Internet regulation

Regulation and New Media

The difficulty with regulation of new media is that it is changing so fast.  Regulation of the internet, for example, tends to be via a variety of different bodies, depending on the nature of the issue.  To date, one or a combination of the following are being used to prevent internet publication or remove internet content: the legal framework, including rules of copyright and libel; self-policing by website-owners; policing and action by Internet Service Providers.

Blogs and Internet Chat Rooms: The Media Debate

• Are blogs and internet chat-rooms just like having private conversations?
• Should there be any control over the content of what people post?
• Should anyone have responsibility for what is posted?
• If so, who?

Blogs Example

Google runs a blog site, Blogger.com. A blogger referred to model and Vogue cover-girl Liskula Cohen a “Skank” on line.  The blogger also said of Cohen:

“How old is this skank? 40 something?” She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank. Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one.”

As with many contributors to blogs and chat-rooms, this person chose to use an anonymous name.
In August 2009 Cohen went to court in Manhattan, in order to force Google to hand over the information on who this blogger was.
The defence for the blogger claimed that blogs “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting”.  Google said that they take great care to respect the privacy of their users.  However, they also said they “sympathise with anyone who may be the victim of cyberbullying.

Media Debate

• Should Internet Service Providers give the personal details of their users to third parties?
• Was this cyberbullying?
• Was Cohen’s action trying to curtail bloggers’ freedom of speech?
• Do you agree with the defence when they claimed that internet chat rooms “serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions”?  Does this make them similar to private conversations and therefore not to be censored?
• But a “private” conversation is shared by very few, whereas the size of the audience who can access a chat-room is potentially vast.  Does this make a difference?
• What do you think?

 
Who would you find in favour of; the Blogger or Cohen?

The Adjudication

The Supreme Court judge ruled that Cohen was entitled to know who this person was Google were forced to hand over the information on the blogger to Cohen.

Internet and Censorship Worldwide

The problem with policing the internet is that it doesn’t have borders.  Information can be shared electronically across the world.  Different countries have attempted, with some success, to censor material, as can be seen from the map below. 

(modified from map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_blackholes.svg)
For example, China has blocked all access to the BBCs Chinese-language website.  For further research and more details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_7785000/7785248.stm
For more detailed, interactive map of web-site censorship:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jun/30/internet-freedom-of-information

Internet and Regulation: UK

Internet Watch Foundation - Funded by Internet Service Providers
IWF was established in 1996 by the UK internet industry to provide the UK internet ‘Hotline’ for the public and IT professionals to report potentially illegal online content within our remit and to be the ‘notice and take-down’ body for this content.
We work in partnership with the online industry, law enforcement, government, the education sector, charities, international partners and the public to minimise the availability of this content, specifically, child sexual abuse content hosted anywhere in the world and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK. (from http://www.iwf.org.uk)

Internet Regulation, Control and Censorship UK

So, currently no one single body takes responsibility for regulation, control and censorship of new media in the UK. 
Is this an acceptable way of regulating new media?
Can you think of a way to ensure that freedom of speech is balanced by rights to privacy, the prevention of unsuitable content etc?