First Amendment & Free Speech

Internet Safety Month, Part 3: Operating Systems and Web Browser Controls

by on June 4, 2007 · 0 comments

This is the third in a series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts to coincide with “National Internet Safety Month.” The first installment in this series outlined the many excellent online safety organizations or websites that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance. The second installment discussed Internet filtering and monitoring tools and software. This installment will discuss how companies like Microsoft and Apple are integrating parental controls into PC operating systems and web browsers.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Internet Safety Month, Part 2: Internet Filters & Monitoring Tools

by on June 3, 2007 · 0 comments

In part 1 of this series, I noted that the Senate recently passed a resolution (S. Res. 205) declaring June “National Internet Safety Month.” The Resolution “calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.”

In conjunction with Internet Safety Month, I am posting a multi-part series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts. The first installment outlined the many excellent online safety organizations or efforts that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance. This second installment will discuss the burgeoning market for filtering and monitoring tools and software.

All the information in this series is condensed from my forthcoming Progress & Freedom Foundation special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” The booklet provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents deal with potentially objectionable media content, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, music, cellular phones, video games, the Internet, or social networking websites. We will be launching the booklet on June 20th with an event at the National Press Club.

Before discussing filters and monitoring tools, I want to again stress that these tools should not be considered substitutes for talking to our children about what they might see or hear while online. Even though various tools and strategies can help parents control the vast majority of objectionable content that their kids might stumble upon while online, no system is perfect. In the end, education and ongoing communication are vital.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Internet Safety Month, Part 1: Online Safety Metasites

by on June 3, 2007 · 7 comments

The Senate recently passed a resolution (S. Res. 205) declaring June “National Internet Safety Month.” The resolution was sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Vice Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). It also had 15 other bipartisan cosponsors. The Resolution “calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.” In a press release, Senator Stevens noted that “The Internet is no longer a luxury for American families, but a necessity. It is important to provide a safe online environment for children because use of the Internet is an essential part of our children’s education.”

I think this is a worthwhile goal, and Sen. Stevens and his Senate colleagues are to be commended for their focus on Internet safety education as opposed to the knee-jerk regulatory response we all too often see coming out of Congress on this front.

In a few weeks, I will be releasing my new PFF special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” The booklet provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents deal with potentially objectionable media content, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, music, cellular phones, video games, the Internet, or social networking websites.

I spend a great deal of time in the report dealing with Internet issues and online safety concerns since it is driving so much legislative and regulatory activity these days. I conclude that, even though it can be quite a challenge at times, parents do have the power to effectively control the Internet and online activities in their children’s lives. But, to do so, parents need to adopt a “layered” approach to online child protection that involves many tools and strategies.

Of course, it goes without saying that these tools and methods should not be considered substitutes for talking to our children about what they might see or hear while online. Even though various tools and strategies can help parents control the vast majority of objectionable content that their kids might stumble upon while online, no system is perfect. In the end, education and ongoing communication are vital.

Anyway, in conjunction with Internet Safety Month, I thought I would put together a multi-part series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts. This first installment will feature the many excellent online safety organizations or efforts that should be the first place parents begin their search for assistance.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 7 comments

A La Carte & the Senate Effort to Regulate TV Violence

by on May 31, 2007 · 4 comments

With the release last month of its report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, the FCC teed up the issue of regulating televised violence and tossed it over to Congress with a recommendation that lawmakers go ahead and swing for the fences. And Congress appears ready to oblige, although not necessarily in the way some at the FCC had originally envisioned.

You will recall that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used the FCC’s violence report as another opportunity to engage in his monomaniacal, Moby Dick-like quest to impose a la carte regulation on cable and satellite operators. Martin argued that “Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues.” But it doesn’t appear that the chairman is going to get his whale this time around.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Regulate In-Flight Movies & TV Content?

by on May 29, 2007 · 8 comments

The Washington Times recently reported that “A media watchdog group is criticizing Delta Air Lines for making the graphic HBO series ‘Rome’ and other bawdy shows available for in-flight viewing after a passenger complained that children could see nudity and sex scenes.” Apparently, the offending material was shown on overhead movie screens during a May 6 flight from Atlanta to Duesseldorf, Germany. According to the Times article:

Delta officials say the programs were intended as an option for viewing on private screens in the back of the airplane’s seat and were shown on the public overhead screens by mistake. “As soon as our flight attendants became aware it was being shown, it was cut off and we made an immediate apology to passengers,” said Betsy Talton, a spokeswoman for Atlanta-based Delta.

But a passenger who lodged a complaint with the captain during the flight and got the flight attendants to cut off the program, also notified the media activist group Morality in Media, which fired off a news release about the incident to the press last week.

I found this incident interesting because I’m about to release a new book entitled “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” As the title implies, it’s a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents deal with potentially objectionable media content, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, music, cellular phones, video games, the Internet, or social networking websites.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

I’ll Take the Frying Pan Over the Fire

by on May 29, 2007

Via Ars Technica, here’s a Quad-Cities Online report on the state of Illinois using $1 million in taxpayer dollars to fund litigation in support of an unconstitutional ban on video game violence. The money was taken from other budget areas, including public health, welfare, and economic development.

The ideal would be to give the money back to taxpayers. It rightly belongs to them. But given the choice between using the funds to erode free speech rights or using them to support the welfare state, I’ll take the welfare state.

SHARE:

Back to Muzak? Heritage Report on the Fairness Doctrine

by on May 24, 2007

Last week, Nancy Pelosi reportedly put the Fairness Doctrine in play in Congress — stating that the House leadership would aggressively pursue its restoration. At this point it’s unclear how serious she is about it — will there be a real effort to reimpose this relic of the 1940s, or is this just a bone for the Rupert-and-Rush-Need-to-Be-Stopped Left?

One thing is clear — serious or not, its a bad idea. I explain why is this just-released Heritage paper.

SHARE:

Making a Stink about Smoking in Movies

by on May 21, 2007 · 6 comments

(I had a major computer meltdown last week, so I’m a little late getting to this issue but..) The MPAA recently announced that it will take into account depictions of smoking in a movie when considering its rating. Apparently, it will now be more likely that a movie’s rating is more stringent if we see characters lighting up on screen.

Private ratings systems occasionally evolve to take into account changing societal norms, but this recent change to the MPAA system seems to be influenced more by politics. Excuse the pun, but there’s obviously a lot of groups out there today that make a stink about smoking. They are certainly welcome to pressure movie producers and other media providers to eliminate smoking from their art, but when they threaten government regulation as an alternative it’s an entirely different matter.

One wonders where the line will be drawn now that smoking has been deemed worthy of an “R” rating. Would a serious drama depicting drug or alcohol abuse that contained no other offending material also automatically qualify for a higher rating? If not, why not?

The best way to address this issue is with more education, not censorship. There has been no shortage of education campaigns and PSAs about the dangers of smoking over the past decades. Those efforts have made a difference. Smoking is less glamorous than ever before and the risks of smoking are widely understood. Critics should stick to those efforts instead of threatening artists with regulation if they don’t purge any depictions of smoking from their craft.

SHARE: 6 comments

Congress: In A Rush to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

by on May 15, 2007 · 10 comments

The American Spectator reported yesterday that House leaders have decided to “aggressively pursue” reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine this year. In January, Rep. Dennis Kucinich raised a stir by saying he would pursue the issue, but — while always entertaining — the far-left Kucinich doesn’t always speak for his party’s leadership. The Spectator report indicates that that leadership is now behind the effort in a big way.

The report also includes some mind-bogglingly frank statements by a House staffers on the reasons for the effort. “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it,” a “senior advisor to Pelosi” is quoted as saying. A Government Reform committee staffer is then quoted as saying: “Salem [Broadcasting Co.] is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can’t shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him.”

The quotes are amazingly reminiscent of statements by Richard Nixon and his staff, who routinely used the Fairness Doctrine to cow opponents in the media. The surprising thing, though, isn’t the sentiment — most everyone after all knows the political dimension of this issue — but the fact that staffers would let themselves be so quoted. The statements sound (suspiciously) more lilke GOP talking points on the issue than anything a halfway experienced staffer would let himself utter.

If these quotes are accurate, however, those of us on the anti-regulation side may as well put our pens away now. We couldn’t possibly make a better case against this regulation than those staffers have.

The question then would be: will they get equal time to rebut their own arguments?

SHARE: 10 comments

new PFF report & event on regulating TV violence

by on May 14, 2007

Legislation is expected to be introduced in Congress very soon that would regulate television programming deemed to be “excessively violent.” This follows the release of the FCC’s recent report calling on Congress to act and to give the agency the power to regulate such programming on broadcast television and potentially even cable and satellite TV.

In response to these proposals, I wanted to draw your attention to an event that I will be hosting this week as well as a new study (and a few old ones) that PFF has published on this issue:

(1) EVENT THIS FRIDAY: PFF will be hosting a congressional seminar this Friday, May 18 from Noon-1:30 on “The Complexities of Regulating TV Violence.” The event will take place in Rayburn House Office Building , Room B354. Panelists will include:

* Henry Geller, Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
* Robin Bronk, Executive Director, The Creative Coalition
* Robert Corn-Revere, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
* Jonathan L. Freedman, Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and Author, Media Violence and its Effect on Aggression

If you are interested in attending this free seminar, please RSVP here: http://www.pff.org/events/upcomingevents/051807complexitytvviolence.asp

(2) NEW STUDY: PFF has just released a new study, “The Right Way to Regulate Violent TV,” which outlines the many ways parents have to deal with potentially objectionable media content, including violent programming. The 23-page study highlights the many technical and non-technical parental control tools and methods that families can use to tailor video programming to their own needs and values. In the report, I argue that:

Continue reading →

SHARE:

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →