[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] Der australische Kampf gegen die innere Natur des Internet
- To: debate@fitug.de
- Subject: [FYI] Der australische Kampf gegen die innere Natur des Internet
- From: "Axel H Horns" <horns@t-online.de>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:59:42 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site.
- Organization: PA Axel H Horns
- Reply-to: horns@t-online.de
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
[In Australien scheinen sich gerade die Ultrahardliner der "Wir-
regulieren-das-Internet-wie-den-Rundfunk -Fraktion durchzusetzen.
Hoffentlich breitet sich diese Denke nicht weiter aus. --AHH]
http://www.aba.gov.au/about/public_relations/newrel_99/101nr99.htm
------------------------------ CUT ----------------------------------
NR 101/1999
29 October 1999
Broadcasting, co-regulation and the public good
"National parliaments and industry bodies must work together on
schemes of self-regulation and co-regulation for the Internet which
sit within a broader framework of international cooperation," said Mr
Gareth Grainger, Deputy Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting
Authority today.
Mr Grainger was delivering the 1999 Spry Memorial Lecture in
Vancouver, Canada. Graham Spry was a champion of public broadcasting
in Canada and the Graham Spry Fund for Public Broadcasting was
created in 1996 in recognition of his work. The purpose of the
endowment which created the fund is to sponsor an annual public
lecture and related academic activities relevant to the promotion of
public broadcasting in Canada. Mr Grainger will also deliver his
address in French in Montreal on 2 November.
"Broadcasting and now the Internet make use of public property, the
airwaves and bandwidth. Broadcasting remains, and the Internet is
clearly emerging as, a means of mass communication of a particularly
intrusive nature. They enter our homes and workplaces, exercise
important influences on public life and national cultures. Their
content has been and remains, the latest research confirms in
relation to the Internet, a matter of considerable concern to the
public who wish to see national cultures preserved and enriched and
to see young people protected from inappropriate material," Mr
Grainger said.
"It is essential for policy makers and legislators, as they review
existing and prepare new rules for broadcasting and the Internet, to
revisit and restate the public interest objectives they believe
should apply to those industries and their governance. Sweeping
references to ‘the public interest’ may be less effective than a
clear articulation of the process concerns that legislators are
seeking to advance."
"National parliaments in democratic systems such as those of
Australia, the UK, and Canada provide the one legitimate
constitutional outlet for public concerns and it is entirely
appropriate that, even in an age of increasing internationalisation
of broadcasting and now the Internet, it be national parliaments
which set the rules for the regulation of these matters within
national borders. However, it is equally clear that activities such
as the Internet which are heavily transborder in scope must be
governed by rules which reflect major developments taking place
elsewhere in the world. International discussions are needed, and are
occurring right now, to allow governments, industries, users and
communities to help shape suitable rules for new media such as the
Internet."
"Co-regulatory or self-regulatory schemes for dealing with these
issues seem to require the existence of an umpire to oversee the
efficient and effective working of these schemes and to deal with
public complaints. It is appropriate for such umpires to be given
discretion to interpret the public interest objectives of such
schemes to decide their application to particular circumstances. Such
bodies will be assisted by the clear articulation of the
legislature’s public interest objectives to guide the regulator in
its efforts to allow the public good in specific cases."
"In relation both to broadcasting, a highly mature industry, and the
Internet whose usage is so diffuse, it is apparent that the most
appropriate means for dealing with governance issues is through the
healthy consultative interaction of governments, regulators, industry
and the community in schemes of self-regulation or co-regulation.
While legislators may well see industry self-regulation as the
sensible direction for communication industry governance to take, it
is difficult to see how such schemes will be genuinely effective
without some provision for industry umpires and for the safety valve
of public complaints processes.
"Whereas in the United States the US Constitution First Amendment
allows the free speech lobby to dominate discussion about self-
regulation, other countries with healthy democratic systems and
vibrant processes of open expression are able to seek a more
appropriate balance between the right to free expression and the
right of communities to nurture national and local cultures and to
protect children from harmful content. There is no one right way for
any nation to approach the manner in which we move forward in these
issues.
"In Australia we are now endeavouring to place online services on the
same footing as broadcasting and are applying a co-regulatory
framework governed by important public interest considerations. I
believe this has much to commend it. Other nations will make their
own decisions on what best meets community and industry needs for
this activity. However, I am absolutely convinced that at the end of
the twentieth century it is time for all of us who care about these
issues to reaffirm our faith in the overriding importance of the
public interest to ensure that healthy vibrant communications
industries are conducted for the public good."
------------------------------ CUT ----------------------------------