0
Who watches the watchers?
10 March 2005
In October 2004, the Town of Minto, in Wellington County, passed a resolution asking the federal government to revive Bill C-15A so that “so that offensive Internet material can be searched out and those responsible brought to justice.” This resolution was sent to other Ontario municipalities asking for support.
Bill C-15A was presented in 2001 as a collection of amendments to the Criminal Code that included specific sections relating to content on and use of the Internet. It proposed to make illegal owning, exporting, or transmitting child pornography, as well as using the Internet to lure children.
Although the Minto resolution notes “Bill C15A got stranded in the Senate at the election call in June, 2004,” according to the government’s own web sites (Canada Justiceand Canadian Laws) Bill C-15A was passed and received Royal Assent in June 2002. I think they are confusing C-15A with C-15B, which included sections on cruelty to animals.
What really made me take note was the frequent use of the word “offensive” in the resolution: “The incidence of illegal and offensive content on-line is increasingly available,” “offensive on-line content available to children is not a concern to parents in some cases,” “children can be exposed involuntarily to offensive on-line content that escapes parental censure” and “that offensive internet material can be searched out and those responsible brought to justice.”
While I admit there is a whole lot of material on the Internet that isn’t appropriate for children, and the controls to block it are weak at best, I am troubled by the use of the word “offensive.” I don’t think anyone disagrees that child pornography or racist sites should be banned, but who defines what is “offensive”? Illegal content is one thing. Offensive is subjective and hard to enforce.
A recent amendment to the US federal communications law set fines up to $100,000 and jail terms of up to two years for anyone who transmits material that's "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" over the Internet. Unfortunately, that amendment left the definition of obscene open for debate – and a target for a wide range of intolerance.
Who would you trust to define obscenity or indecency? Stephen Harper? Paul Martin? Or a parliamentary committee of appointees and bureaucrats? A committee of fundamentalist theologians? Why not a committee of adult film stars? It's a very subjective realm.
I am personally offended by sites that promote hunting. Should we enforce a ban on them because they offend me? My tequila site surely offends teetotallers. Should my site be dismantled as a result? The term meanders into the quagmire of the censorship debate.
Blocking pornography is admirable, but exactly what constitutes pornography? There are legitimate sites that offer serious, responsible sexual content such as information on STDs, birth control, date rape, etc. Are these “pornographic?” Some radical anti-abortionist groups consider pro-choice content "pornographic" (for example: Anti-Abortion site). Without a rigid definition of pornography (pardon the pun...) we might net a lot of legitimate sites in our efforts to "clean" the Web.
While I am not personally attracted to the seamier side of the Net, I am not comfortable imposing my own moral or ethical code on people who are practicing a legal activity, one that does not threaten health, lives or human rights. Where such activities transgress these boundaries (such as slavery, rape, child pornography, racism, etc.) I have no problems with law enforcement. But the adult film industry is a legal business, whether we approve or not. Its legality is something for a higher tier of government to determine.
Canada and Ontario have accepted a broad definition of what's acceptable content in video and movies - sex and violence are commonly and openly portrayed. It will be difficult to justify a ban on Internet sites where legal but "offensive" activity is displayed while those same activities are shown in theatres or available for viewing at any adult video store. Are we asking for a return of censorship and the NFRB?
The problem is far deeper than just the Net. The real issue is parental responsibility: parents should lead by example, teach their children about sexual ethics about fundamental respect for others. Without these, any ban is merely a small bandage on a very large wound. Parents have to enforce such things as what movies and games their children are allowed to rent, see or play. If the parents don't enforce ratings codes and viewing standards, don't teach their children what's right or wrong, who can?
A recent survey (Survey 1 and Washington Post) indicates teens who see celebrities smoking in movies are more likely to smoke themselves. It's represented as adult and cool behaviour. The same is true of sex and violence (Sex and Violenceand Teens & Violence).
The Internet doesn't even begin to reach kids with the same impact Hollywood has (yet). And what about popular video games? Most are increasingly violent - some in very disturbing ways. For example, in Grand Theft Auto, you can kill someone, be paid for the deed and use your money to buy a prostitute (the sex isn't shown - you see a car rocking). Then when you both emerge, you can beat her to death to reclaim your money. What message is this sending to the young teens (and many younger kids) who play it?
Sure, let’s clean the Web, but before we march off singing and raising banners, let’s make sure we have our terms well defined and our targets legitimate. Let’s not trample freedoms and rights in our exuberance.
Bill C-15A was presented in 2001 as a collection of amendments to the Criminal Code that included specific sections relating to content on and use of the Internet. It proposed to make illegal owning, exporting, or transmitting child pornography, as well as using the Internet to lure children.
Although the Minto resolution notes “Bill C15A got stranded in the Senate at the election call in June, 2004,” according to the government’s own web sites (Canada Justiceand Canadian Laws) Bill C-15A was passed and received Royal Assent in June 2002. I think they are confusing C-15A with C-15B, which included sections on cruelty to animals.
What really made me take note was the frequent use of the word “offensive” in the resolution: “The incidence of illegal and offensive content on-line is increasingly available,” “offensive on-line content available to children is not a concern to parents in some cases,” “children can be exposed involuntarily to offensive on-line content that escapes parental censure” and “that offensive internet material can be searched out and those responsible brought to justice.”
While I admit there is a whole lot of material on the Internet that isn’t appropriate for children, and the controls to block it are weak at best, I am troubled by the use of the word “offensive.” I don’t think anyone disagrees that child pornography or racist sites should be banned, but who defines what is “offensive”? Illegal content is one thing. Offensive is subjective and hard to enforce.
A recent amendment to the US federal communications law set fines up to $100,000 and jail terms of up to two years for anyone who transmits material that's "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" over the Internet. Unfortunately, that amendment left the definition of obscene open for debate – and a target for a wide range of intolerance.
Who would you trust to define obscenity or indecency? Stephen Harper? Paul Martin? Or a parliamentary committee of appointees and bureaucrats? A committee of fundamentalist theologians? Why not a committee of adult film stars? It's a very subjective realm.
I am personally offended by sites that promote hunting. Should we enforce a ban on them because they offend me? My tequila site surely offends teetotallers. Should my site be dismantled as a result? The term meanders into the quagmire of the censorship debate.
Blocking pornography is admirable, but exactly what constitutes pornography? There are legitimate sites that offer serious, responsible sexual content such as information on STDs, birth control, date rape, etc. Are these “pornographic?” Some radical anti-abortionist groups consider pro-choice content "pornographic" (for example: Anti-Abortion site). Without a rigid definition of pornography (pardon the pun...) we might net a lot of legitimate sites in our efforts to "clean" the Web.
While I am not personally attracted to the seamier side of the Net, I am not comfortable imposing my own moral or ethical code on people who are practicing a legal activity, one that does not threaten health, lives or human rights. Where such activities transgress these boundaries (such as slavery, rape, child pornography, racism, etc.) I have no problems with law enforcement. But the adult film industry is a legal business, whether we approve or not. Its legality is something for a higher tier of government to determine.
Canada and Ontario have accepted a broad definition of what's acceptable content in video and movies - sex and violence are commonly and openly portrayed. It will be difficult to justify a ban on Internet sites where legal but "offensive" activity is displayed while those same activities are shown in theatres or available for viewing at any adult video store. Are we asking for a return of censorship and the NFRB?
The problem is far deeper than just the Net. The real issue is parental responsibility: parents should lead by example, teach their children about sexual ethics about fundamental respect for others. Without these, any ban is merely a small bandage on a very large wound. Parents have to enforce such things as what movies and games their children are allowed to rent, see or play. If the parents don't enforce ratings codes and viewing standards, don't teach their children what's right or wrong, who can?
A recent survey (Survey 1 and Washington Post) indicates teens who see celebrities smoking in movies are more likely to smoke themselves. It's represented as adult and cool behaviour. The same is true of sex and violence (Sex and Violenceand Teens & Violence).
The Internet doesn't even begin to reach kids with the same impact Hollywood has (yet). And what about popular video games? Most are increasingly violent - some in very disturbing ways. For example, in Grand Theft Auto, you can kill someone, be paid for the deed and use your money to buy a prostitute (the sex isn't shown - you see a car rocking). Then when you both emerge, you can beat her to death to reclaim your money. What message is this sending to the young teens (and many younger kids) who play it?
Sure, let’s clean the Web, but before we march off singing and raising banners, let’s make sure we have our terms well defined and our targets legitimate. Let’s not trample freedoms and rights in our exuberance.
