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.

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

Foundem Founder…MPs debate Google’s stranglehold on internet search

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from iptegrity.com

British MPs have called for Google to be regulated as a dominant player in the Internet industry. The call follows a complaint by a British-based price comparisons company to the European Commission. The MPs debated whether Google should be regulated in the context of its dominance as a search engine. The debate was prompted by the complaint by a British company, Foundem, to the European Commission. Foundem operates a price-comparison service for online shopping. According to the MP Dominc Raab, Conservative Member for Esher and Walton, Foundem has alleged that Google downgraded its search results, and acted anti-competitively in a way which was financially negative for Foundem. Mr Raab accused the regulators, Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, of complacency. He called on them to take action against companies abusing dominance. Search engines are the gateways to the Internet, and with a 95% share, Google is in a dominant position. If Google does not allow consumers to access potential competitors via its search engine gateway, they will be choked out of the market-place he said. Phillip Lee, member for Bracknell, pointing out that 90% of Britons use Google to find things online, accused Google of suppressing the growth of a business based in his consitutuency. I don’t think that one company having that much power is good for industry Ed Vaizey, the Minister responsible, gave his support to Foundem, but declined to take any further action because the issue is with the EU Commission.

Authentic Nutters…MPs ask for more secure authentication to watch satellite TV softcore

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from edmi.parliament.uk

Early Day Motion EDM 629: Children And Access To Pornography On Television 26.07.2010 by Barry Sheerman That this House deplores the easy access children have to pornography by means of satellite and cable television; and calls on Ofcom, the appropriate regulator, to amend its broadcasting code in order to ensure that access to pornographic material is only available via a secure authentication system. Signed Conservative Party Peter Bottomley Labour Party Tom Blenkinsop Jeremy Corbyn Glenda Jackson Barry Sheerman Liberal Democrats Mike Hancock Stephen Williams

Call to Nutter Duty…Keith Vaz will whinge at Parliament about latest video game

Read more Nutter Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from technology.timesonline.co.uk

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the latest in a series of first-person war games, features bloody conflict. It is so realistic that at some points a warning offers players the option to skip scenes. In the course of the ten hours or so the game will take to complete in solo mode, the player will assume a variety of roles in a global war against Russian ultranationalists led by Vladimir Makarov. One of the most controversial of these is an episode in which a character must choose whether to kill unarmed civilians in a Russian airport to infiltrate a terrorist group successfully. The scene is ‘so shocking’ that Activision, the game’s distributor, issued a statement. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled, it said. Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes. Nutters, however, have accused Activision of being disingenuous. Warnings of extreme content had a strong appeal to younger players, they said. Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, told The Times: I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks. Whilst I appreciate that this game has been certified as an 18, I firmly believe that certain levels of violence should not be made into interactive entertainment. This would include acting as a terrorist, as is the case here, or violence against women. I will be raising this issue in Parliament on Monday.

Nasty Legislation Draws Near…Dangerous Cartoon legislation ends its parliamentary scrutiny unamended

Read more Criminalising Anime at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to pbr on the Melon Farmers Forum

The Coroners and Justice Bill has just completed its 3rd Reading on the House of Lords and will now go back to the Commons to review the Lords amendments. There were no change to the dangerous drawings provisions though. Anime fans in particular should surely be at great risk with state bullies contending that indeterminate age anime features under 18 year olds.

Loaded with Fuddy Duddies…Parliamentary committee rants about lads’ mags

Read more Magazine News… at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from dailymail.co.uk

Nutter MPs have demanded tighter rules on how so-called lads mags’ are displayed in shops. The front pages of sexually explicit titles such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo should be concealed by plastic bags and placed on the top shelf of newsagents, they said. They also suggested cinema-style age ratings should be put on the front cover. The cross-party group of MPs called for urgent action to supposedly protect children and young people from the magazines and downmarket tabloids such as the Daily Sport. And they said if publishers and retailers failed to act, the Government should introduce tough laws. The display of lads’ mags is governed by a voluntary code of practice drawn up by the Home Office, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Periodical Publishers Association. This recommends retailers display them well above children’s eye level and away from children’s titles or comics. Labour MP Lindsay Roy and ten of his colleagues – including former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe and ex-not-so-Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell – believe the rules are being flouted. Roy, who represents Glenrothes in Scotland, has tabled a Commons motion to put pressure on ministers to act. He said a review of the guidelines must consider the availability of sexually graphic publications to children and young people, the positioning of them on the shelves of retailers, the potential for concealing them in bags and consider the question of age-rating them. His motion said young people were not emotionally equipped to deal with seeing, and reading about, sexual images. Sir Menzies said his natural inclination was against censorship…BUT…it is unacceptable such material could be displayed at the eye level of a six-year-old: The photographs and headlines on the front cover are pretty lurid. The present code does not seem to be working and so it needs to be tightened up considerably.

Thank Evan…Criminal libel, obscene libel and seditious libel to be abolished

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from indexoncensorship.org

Index on Censorship and English PEN welcomed MPs’ robust response in an adjournment debate to law firm Carter-Ruck’s challenge to Parliamentary reporting, and called on them to strengthen the public’s right to information by banning the use of so-called super injunctions except in extreme circumstances. Jo Glanville, Editor of Index on Censorship, said: The widespread use of super injunctions is a serious threat to media freedom in this country – and to the fabric of open democracy. It is essential that this debate marks the beginning of reform, so that individuals and companies are no longer free to gag the press and prevent information that’s clearly in the public interest from coming under scrutiny. Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said: The rights of Parliament are the rights of citizens. Unless Parliament is free to debate everything that MPs believe to be important, it can’t do its job properly. And unless the public is free to know what Parliament is talking about, we have closed government. Super injunctions compromise democracy and should be banned, except in extreme circumstances. MPs from the three main parties voiced their concerns about super injunctions and the impact of English libel law on free speech in an adjournment debate called by Evan Harris MP in the wake of the Trafigura affair, in which the law firm Carter-Ruck argued that a super-injunction prevented the media from reporting on a Parliamentary question asked by Paul Farrelly MP. During the debate, Denis MacShane MP called for the partners of Carter-Ruck to be called to the Bar of the House of Commons to account for their attempts to subvert Parliamentary democracy. MPs commended the work of Evan Harris, English PEN and Index on Censorship in raising awareness of the failings of English libel law. David Heath MP asked the government to confirm that the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which grants the media the right to report on everything in Parliament, is still in force. Responding to the debate, Bridget Prentice, Minister for Justice, said: It is not possible to fetter Parliament. She confirmed that the advice given by Carter-Ruck in their letter of 14 October to the Speaker was incorrect. She said: we are very concerned that super injunctions are being used more frequently, especially in libel. And she confirmed that the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 was still in force. Prentice promised further guidelines on the use of super injunctions and agreed that defamation law needs to be tightened up. She stated that the government would abolish the antiquated laws of criminal libel, obscene libel and seditious libel in an amendment to the Coroners & Justice Bill in response to pressure by Index on Censorship, Article 19 and English PEN.

Age of Micro-Managed Lives…Concern that age related internet sales restrictions can easily be extended to other products

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from out-law.com See also Bill’s Progress from services.parliament.uk

A proposal that will force online retailers to take extra steps to ensure that young people cannot buy or access inappropriate goods or material will moves one step closer to becoming law. The Online Purchasing of Goods and Services (Age Verification) Bill was set receive its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday. The Bill proposes making it a requirement for the providers of goods and services and the providers of specified facilities enabling the purchase of such goods and services to take reasonable steps, in certain circumstances, to establish the age of customers making such purchases. The proposed law refers to goods which it is already illegal to sell to people under the specified ages, such as 16 for cigarettes and 18 for alcohol. It had previously been introduced in the House of Commons but ran out of Parliamentary time. Some peers in the Lords raised objections to the Bill, though. The Earl of Erroll said that concerns over payments technology and over the scope of the Bill should cause concern:We must allow young people to buy things online. Many things are only obtainable that way nowadays – certainly the better bargains, he said. We must not outlaw methods of payment that will completely stop them buying anything. The Earl of Erroll also warned that the Bill was in fact not just about age-restricted goods but gave Government the power to bar access to other materials: The second major problem refers to unconstrained powers. Clause 1(2) provides that the Secretary of State can make regulations that could extend to things that are not covered by legal ages or goods and services covered under current laws. The legal duty to comply with these laws already exists, and I do not think that Parliament should micromanage people in how they do these things. We should not be passing laws just to send a message. That is not a good idea.

Can we Keep our Hands off the Net?…Parliamentarians ponder a rhetoric question

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from theregister.co.uk See also report Can we keep our hands off the net? [pdf]

An all-party group of MPs has recommended mandatory nanny filters for all mobile devices and data devices that can access the internet – and wants the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation secretive censor system extended to the whole world. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (Apcomms) today recommends: A global ‘notice and take-down’ regime is required, and if the IWF cannot provide it then someone else should. The reason for given for mandatory net filters is that the default child protection settings are different on different mobile networks and different devices. This is unnecessarily confusing for parents, and so the report recommends that the industry move to a consistent, and ‘safe’, arrangement. The Apcomms report Can we keep our hands off the net? considered the questions: Can we distinguish circumstances when ISPs should be forced to act to deal with some type of bad traffic? When should we insist that ISPs should not be forced into dealing with a problem, and that the solution must be found elsewhere? Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites? Is there a need for new initiatives to deal with online privacy, and if so, what should be done? Is the current global approach to dealing with child sexual abuse images working effectively? If not, then how should it be improved? Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute? Parliament and the Internet Conference Based on article from computerweekly.com In his introductory comments to the Parliament and the Internet Conference, Ed Richards seemed to think that the transition of Ofcom from a Broadcast to an Internet regulator was inevitable, as content and viewing habits moved across, albeit it raised many questions of practicality. He also spoke of the need to protect existing players as their traditional business models crumbled, while saying that legislation was needed to break the current spectrum logjam. Later in the conference, Derek Wyatt MP summarised the main conclusions from the apComms report Can we keep our hands off the Net? – also all to do with self-regulation rather than government interference. The day was, however, stolen by the delegates from the childrens IGF organised by Childnet. They went straight for the difficult issues that we were all avoiding: wanting open access with safety. They pointed out that our technology dependent, safety-first, if in doubt block it, censored feeds to schools got in the way of their supervised project work – because they could not access main stream sources, let alone any of the blogged commentaries on them. But they also wanted effective facilities to help guard against 24 by 7 on-line bullying.