#1
Saw this on /b/:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/3965051/Internet-sites-could-be-given-cinema-style-age-ratings-Culture-Secretary-says.html

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

[more on link]


:/

Discuss.

EDIT: Massive who cares if I said /b/, everyone on here knows about it anyway.
NOPE.
Last edited by charvel_man at Dec 29, 2008,
#3
Quote by boreamor
There's already a thread on this I believe.

But it's bull****.

I can never find related threads on the damned advanced search!
NOPE.
#4
i think that parents of really young kids should just keep an eye on what they look at on the computer, but children are gonna have to be introduced to the harsh reality some day like....
so in a way censorship just puts it off, maybe if children were actually subjected to anything more edgy that the balls that they show children on the disney channel these days theyd be a bit more immune to it when they do grow up a bit...
only a suggestion
#5
Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.


Anyone notice this? It's worth a chuckle.
#6
heh I wonder what kinda rating they would give to /b/.

I would be interested in seeing the internet browsing/download etc histories for everyone involved in this.
Last edited by Tire Me. at Dec 29, 2008,
#7
Quote by Tire Me.
heh I wonder what kinda rating they would give to /b/.

I would be interested in seeing the internet browsing/download etc histories for everyone involved in this.


Quote by charvel_man
Saw this on /b/:

:/

Discuss.


Roses are red
Violets are blue
Rule number one
and rule number two
Ultra Win
Quote by GnR_ROK

“A baby’s on the way.”

I could kick you in the stomach
And catch you unawares
I could swear to God you accidentally
Fell that flight of stairs