We consider that the following raises questions of political importance. We make
no recommendation for its further consideration, but suggest that it would be relevant to the debate
we have recommended on the Information Society, (17467)9795/96:--
(17588)
-- |
Draft Council Resolution on illegal and harmful content on the Internet. |
| Legal base: |
None required, but the Resolution is to be adopted on the basis of unanimity. |
Introduction
11.1 The informal Council meeting of Telecommunications and Culture Ministers in
Bologna on 24 April 1996 identified the issue of illegal and harmful content on the Internet as an
urgent priority for analysis and action. On 27 September the Telecommunications Council agreed that
the Commission Working Party set up after Bologna should include, as well as representatives of
Member States, service providers, content industries and users of the Internet. It should present
proposals to combat illegal use of the Internet or similar networks, taking account of UK measures,
in time for the 28 November Telecommunications Council.
The draft Resolution
11.2 In the draft Resolution the Council would:
--recall the need to combat illegal use of the Internet in particular for offences against
children;
--recall the positive benefits offered by the Internet in lowering the barriers to the creation
and distribution of content and offering ever wider access to information;
--welcome the report of the Commission Working Party;
--take note of the Commission's Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet
and the Commission Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and
information services[23];
--suggest that the Commission and Member States should continue to co-ordinate the efforts of
groups working on Telecommunications, the Information Society and Justice and Home Affairs;
--invite Member States to start by:
(i) encouraging and facilitating self-regulatory systems, including
representative bodies for Internet service providers and users, effective codes of conduct and
possibly hot-line reporting mechanisms available to the public; and
(ii) encouraging the provision to users of filtering mechanisms and the setting
up of rating systems; for instance the PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) standard,
launched by the International World-Wide-Web consortium with EC support, should be promoted;
(iii) participating actively in an International Ministerial Conference on
dissemination of illegal material on the Internet which Germany, at the 8 October Industry Council,
offered to host;
--request the Commission:
(i) to foster co-ordination of self-regulatory and representative bodies and
promote and facilitate the exchange of information on best practice;
(ii) to encourage research into technical issues, in particular filtering,
rating, tracing and privacy-enhancing, taking into account Europe's cultural and linguistic
diversity.
The working party paper
11.3 This working party suggested that Member States, in addition to their powers
to take measures in the event of a service provider failing to comply with the rules of the
self-regulation system, or if the system ceased to function effectively, could require formal
approval by network operators and service providers of a Code of Conduct. This approval could be
made a condition of contracts between the two, provided that network operators were not required
to act as a regulatory body. The French made a proposal on these lines to a separate OECD working
party in Seoul on 22 October 1996.
11.4 The issues of liability and anonymity are touched on in the paper and the
suggestion is made that the self-regulators could in appropriate cases do searches to track down
illegal content.
11.5 The EU working party stressed that the proposals should be implemented, in an
appropriate framework, not only within the European Union, but internationally.
11.6 Finally, the working party sets out suggestions for action which might be
examined further by Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs. These are presented separately because
of the different legal status of Community involvement in this area.
The Government's view
11.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 11 November) the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State for Science and Technology (Mr Ian Taylor) says:
"The UK can support the draft Resolution. In particular it welcomes the emphasis on
self regulation by industry as consistent with the UK's approach. The UK believes that since a
legal framework for regulation of material on the Internet already exists in Member States (as
material which is illegal off-line is already illegal on-line, and vice versa), new laws or
regulation in this area are unnecessary. However, the Government endorses the emphasis in the
Resolution that self-regulatory mechanisms, led by industry, may be useful to facilitate enforcement
and co-operation on removal of illegal material.
"Following recent discussions between UK Internet service providers, the Home Office
and the police, facilitated by the DTI, Internet service providers recently launched a
self-regulatory initiative to address the problems of illegal material on the Internet. This
industry initiative, now called 'Internet Watch' (formerly known as 'Safety Net') incorporates three
elements:
Rating of Internet news groups and web pages to provide an indicator of
their 'normal' content. (Use of filtering and rating is a means whereby Internet users are enabled
to select categories of content which they prefer to receive or do not wish to receive). Internet
Watch endorses the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) standard;
Reporting of illegal material via a 'hotline'; and
Responsibility for content providers in rating their own pages, and for
service providers enforcing the removal of content which is illegal, or is persistently and
deliberately misrated.
"The UK's approach has met with a very encouraging reaction at the Working Party on
illegal and harmful content on the Internet, with most Member States agreeing that self-regulation
is the only possible approach."
Conclusion
11.8 The production of this set of proposals has been a remarkably swift response
to concern over illegal material on the Internet, no doubt because of intense political pressure
and because representatives of providers and users of a service played an active part in drawing
up proposals at an early stage.
11.9 The formulation of proposals was clearly assisted by the positive experience
of the Dutch "hot-line" and the work done by the Internet Watch. Their paper was
published on 23 September 1996.
11.10 The document is of political importance, but we do not recommend a debate
and so are clearing it. We suggest it would be relevant to the debate we have recommended[24] on the Information Society.
11.11 As the draft Resolution has been produced by the Presidency, there is no
formal document of the type we would expect to see if it were a Commission proposal. However, we
have seen the text that the Council will be considering and are clearing the document on that
basis.
23. Published by the Commission but not yet deposited.
Back
24. (17467) 9795; see HC 36-i (1996-97), paragraph 2 (30 October 1996).
Back
|
