Britain, Ofcom stand up against net censorship

In a stance set to upset all the right people, Ofcom and culture secretary Tessa Jowell have successfully argued against EU proposals that would make the government responsible for overseeing “taste and decency” issues on internet sites.

TV Without Frontiers, the European media regulation directive, had wanted national governments to be responsible for regulating such sites as YouTube and MySpace. Ofcom, backed by the government, argues that this plan was unworkable, and believes that internet users should be left to police themselves. Ofcom will regulate “TV-like” services, but not video clip and social networking sites.

Today’s outcome is testament to the substantial progress we have made in persuading our European partners to take our arguments on board

said creative industries minister, Shaun Woodward.


5 Responses to “Britain, Ofcom stand up against net censorship”

  1. [...] Apparently the British media watchdog, with pressure from the government have been laying it on thick in the Eurozone in the hope of convincing countries to vote against the silly net video regulation element of the ‘Television Without Frontiers Directive‘. [...]

  2. The fact that they’re passing this and retaining the violent pornography legislation suggests a certain lakc of arse-elbow coordination, but it’s a step in the right direction anyway.

  3. aharon says:

    Hummm.. From the gov’s point-of-view it might be coordinated well to the right.
    The unworkable online TVish tap screw legistlation stopage makes the gov. looks good on the Mail, the Sun, cbi, other anti europeans in general – and libertarians, whose opinion doesn’t matter anyway.
    Going through with the unworkable violent porn legistlation, keeps the good looks for the gov. on the right – and anyone else, can go to hell. (So long as they come back in time to vote labour next elections – offcourse!)

  4. Paul Tavener says:

    I suspect that Ofcom were more interested in stopping a totally unworkable regulation from making their lives impossible than any thoughts of the greater good. If it was easy to regulate the story might have been a bit different.

  5. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    huh. They don’t need to “regulate” the internet. They now just turn people into criminals for looking at things the government say are bad (but have not and cannot prove it) and throw them in jail.

    With such repression, who needs regulation ?