Internet Companies Asked to Pro-actively Censor Social Media…Government committee seems to envy Chinese censorship of the press and internet

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from parliament.uk

In a report published on 27th March 2012, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions says Parliament should not introduce any new privacy statute. It concludes that in weighing the competing rights to privacy and freedom of expression, each case must be judged on its own merits. The bar for limiting freedom of expression must be set high, but the Committee says that the courts are now striking a better balance in dealing with applications for privacy injunctions. It rejects criticism that privacy law has been judge-made, noting that it evolved from the Human Rights Act. The Committee says the most important step towards improving protection of privacy is to provide for enhanced censorship of the media. The Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence to be truly effective. Substantial changes to press regulation are needed to ensure that it encompasses all major news publishers including, in time, major bloggers. The reformed media censor should: Have access to a wider range of sanctions, including the power to fine; be cost-free to complainants be able to determine the size and location of a published apology, and the date of publication play a greater role in arbitrating and mediating privacy disputes The body dealing with complaints should include representatives who have experience of working in the print media, but should not include any full-time employees of news publishers or individuals who have a demonstrable conflict of interest. To make self-regulation work, all publishers must sign up to the new regulator. One possible mechanism the Committee suggests is for advertisers to agree to advertise only in publications that are members of the press regulator and subscribe to its rules. A standing commission comprising members of both Houses of Parliament should be established to scrutinise industry-led press reforms and to report on them to Parliament. If the industry fails to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight. This could involve giving Ofcom or another body overall statutory responsibility for press regulation, the day-to-day running of which it could then devolve to a self-regulatory body. The Committee says that major internet corporations should take active steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. In addition, the Attorney General should be more willing to bring actions for civil contempt of court in respect of injunctions being breached online. It also concludes that parliamentarians should ensure that material subject to an injunction is only revealed in Parliament when there is good reason to do so. Gratuitous or repeated revelation of such information could lead to new parliamentary rules to prevent it. The media must be legally protected when reporting Parliament, and so qualified privilege should apply to the reporting of all proceedings in Parliament.

Blocking the Hidden Areas of the Internet…IWF publish their Annual Report for 2011

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from iwf.org.uk See 2011 Annual Report [pdf] from iwf.org.uk

The IWF press release leads on the new concept that child abuse images available on the internet are being hidden in secret portions of seemingly legitimate web sites. The IWF explains the issue: Criminals are disguising websites to appear as if they host only legal content. However, if an internet user follows a predetermined digital path which leads them to the website, they will see images and videos of children being sexually abused. There are several reasons why this method is used. Firstly, it masks the criminal website from those who have not followed the correct digital path. Secondly, it means that a commercial child sexual abuse business may be able to acquire legitimate business services if the website appears to host legal content when accessed directly — essentially tricking companies into providing their services for what is actually a criminal enterprise. These disguised websites have not yet been encountered on UK servers but the IWF is working with its Members — the online industry – and other Hotlines around the world to effectively tackle this trend. In general the report shows a very laudable near 100% focus on the blocking and taking down of child related material, and doing so speedily. A useful statistic from the IWF is the number of illegal domains detected. This has declined from a 2006 peak of 3077 domains down to 1595 in 2011. (although this is an increase from 1351 in 2010). Thankfully this seems a pretty low figure for a worldwide statistic. Presumably most of these have subsequently been taken down too. On the subject of illegal adult material, the IWF received 2779 reports. Only 2 reports were about material hosted in the UK and therefore actionable by the IWF. One of these cases ended up in material being taken down, the other had already been removed prior to action. Most of the other reports involved material hosted abroad. The IWF do not take any action in this case (presumably because the material is probably legal where it is hosted). There is no comment about whether the recent UK obscenity acquittal of fisting and urolagnia material has had any impact on the IWF definition of illegal adult material.

Ofcom Announce a Performance Review of ATVOD…An aborted ludicrous flat rate fee structure, rules that suffocate the nascent adult VOD industry, expensive fees just to adjudicate on a handful of complaints. ATVOD will pass with flying colours

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Christopher Wollard, group director of Ofcom, has written to ATVOD: Two years ago, Ofcom designated ATVOD (the Authority for Television on Demand) as co-regulator of editorial content included in on-demand programme services (‘ODPS’). Paragraph 13 of the Designation says that: The Designation shall be subject to a formal review by Ofcom at the expiry of two years from the date of this Designation taking effect [i.e. 18 March 2012]. We propose to take the opportunity of the formal review of the Designation to take a broader look at how co-regulation is working. To this end, the terms of the review, which have been agreed by Ofcom’s Content Board, are to: (a) assess whether Ofcom’s tests for co-regulation are still being met, and that ATVOD remains an appropriate regulatory authority (b) consider how ATVOD is discharging the designated functions and whether it is meeting the obligations and conditions (c) identify any issues arising from the co-regulation of ODPS that would merit further consideration (d) consider whether to continue the designation, and if so, whether there are any aspects of the designation that may require amendment Ofcom are keen to hear from stakeholders, particularly VOD providers. Contributions are invited up until 21st May 2012. Ofcom expect to announce the results of the review in summer 2012.

Can ‘Healing on the Streets’ Heal Belief in Nonsense?…Group of MPs challenge the ASA for banning adverts containing nonsense healing claims

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Sergio See article from totalpolitics.com

Last month the advertising censors at the ASA banned a christian group, Healing on the Streets – Bath, from making nonsense claims about their healing services. They censured a leaflet which stated: NEED HEALING? GOD CAN HEAL TODAY! Do you suffer from Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction … Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness? We’d love to pray for your healing right now! We’re Christian from churches in Bath and we pray in the name of Jesus. We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness. Now MPs from the Christians in Parliament group are challenging the ASA decision. Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem), have written to Chris Smith, Chairman of the Advertising Standards Agency: We are writing on behalf of the all-party Christians in Parliament group in Westminster and your ruling that the Healing On The Streets ministry in Bath are no longer able to claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions. We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made. It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible. On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision? You might be interested to know that I (Gary Streeter) received divine healing myself at a church meeting in 1983 on my right hand, which was in pain for many years. After prayer at that meeting, my hand was immediately free from pain and has been ever since. What does the ASA say about that? I would be the first to accept that prayed for people do not always get healed, but sometimes they do. That is all this sincere group of Christians in Bath are claiming. It is interesting to note that since the traumatic collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba the whole nation appears to be praying for a physical healing for him. I enclose some media extracts. Are they wrong also and will you seek to intervene? We invite your detailed response to this letter and unless you can persuade us that you have reached your ruling on the basis of indisputable scientific evidence, we intend to raise this matter in Parliament.