Internet Content Regulation - Essay Example

Internet Content Regulation Name Institution Date Internet Content Regulation Introduction The internet is the largest and fastest growing tool of information distribution and mass communication in the present world. It can be applied in the distribution of huge amounts of information anywhere in the world by incurring the minimum costs possible. Over the last ten years or more, debate on net neutrality has gotten very intense, especially with various countries grappling with the idea of introducing regulation concerning the same issue. With some regulations banning practices such as gambling or child pornography, there has been pressure for more severe regulations which would be expected to completely rid out practices that are unethical concerning internet access and data transmission over the internet. The entire world has been divided into two groups concerning this issue. The first group is opposed to internet neutrality while the second group is vehemently defending it. According to Price and Verhulst (2005), the issue sparked a fierce debate on internet regulation. In the past years there has been growing concern relating to destroying internet content from sexual and violence content to instructions on bomb-making, child pornography and terrorist activity. Regardless of moral arguments related to internet censorship being justifiable, there are prevailing problems that are practical with regulating of such an international concept. There are pros and cons for internet content regulation as it will be outlined later in this paper (Kohl, 2007). Internet neutrality Internet neutrality, also referred to as net neutrality is a concept of regulation which does away with any form of discrimination in access and transmission of internet content. It is in so many ways compared to the ‘net work neutrality’ concept which is in charge of regulation of various networks of telecommunication, including telephone and television (Kohl, 2007). In relation to the key principle of neutrality of network, the websites which are entitled with provision of content and the users who search for the content are equal; consequently no one is supposed to be given treatment that is preferential at the expense of others. Internet service providers are prohibited by the concept from deregulating or blocking websites that belong to their competitors. Net neutrality concept makes sure that service providers do not filter or restrict the traffic to websites of competitors. With no legislation that is concrete in place, net neutrality is nothing more than professional ethics set with no implementation compulsion. The side against and for internet regulation can be discussed in detail as follows; Advantages and disadvantages of internet content regulation In spite of the generally existing freedom of speech principle in many countries that embrace democracy, it is widely agreed that if certain specific types of speech are not accorded protection as they are deemed to be insufficient value as compared to the damage, they are responsible for. Child pornography in the broadcast and in the print media for example is never condoned. The internet therefore should be an exception to these standards that are basic. Materials that are truly offensive like extreme racial hatred and hard pornography are no different owing to the simple reason that they are published on the World Wide Web as opposed to video or book (Spinello, 2006). Regulation is geared towards the power of the medium. In this relation there is a higher degree of regulation attached to films, video and television as compared to books and newspapers, this is due to the fact that there is recognition that sound and moving pictures are more powerful and graphic as compared to text and photographs or mere illustrations. There is also usually more regulation of videos as compared to cinema films due to the fact that the viewer of a video is an audience that is captive with the ability to rewind, view it again and resulting in more distribution. The internet that has become to a large extent, a repository of video and sound (for instance, the speeches from Osama Bin Laden while he was hiding) should attract the same degree of power and should be accordingly regulated (Price & Verhulst, 2005). The fact that it is hard to regulate the internet does not translate to not seeking to do so, it is extremely hard already to prevent the distribution of snuff movies or pornography that is hardcore but government put more effort to do so since it is viewed as of importance to the society. A great relevant challenge is the anonymity availed by the internet which accords criminals and pornographers the chance to be involved in medium abuse. Other countries in the Asian region have experimented by making it mandatory for citizens to provide identification before they attempt to post any content on the internet, such a system if it is adopted universally could be a relatively simple manner of enforcing laws against content that is truly harmful and offensive. In many nations there would be liability that is multiple for slanderous material production. This is material which sparks off racial hatred. In the situations where the publisher or the author can not be traced or may be insolvent the printers can be prosecuted or sued. The internet providers that are relatively small in number should be made to be liable if they aid in providing of harmful and dangerous information like hard core pornography and bomb making instructions. Regardless of there being the good side of internet content regulation, there exists a perception that such a practice is bad, old fashioned and discriminatory. It is vital to look as the side that is opposed to internet content regulation (Tsagarousianou & Tambini, 2008). It is believed by some that censorship is generally evil and should be avoided at all cost. In this perspective it is believed child pornography is an extreme example and sufficient legislation has already been enacted to deal with those who try to produce, view or distribute such material. Other kinds of speech may well be truly offensive but the right way the society can deal with them is by being exposed to them and dealing with them. Otherwise these groups become martyrs and driven underground (Spinello, 2006). Bringing up kids is seen as the duty of the guardians or parents, who are responsible legally for the children, not the job of the respective government. The Cyberspace age has arrived at a very high pace. Young people and children are the most active citizens of the new era, and most of the time they are the first to use the internet in their family. It is imperative for communities, schools and parents to take an approach that is pro-active in making the latest form of communication safe for the children use. The appropriate way of to make sure that the children are using the net in a way that is positive is to stay in touch with what they are indulging in. The parent or guardians should spend more time their children while online. Whereas teenagers and children require certain amount of privacy, they also require parental involvement and supervision in their day to day lives. According to Smith (2008), the general parenting skills that is used in the real world also should be applied online. The net should be viewed as the street which despite there being policemen that protect kids from the real world, kids are not left unattended to walk down and up the street where they can be run over by a car. The same thing should be applied in the Superhighway of information. Children should be attended to. Many people confuse parents into believing that the internet is a very scary place just ready to harm their children. The child can only be exposed to the harmful stuff if he chooses to view the material. The computer cannot make the choices for the user. If there is a problem then the problem is with the parents sitting on their job during the growth process of the child. The parents should reach their children the wrong thing to do and the right thing to do from a tender age (Jimenez, 2006). Even permitting for the extreme challenges entailing freedom of speech, internet regulation would be less or more impossible. Governments can try the regulation of what is produced in their specific countries but it would be next to impossible to try and regulate material coming from abroad. It will be pointless for a government such as the USA to eradicate all domestic reference to pornography that is hardcore, whereas at the same time it is easy to gain accessibility to hardcore pornography from Sweden and the United Kingdom. Jimenez (2006) argues that the problem is further complicated by the ability of citizens producing such materials and storing them overseas. According to Tsagarousianou and Tambini (2008), Real freedom of speech needs anonymity in some incidences for the protection of the author, the specific governments and authorities that introduced identity requirement for internet application also deny their citizens numerous basic rights. The internet gives the opportunity to the citizens to criticize their governments and distribute information and news without fear of being punished by the state, such a system can not be fostered with requirement of identity. A good example is the toppling of the tyrannical regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. Although the two governments cracked down on internet material distribution, the damage had already been done and it led to a massive response to revolution (Smith, 2008). The reasons for regulation and not regulating internet content can be debated on and on and on. To a large extent the advantages and disadvantages should be scrutinized keenly to determine if the internet content is adding value to the society or leading to degeneration of the society. With the many challenges that come with economic responsibility it is possible that many guardians and parents will not have the time to monitor what kind of material that their children access while online, therefore is the joint responsibility of the whole society including the service providers and the government to be selective with the kind of material they avail to the public since if this is not done it will be to the loss of everyone as the children get derailed at a later stage in their lives to become irresponsible citizens (Jimenez, 2006). Conclusion If a global solution is needed then it can be attained by means of treaties and co-operations. It would be appropriate to regulate where harm is caused to others intentionally or inadvertently. The reasons for regulation of internet content outlined in this essay may not be exhaustive and also reason for not regulating may not be final, but a general agreement is that there should moderation to ensure appropriate use of a resource and the internet is not an exception. References Smith, B.W. (2008). Harmful Content on the Internet and in Video Games: Oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office. Jimenez, E. (2006). Development and the next generation. New York: World Bank Publications. Kohl, U. (2007). Jurisdiction and the Internet: a study of regulatory competence over online activity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spinello, R. A. (2006). Cyber-ethics: morality and law in cyberspace. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Gillespie, T. (2007). Wired shut: copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tsagarousianou, R. & Tambini, D. (2008). Cyber-democracy: technology, cities, and civic networks. New Jersey: Routledge. Smith, G. J. H. (2007). Internet law and regulation. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Price, M. E. & Verhulst, S.G. (2005). Self-regulation and the Internet. Boston: Kluwer Law International. Read More