UK Culture Secretary Wants Website Ratings, Censorship 377
kaufmanmoore writes "UK culture secretary Andy Burnham calls for a website rating system similar to the one used for movies in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. He also calls for censorship of the internet, saying, 'There is content that should just not be available to be viewed.' Other proposals he mentions in his wide-ranging calls for internet regulation are 'family-friendly' services from ISPs, and requiring takedown notices to be enforced within a specific time for sites that host content. Mr. Burnham wants to extend his proposals across the pond and seeks meetings with the Obama administration."
Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
I think I speak for everyone here when I say: "Good luck with that".
He doesn't seem big on human rights. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't like the man. he was previously in charge of identity card legislation and was also a big supporter of the right of the state to detain 'terrorist suspects' for 42 days without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
Re:The IWF's competence is unequalled! (Score:1, Informative)
Why is this rated funny? Surely it must be the result of several mis-clicks while aiming for "informative"...
Re:Free speech (Score:5, Informative)
No. There is categorically no legal right to free speech in the UK. There is also no right to remain silent either. In the 1980's the UK government censored the voices of the IRA (for good old fashioned terrorism reasons). This resulted in TV stations trying to get around it with a loophole, by using the voices of actors.
Also, if you remain silent in court this can be assumed as evidence of guilt.
People assume the UK has always been free, however in truth it never has been. It's just that recently it has become terrifyingly unfree, and becoming more so every day that the Neues Arbeit Regime remains in power.
Re:Free speech (Score:1, Informative)
I fail to see your point [wikipedia.org]
Re:Free speech (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Noooo (Score:5, Informative)
The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material.
As of the Video Recordings Act 1984 [wikipedia.org], video can only be legally sold or hired if it has been classified. (Consider the recent case of Manhunt 2 as an example.)
Indeed, the BBFC's name changed from "censors" to "classification" at the same time that the Act changed their job from that of classification to censorship. As summed up in a House of Lords debate [theyworkforyou.com]:
"On Report, I spoke about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I did not repeat one of the juiciest pieces about it. Until that time, we had a British Board of Film Censors, which was not a censorship board. It classified films, and if it refused to classify them, they could still be shown with the permission of local authorities. The Video Recordings Act 1984 changed the board from being a classification board to being a censorship board because if a video recording was not approved by the board, it could not be shown at all. From being a classification board, it became a censorship board, but its name changed from being a censorship board to a classification board. George Orwell would have been proud."
but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.
That's one reason, but the class of material they will refuse to classify is slightly broader than that (e.g., see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php [bbfc.co.uk] ).
Now having said that, I agree with the main point of your post in that the problem is with the laws rather than the BBFC - in this case, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Obscene Publications Act (not to mention a new law that as of January 26 will criminalise possession of adult images considered "extreme" by the Government).
Re:Free speech (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Free speech (Score:5, Informative)
There is also no right to remain silent either.
Yes there is - the caution you receive when arrested in the UK is as follows:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence."
You are under no requirement to answer anything during questioning - you can sit there as mute as anything and the police cannot do anything about it.
Also, if you remain silent in court this can be assumed as evidence of guilt.
No it can't, not in any court within the United Kingdom. Staying silent may harm your defence, as noted in the caution you are given, but it can never be used as a presumption of evidence of guilt.
Radio Four interview with Burnham (Score:5, Informative)
I think someone in Government had put a heavy paw on his shoulder in the interim because there was a interview on BBC Radio Four a few minutes ago in which he was much more reasonable - the word "voluntary" was used repeatedly and "censorship" was omitted - and, in any case, there was a counter-interview (didn't catch the interviewee's name or affiliation) which tore the whole thing to shreds - the probability of 100 per cent international cooperation on this issue was zero and, in the end, "policing" would best be done by parents taking responsibility rather than some half-baked State attempt which would be full of holes even before it was switched on.
In passing:
1. The Telegraph is a Tory newspaper and Burnham is Labour, so I can be sure that the most negative spin possible was put on the interview;
2. The notion of the British government negotiating with the US government on this issue is risible - the President-elect, as a former professor of constitutional law, would presumably tell it to retreat across the Atlantic with all possible haste.
Re:Free speech (Score:5, Informative)
There is a legal right to free speech - but no _absolute_ right to free speech - in the UK or any other EU state. To quote from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The exception for "protection of health or morals", in particular, opens up huge holes.
Re:2009 will not be the year of the Linux Desktop (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free speech (Score:3, Informative)
Constitutional monarchy doesn't really mean that, Sweden and the Netherlands are constitutional monarchies, and they have a proper constitution.
The UK doesn't really have a constitution but a collection of old laws, statues and treaties, such as the English Bill Of Rights, the Magna Carta, and the Act of Settlement; and the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy.
Under Parliamentary Supremacy anything can be changed by a mere act of Parliament, it is only because of convention and tradition (and of course threat of electoral defeat) that stops Parliament from imposing things like the death penalty for speeding.
Re:Free speech (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. For one thing, it may not prolong its term outside the set limit. See the Parliament Act 1911, amended 1949.
Re:He doesn't seem big on human rights. (Score:3, Informative)
Not only is he an advocate of "42 days", he is also a total despotic hypocrite. from the Telegraph article:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3965513/Labour-doesnt-understand-the-internet.html)
So, it is as "a parent", that he demands something that is "impractical" and unnecessary (in his household)? Nope, it is exactly like a dead-beat politician that he is acting.
Re:Noooo (Score:5, Informative)
The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material. It can withhold certification, but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.
Nope, this is far from true. Firstly, as someone has already pointed out, it's illegal to show unclassified films or rent/sell unclassified DVDs and videos. (I think the Government was planning to extend this to the web.) Secondly, the BBFC can and do demand specific cuts in material. Thirdly, while if the material in question will breach criminal law (including the OPA) the BBFC do refuse to classify it, it's not the only reason why.
For example, any film that depicts explicit sex acts can only be rated as R18 [bbfc.co.uk], which means it's not allowed to contain any violence (including violence not linked in any way to sexual activity), the infliction of pain, humiliation, sex portrayed as non-consensual, or "any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent". The last one is generally interpreted by the BBFC to prohibit anyone being shown tied up and gagged in an R18 film. Basically, anything kinky is risky. (A fairly large percentage of R18s, about 20-30% of those rated this year, have BBFC-imposed cuts.) This may have made sense, once upon a time...
Also, the BBFC have various other odd... quirks, which aren't officially documented by them. For example, they don't like nunchucks, so those often get cut - including in 18-rated films. Plus, if the BBFC think a film contains any depiction of criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, "horrific behaviour or incidents", or sex that may harm potential viewers or cause them to act in a way harmful to society, they are legally required to ban it. Yes, the law really is that vaguely-worded.
More specifically, anything that could be taken to encourage the use of illegal drugs is banned - including a DVD extra from Weeds Season 2 [bbfc.co.uk] which is a parody of cookery shows discussing different varieties of weed. Additionally, anything dangerous that they're worried children might copy is also banned - often at all classifications. This includes stuff like "combat techniques, hanging, suicide and self-harm".
It's worth noting that over the past 10-15 years the BBFC has trended towards permissiveness, granting certification to previously 'banned' films, often attracting the ire of politicians in the process and effectively pushing the boundaries of what can be considered (legally) obscene material.
That's mostly because, in retrospect, those banned films don't look nearly as nasty as they were originally made out to be. Also, don't expect this to last - it looks like the Government are trying to get more control over the BBFC.