“We regularly see and deal with material, whether so-called ‘extreme reality,’ abusive pornography, or simply content that is unsuitable for the age group to whom it is addressed, where our intervention is clearly necessary,” the board wrote in its report.
Sue Clark, spokeswoman for the board, explained that people should be able to make informed choices about their web viewing, and that the board doesn’t seek to censor any content, just inform surfers. “Regulation, in this case, doesn’t mean banning or cutting,” Clark said. “It is about providing information.”
Logistically, there seems to be many flaws in the proposed ratings system critics say. Even if websites are properly labeled, what software or device would keep minors from accessing sites or content that is deemed inappropriate for their consumption?
“No one should assume that such material would be confined to established platforms such as film and DVD,” the report states. “Whether in a regulatory or an advisory capacity, we believe we have unique expertise and experience to offer.”
The film board’s proposal raises many interesting questions, according to The Guardian. With the Internet being a global community, how do you enforce standards across nations? Are sites not hosted in the U.K. still subject to the ratings panel? While movie ratings might keep children from attending adult films, how would content ratings apply to web surfing in the privacy of one’s home?
“It sounds like the most stupid intervention since the registration of fax machines and photocopiers in communist China,” Privacy International’s Simon Davies, who campaigns for freedom of expression, told The Times of London.
