SPEECH/06/374
Viviane
Reding
Member of the European Commission responsible for Information Society and
Media
Freedom of the media, effective
co-regulation and media literacy: cornerstones for an efficient
protection of minors in the European
Union
ICRA Roundtable Brussels "Mission Impossible” Brussels, 14
June 2006
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am glad to have this opportunity to set out briefly what the Commission is
doing to protect child safety while upholding the principle of freedom of
expression.
In April this year the Commission set out its priorities for implementing the
international policy commitments made at the successful World Summit on
Information Society (Tunis, 16-18 November 2005). These priorities include
safeguarding and strengthening human rights, in particular freedom of expression
and the freedom to receive and access information.
I said then "The European Union must be at the forefront of an open,
accessible and undivided worldwide Information Society and of a free exchange of
information, ideas and opinions around the globe".
The Commission welcomed the clear and unequivocal statement of the World
Summit on the primary importance of the information society for democracy and
the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; in particular the freedom
of expression and opinion, as well as the freedom to receive and access
information.
It is nevertheless important to remember that free speech does have limits.
This is true in all democratic countries as seen, for example, in laws against
defamation of a person’s reputation.
There may well be disagreements between America and Europe about where
exactly to draw the line – US treatment of “hate speech” as
protected speech unless it is a direct incitement to physical violence, and the
laws several European countries against denying the historical reality of the
Holocaust are probably the most visible examples of this.
However, if you take a broader world view, the similarities of approach in
democratic countries are obviously much greater than the differences. The same
cannot be said for all countries
As you may know, not long ago I was in Beijing to discuss the Information
Society. I took the opportunity to underline the importance of freedom of
speech. However, it was quite clear that in too many countries, governments have
very different views about it, particularly when it comes to allowing people to
criticise the government.
That is why in its Communication in April the Commission noted with concern
the cases of cyber-repression: that is the misuse of ICT by repressive regimes
to restrict the free flow of information on the Internet. The Commission
encouraged the companies concerned to work on a code of conduct on this crucial
issue, in close cooperation with NGOs.
Even though the Commission feels strongly about freedom of expression and
freedom of the media, we also believe strongly in industry taking a pro-active
role in dealing with the issue of protection of minors when using old and new
media. Industry has a great opportunity to show how it can provide parents with
the necessary information and tools so that they can decide what content they do
not wish their children to be confronted with. A good example is the PEGI
classification system for videogames that has been put in place by the
industry.
Self-regulation works best when it has a clear legal framework to support it
– that is what is meant by “co-regulation”. A co-regulatory
system is one where public authorities accept that the protection of societal
values can be left to self-regulatory mechanisms and codes of conduct, but where
they reserve the right to step in in case that self-regulation should prove to
be inefficient.
The Commission has proposed last December a modernisation of the TV without
Frontiers directive to take account of the convergence of technologies. This is
now a reality for consumers. The same content can be delivered over different
platforms – it is now possible to watch football World Cup highlights on a
mobile phone. Convergence is changing the marketplace – many Europeans are
subscribing to “quadruple play”, where the same provider offers a
single subscription for television, broadband Internet, fixed landline and
mobile phone.
This is why the Commission has proposed that there should be certain basic
rules which should be applicable to all audiovisual content services, whatever
the delivery platform – whether free-to-air television, cable or satellite
TV, or the increasing variety of services available over the Internet and mobile
phones.
• protection of minors,
• prohibition of incitement to hatred,
• identification of the media service provider,
• identification of commercial communication,
• prohibition of surreptitious advertising
• clear rules on product placement and sponsoring, and
• some qualitative restrictions on advertising (e.g. for alcohol or
advertising targeted at minors).
Let me underline one crucial point about the modernisation of the Television
without Frontiers Directive: This Directive is not about new restrictive
provisions but about giving effect to the freedoms of the Treaty and a
consistent implementation of fundamental rights in a media world without
technological borders. One of the basic principles of the European Union is,
indeed, freedom of expression and hence the fundamental importance of media
freedom and media pluralism. This right is enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as in the European Convention
on Human Rights. The new Directive on Audiovisual Media Services, once adopted,
will give effect to this right. It is now for the representatives of
Europe’s citizens in the European Parliament and in the Council to debate
these proposals and to decide. I firmly believe that they strike the right
balance.
Let me stress that the new proposal encourages explicitly co- and
self-regulatory regimes, particularly for non-linear services – such as is
typical in the Internet where the user decides what content to receive from what
is available, and when. The sole condition for these regimes to replace
regulatory instruments is that they are broadly accepted by stakeholders and
provide for effective enforcement.
The ICRA-system could very well become such an accepted co-regulatory system.
I do not need to remind you that in November 2004, the System
„ICRAdeutschland“ has already been admitted as such a co-regulated
form of self-regulation for a test trial of 18 months by the German Commission
for the Protection of Minors. I am confident that also at EU level, the new and
unique openness of the modernised Television without Frontiers Directive to
co-regulation will encourage ICRA and other self-regulatory bodies to work
towards recognition in all EU Member States.
The Commission has not only proposed legislation laying down rules for
audiovisual service providers: it firmly believes that rating and labelling of
content combined with media literacy and technological solutions, such as user
controlled filtering, are key tools to address these important issues. This is
the reason why the -Directorate General for Information Society and Media has
initiated a new expert group on audiovisual media literacy, from which I expect
the identification of best practices.
The necessary mix of self- and co-regulation, of technical measures and of
media literacy initiative is reflected as well in the 1998 Recommendation on
Protection of minors in the online environment, which offers guidelines for the
development of national self-regulation regarding the protection of minors and
human dignity. Self-regulation is based on three key elements: first, the
involvement of all the interested parties (Government, industry, service and
access providers, user associations) in the production of codes of conduct;
secondly, the implementation of codes of conduct by the industry; thirdly, the
evaluation of measures taken. The Commission has proposed to modernise the 1998
Recommendation – the new text is now close to adoption by the European
Parliament and Council. It builds upon the original 1998 Recommendation, which
remains valid, in order to be able to keep up with the challenges which
technological developments. Among topics covered are media literacy or media
education programmes; and cooperation and the sharing of experience and good
practices between regulatory and self-regulatory bodies, which deal with the
rating or classification of audiovisual content.
The Safer Internet programme provides funding for two European networks
– the network of hotlines which allow reporting illegal content and the
awareness-raising network which provides information for parents teachers and
children on how to use the Internet safely. An important part of the
awareness-raising is Safer Internet Day, of which I am the patron. This is an
annual event which has now been celebrated 3 times involving in 37 countries.
Safer Internet Day 2007 will involve yet more countries and organisations, with
a large number of awareness raising events, including one which the Commission
will organise in Brussels. Last, the Safer Internet Forum provides a platform
for stakeholders to discuss issues of using new media safely and to look for
common approaches.
I wish you fruitful discussions here in Brussels, both in the interest of
freedom of expression and of the efficient protection of minors.
|