8/12/2019 The_Socio

1/5

THESOCIO-CULTURALBASKET

Networks connecting computers existed long before the Internet. What makes theInternet different is its facilitation of various forms of human communication and

creativity. The major innovations of the Internet are the ways in which the Internetfacilitates new modes of communication (email! Web! multimedia". Thus! someauthors argue that the Internet is more a social than a technological phenomenon.It supplements traditional communication and as provides new forms ofcommunication of its own (e.g.! cybercommunities"! leading to the development ofa sociocultural aspect of the Internet. The sociocultural basket includes some ofthe most controversial issues in the whole field of Internet governance! such ascontent policy and multilingualism. These issues reflect today#s most prevalentnational! religious! and cultural differences.

CONTENT POLICY

$ne of the main sociocultural issues is content policy! often addressed from thestandpoints of human rights (freedom of expression and right to communicate"!government (content control"! and technology (tools for content control".%iscussions usually focus on three groups of content.The first group consists of content that has a global consensus for its control.Included here are child pornography &1'! justification of genocide! and incitement ororganiation of terrorist acts! all prohibited by international law (ius cogens".The second group consists of content sensitive for particular countries! regions! orethnic groups due to their particular religious and cultural values. )lobalised andintensive communication challenges local! cultural! and religious values. *ostcontent control in *iddle +astern and ,sian countries is officially justified as the

protection of specific cultural values. This often means blocking access topornographic and gambling websites &2'.The third group consists of politically and ideologically sensitive content. Inessence! this involves Internet censorship. -eporters without /orders0 hasreported a number of such cases in 1hina! /urma! and 2audi ,rabia &3'.

How Content Policy is Con!cte,n a la carte menu for content policy contains the following legal and technicaloptions! which are used in different combinations.

P!"lic #$o%e&n'ent(l) *ilte&in+ o, Content&'

The common element for governmental filtering is an -Internet Index0 of websitesblocked for citien access. If a website is in the -Internet Index!0 access will not be

granted. Technically speaking! filtering utilises mainly routerbased I3 blocking!proxy servers &.'! and %N2 redirection. 4iltering of content occurs in manycountries. In addition to the countries usually associated with these practices! suchas 1hina! 2audi ,rabia! and the city of 2ingapore! other countries increasinglyadopt the practice. 4or example! ,ustralia has a filtering system for specificnational pages! although not international ones &/'.

P&i%(te R(tin+ (n *ilte&in+ Syste's

http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e1http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e2http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e2http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e3http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e4http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e5http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e5http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e6http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e6http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e1http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e2http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e3http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e4http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e5http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e6

8/12/2019 The_Socio

2/5

4aced with the potential risk of the disintegration of the Internet through thedevelopment of various national barriers (filtering systems"! W51 &0' and other likeminded institutions suggested the implementation of user controlled rating andfiltering systems. In these systems! filtering mechanisms are builtin to Internetbrowsers. , label indicates the accessibility of particular content in a particularwebsite. The use of this type of filtering is especially favoured in accessing -childfriendly0 websites.

$eo-Loc(tion So,tw(&e

,nother technical solution related to content is geolocation software! which filtersaccess to particular web content according to the geographic or national origin ofusers. The 6ahoo7 8ase was important in this respect! since the group of expertsinvolved! including 9int 1erf! indicated that in :;

8/12/2019 The_Socio

3/5

The legal vacuum in the field of content policy! which characteried early Internetuse! provided governments with high levels of discretion in content control. 2incecontent policy is a sensitive issue for every society! the adoption of legalinstruments is vital. National regulation in the field of content policy may providebetter protection for human rights and resolve the sometimes ambiguous roles ofI23s! enforcement agencies! and other players. In recent years! many countrieshave introduced content policy legislation.

Inte&n(tion(l Initi(ti%es,t the international level! the main initiatives arise in +uropean countries withstrong legislation in the field of hate speech! including antiracism and anti2emitism. +uropean regional institutions have attempted to impose these rules oncyberspace. The primary legal instrument addressing the issue of content is the1ouncil of +urope ,dditional 3rotocol on the 1ybercrime 1onvention.The $rganisation of 2ecurity and 1ooperation in +urope is also active in this field.2ince C;;5! it has organised a number of conferences and meetings with aparticular focus on freedom of expression and the potential misuses of the Internet(e.g.! racist! xenophobic! and anti2emitic propaganda".The +D has initiated content control! adopting the +uropean 1ommissionecommendation against acism via the Internet. $n a more practical level! the

+D introduced the +D 2afer Internet ,ction 3lan &1'! which included the followingmain pointsA

setting up a +uropean network of hotlines for the reporting of illegal

content

encouraging selfregulation

developing content rating! filtering! and benchmark filtering

developing software and services

raising awareness of the safer use of the Internet &1.'.

Te Iss!es

Content Cont&ol %s6 *&eeo' o, E:8&essionWhen it comes to content control! the other side of the coin is very often restrictionof the freedom of expression. This is especially important in the D2! where the4irst ,mendment guarantees broad freedom of expression! even the right topublish Nairelated and similar materials. ,chieving a proper balance betweencontent control and freedom of expression is a considerable challenge.4reedom of expression largely shapes the D2 position in the international debateon Internet governance. 4or example! while the D2 has signed the 1ybercrime1onvention! it cannot sign the ,dditional 3rotocol to this convention! dealing withhate speech and content control. The Buestion of freedom of expression was alsobrought up in the context of the 6ahoo7 court case. The D2 will not step beyond

this line.

5o So!l "e Res8onsi"le ,o& Content Policy;The main players in the area of content control are governments. )overnmentsprescribe what should be controlled and how. Internet service providers and webmasters! as Internet and web -gateways!0 are commonly held responsible forimplementation of content filtering! either according to government prescriptions orto selfregulation (at least in regard to issues of broad consensus! such as childpornography". 2ome groups of individual users! such as parents! are keen to

http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e15http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e15http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e16http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e16http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e15http://campus.diplomacy.edu/Hdocs/#e16

8/12/2019 The_Socio

4/5

introduce a more efficient content policy to protect children. 9arious ratinginitiatives help parents to find childfriendly content. New versions of Internetbrowser software usually include many filtering options. 3rivate companies anduniversities also perform content control. In some cases! content is controlledthrough software packagesE for example! the 2cientology movement hasdistributed a software package! 2cienositter! to members! preventing access towebsites critical of 2cientology &1/'.

Notes

F. Timothy Gick (F.3. 2ee -Internet Dnder 2urveillanceA0 tt87'.

4. onathan Gittrain and /enjamin +delman! %ocumentation of internet

filtering worldwide ($pen Net Initiative"Att87

8/12/2019 The_Socio

5/5

11. 3ublished in the New $%ienti!tInternet editionA

tt87'.

14. 4or more information! seeA

tt87'.

15. +D Information 2ociety! -2afer internet action planA0

tt87'.

16. 2eeA 1hurch of 2cientology censors net access for members at

tt87