory and hostile culture, all in the name of short term profit.
Hypocrisy!
Yes, parts of the net need dealing with. This won't work without meaningful international law. International law that cannot over ride sovereign national authority is meaningless.
Enjoy the internet while you have it - it will not always be as it is today.
Posted by blithe spirit | 31.07.08, 08:46 GMT