Internet Censors…House of Lords Committee recommends measures to move internet video to Ofcom style heavy handed TV censorship

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from openrightsgroup.org See House of Lords Communications Committee recommendations from publications.parliament.uk

The House of Lords’ Communications Committee are looking for ‘voluntary’ participation in Ofcom’s content regulation, but these kinds of voluntary arrangement are rarely truly voluntary. Usually the government threatens legislation if the required ‘volunteering’ doesn’t take place. These are the key paragraphs from the House of Lords Communications Committee recommendations : 204.  Ofcom should investigate the option of non-broadcast providers of TV-like services, such as Netflix and the content providers mentioned in Box 1, being invited to comply with an appropriate set of standards (the Broadcasting Code suitably amended for their environment) in return for some form of public recognition or kitemark. (Para 53) 211.  We urge the Government to ensure that cooperation on the regulation of converging media content, such as the category of TV and TV-like material, is included as part of the discussions between the EU and the US about the establishment of a free trade agreement. (Para 94) 221.  Specifically, Ofcom should be required, in dialogue with UK citizens and key industry players, to establish and publish on a regular basis the UK public’s expectations of major digital intermediaries such as ISPs and other digital gateways, specifically with regard to protecting UK audiences and their families when accessing content through digital intermediaries’ services, covering for example: The scope of their responsibilities (given they are not always in direct control of the content to which they provide access); Appropriate processes for receiving complaints and subsequent redress; Any specific measures, such as access controls, content classification systems, or other actions which the UK public might expect them to take in protecting children from harmful material. (Para 141)

Such Serious Issues Debated at Such Irresponsible Speed…Realisation that a whole host of tiny websites, including Big Brother Watch, would be covered by the provisions of the new press regulator

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

Big Brother Watch writes: As the bell tolls for press freedom, the realisation that a whole host of tiny websites, including Big Brother Watch, would be covered by the provisions of the new press regulator is dawning on Westminster. On Monday, the Lords will vote on the legislation underpinning the Royal Charter on press-self regulation. They will determine who is to be a relevant publisher and at present risks catching broadly any site that is has more than one author, carries news or information about current affairs, or gossip about celebrities, and has some kind of editorial control. We are urgently trying to garner support for the below amendment to exclude small organisations from the provisions of what is already becoming an unwieldy and unpredictable piece of legislative horse trading. This is not an ideal situation — as with most things formulated in meetings at 2am — and it would make much more sense for this to be handled rationally and thought through properly. This amendment protects a few, but the principle has already gone. We are still looking for a peer to table this amendment — any help is appreciated — please call the office on 0207 3406030. – Insert into New Schedule 5 of the Crime and Courts Bill Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher” 9) “A publisher who does not exceed the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise as defined in Section 382 and 465 Companies Act 2006.” Let us be clear The manner in which this has been brought to bear, in 2am meetings with lobbyists, no civil society input, rushed drafting and ill-considered consequences should not be the way to make law. Indeed, we cannot think of a worse way to make law. See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk Meeting Hacked Off The explosive revelations that websites will be included in the post-Leveson press regulation arrangements this weekend led to a flurry of analysis — and a meeting between Hacked Off, bloggers and free speech groups yesterday. See article from openrightsgroup.org

Inappropriately Wide Reaching…British Naturism points out that Elspeth’s Howe’s Online Protection Bill has become a Censorship Bill

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bn.org.uk

When first proposed, the House of Lords Online Protection Bill was of no concern to naturists, but it had the potential to become a concern. Originally the Bill proposed that children should be blocked from access to pornography, and pornography was defined as material intended to be sexually arousing. However amendments have been proposed which have increased the scope of the bill. Baroness Benjamin has put forward an amendment which would change the definition from pornographic images to adult content . Lord Morrow has also moved an amendment which would insert at an age appropriate level past the word content . The new line in the Bill would then read: Manufacturers of electronic devices must provide customers with a means of filtering adult content at an age-appropriate level from an internet access service at the time the device is purchased. The danger here is the lack of any definition of what the words adult and appropriate actually mean. There are several shortcomings in this Bill that absolutely must be addressed: Appropriate must be defined on evidence and facts, not emotion, myth, and prejudice; Classification must be evidence based; Emotion and prejudice are not evidence; Over-blocking is just as serious as under-blocking, both result in serious harm; It must be clear which filters provide protection and which ones support prejudice and may be harmful; Freedom of Expression is important and must be protected; Blocking of web sites that are not harmful to children is libel; Blocking web sites without justification is just as much censorship as preventing the publication of a newspaper. There must be a practicable means to find out if blocked and to contest the blocking. Unless there is real protection for Freedom of Expression then the manufacturers, software providers, and ISPs will minimise costs and filter everything that could possibly cause offence to anyone. That will cause considerable harm, not just to Naturism, but to society in general and to children and young people in particular.

Makes you doubt the health claims made by such ridiculous people…Casualty storyline stubbed out by Welsh PC pedants

Read more UK TV and Radio News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Nick See article from bbc.co.uk

A storyline in TV drama Casualty had to be dropped because of Wales’ anti-smoking laws, says the BBC. BBC Wales gave evidence in the Welsh assembly as it backed a law amendment to allow smoking to be filmed on set. AMs will vote on the issue in the spring. Smoking in enclosed spaces was banned across the UK in 2007 but in England there is exemption which permits smoking for drama recordings. The Welsh government wants to exempt film productions from the ban, in line with England’s. But anti-smoking groups ludicrously claim it would prompt calls from other industries to be exempt. Clare Hudson, head of BBC Cymru Wales Productions, said there were plans for Casualty to include a cautionary moral tale about a smoker causing a fire in a hotel. But AMs were told the legislation made filming the scenes too difficult to contemplate within the production budget and schedule, and a strong storyline which would have highlighted one of the hazards of smoking had to be changed to something else .

Good on the Lords…House of Lords passes amendment to remove insults from the Public Order Act

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

The House of Lords on Wednesday night voted to remove a shameful law that criminalises the use of insulting language in Britain. The upper chamber voted to erase the word insulting from the clause in the Public Order Act that covers speech and writing on signs which states a person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. It follows a long history of abuse by the authorities. MPs are likely to be asked to finally decide whether to vote down the Lords amendment early next year. A ComRes survey of MPs in May found 62% believed insults should not be illegal. In Wednesday night’s debate, peers said the government had concluded there was insufficient evidence that the removal of the world insulting would have overall benefits and urged their colleagues to vote against the amendment. It had been sponsored by the former West Midlands chief constable, Lord Dear, Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, the former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay. Campaigner Peter Tatchell said: The criminalisation of insults is far too subjective and constitutes a dangerously low prosecution threshold. Anyone who values free speech and robust debate should welcome its removal from section five. The section five ban on insults has been abused to variously arrest people protesting peacefully against abortion and campaigning for gay equality and animal welfare. The open exchange of ideas — including unpalatable, even offensive ones — is the hallmark of a free and democratic society.

Pub Music Delicensed…A very rare instance of censorship law being reduced in Britain

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  bbc.co.uk

Venues in England and Wales with a capacity of under 200 people no longer need a licence for live music, as long as it is not late at night. The change in law is part of a government move to free businesses from a little of the mass of red tape. Live unamplified music can also now be played in any location, regardless of the audience size, under the act. However, the government has made it clear there would be no changes on the rules controlling gatherings of more than 5,000 people, boxing and wrestling, and events such as lap-dancing clubs classed as sexual entertainment. Musicians and business owners have welcomed the change, which will allow live music to be played between the hours of 08:00 and 23:00. Jazz musician Buster Birch described the change as a huge thing , adding that live music is very important for our society and our culture . UK Music, which represents the music industry, estimates that the Live Music Act could enable 13,000 more venues to start holding live music events. Business Minister Michael Fallon said: From today businesses are freed from the red tape that holds them back. He described the previous rules that affected pub gigs and small live performances as over-the-top bureaucracy that stifles community groups and pubs. We’ve set ourselves the challenging target of scrapping or reducing a total of 3,000 regulations. I’m determined to slim down regulation and make Britain an easier place to start and run a business. The change was introduced through a private member’s bill, introduced by Liberal Democrat Don Foster. The success is a relatively rare example of a House of Lords private member’s bill making it into law.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3…Recommended by Keith Vaz in yet another parliamentary EDM

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from parliament.uk Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is available at UK Amazon

Early day motion 3014: VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES (No. 2) Primary sponsor: Keith Vaz That this House is reminded of the consequences of the ineffectual Pan European Game Information (PEGI) classification system for video games following the testimony of Anders Breivik about the tragic events in Norway in July 2011; notes that in his submission of evidence to the court Breivik describes how he trained for the attacks using the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare; is disturbed that Breivik used the game to help hone his target acquisition and the suggestion that the simulation prepared him for the attacks; is concerned that PEGI as a classification system can only provide an age-rating and not restrict ultra-violent content; recognises that in an era of ever-more sophisticated and realistic game-play more robust precautions must be taken before video games are published; and calls on the Government to provide for closer scrutiny of aggressive first-person shooter video games. Signed by: Bottomley, Peter Conservative Party Worthing West Hopkins, Kelvin Labour Party Luton North McDonnell, John Labour Party Hayes and Harlington Russell, Bob Liberal Democrats Colchester Vaz, Keith Labour Party Leicester East

Same Old Song…Parliamentary motion querying a lack of action about requiring state censorship of music videos

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from parliament.uk

Early day motion 2968: Age Ratings For Music Videos That this House is concerned about the lack of progress being made in the formulation and introduction of age ratings for music videos which currently are exempt from any restrictions in the UK; believes this to be totally unacceptable as many contain material which is often highly inappropriate for children in respect of language, violence and sexual imagery; is alarmed that despite promises made, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has so far failed to even establish a consultation process on this most important matter; and calls on the Government to act quickly to protect children from being exploited by such unacceptable commercial practices. Primary sponsor: Alan Meale, Labour, Mansfield Signed by: Peter Bottomley, Conservative, Worthing West Ronnie Campbell, Labour, Blyth Valley Martin Caton, Labour, Gower Katy Clark, Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran Jim Dobbin, Labour, Heywood and Middleton Mark Durkan, Democratic and Labour, Foyle Mike  Hancock, Liberal Democrats, Portsmouth South Margaret Ritchie, Social Democratic and Labour , South Down Steve Rotheram, Labour,  Liverpool Walton David  Simpson, Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann

Perry and the Blockheads…Claire Perry’s parliamentary inquiry reiterates her call for a default ISP block on adult content

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

Claire Perry’s parliamentary inquiry has reiterated her call for a default ISP block on adult content. Anyone wanting to view hardcore images online [or any other adult content such as Melon Farmers] would have to opt out of the default blocking, according to a panel of MPs and peers looking into child protection. Their report said that six out of ten children download adult material because their parents have not installed filters. The use of blocking filters in homes has fallen from 49% to 39% in the last three years. They concluded that parents were often outsmarted by their web-savvy children and felt unconfident in updating and downloading content filters. Many parents were oblivious to the type of material available on the internet and were often ‘shocked’ when they realised the content that children were accessing. Claire Perry, the Tory MP who chaired the non-governmental Parliamentary Inquiry on Online Child Protection, said: This is hugely worrying. While parents should be responsible for their children’s online safety, in practice, people find it difficult to put content filters on the plethora of internet-enabled devices in their homes. The inquiry called for ISPs to offer one-click filtering for all devices within a year. This would block out adult content for all domestic broadband users and stop them accessing pornography on mobiles and iPads as well as PCs and laptops. The inquiry said that the Government should launch an official inquiry into internet filtering and ministers should seek backstop legal powers to intervene should the ISPs fail to implement an appropriate solution. Carefully selected witnesses before the inquiry pointed to changes in the availability of hard-core images: As a result, more hard-core imagery is now available in the “free shop front” of commercial porn sites, the report said. It also found that only 3% of porn sites asked for proof of age and 66% did not contain any warning that they were for adults only.

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.