Britain’s Culture Minister believes that there should be an International Effort to rate the Internet, so that objectionable material won’t be viewed by children. An interesting notion, where websites would be rated, like movies shown in theaters. How he expects that to make any real impact is beyond me, but then he is also advocating where ISPs (Internet Servic Providers) provide a ‘child friendly’ option, where objectionable material isn’t accessed.

The minister, who called the internet a “dangerous place,” said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

He would also like to see internet-service providers (ISPs) offer parents “child-safe” web services where the only websites accessible are those stamped suitable for children.

Burnham also suggested the internet follow television’s example, which often doesn’t broadcast violent material prior to 9 p.m. There should also be a set time in which sites such as YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content, he said. ( source – CBC News )

Obviously Mr. Burnham doesn’t go online very much, or he would know that it is impossible to have an ‘adult time’ as they do on Television. I mean let us be serious here. When it is 8pm London time, it is just Noon my time, and gee, I speak English, so how does he plan to get that working?

Don’t get me wrong either, I believe kids should not see adult rated material, but I also firmly believe that the solution is more of Parents stepping up and monitoring what their offspring view online. I don’t just mean that they sit in the living room, having a drink or watching some assinine program like Surviver, while the kids are off in their bedroom talking on facebook or surfing Youtube.

While Mr. Burnham believes he isn’t attacking Free Speech, he is simply being a typical Bush/Harper Conservative. If they had things their way, only information approved by them and their masters, would ever be put out for the public to read, view.  The simple truth is, the obligation of what a child views, is not mine, or anyone else, but the parents of that child. It is their sole obligation to insure that their child isn’t viewing or engaging in objectionable behavior.

A parent needs to be looking over their kids shoulders, as they surf, and yes, it might be construed as invading their privacy, but come on, that is just a bunch of nonsense. It is the job of any parent, to protect their child. There is already sufficient warning labels out there, to insure that parents are informed of the content of a site. I use ICRA, Safesurf, and their are others, such as RTA.

The problem isn’t in labels, it is in the Parents not activating their parental filters on their computers. It is their obligation to activate them, not mine nor any ISP. The concept of insuring a child safe internet, means segregation, and censorship. Who is Mr. Burnham or anyone, to decide for you or me, what is and what isn’t appropriate for a child?

Do we restrict access to the Dictioary, or Wikpedia type sites, because they contain valid information regarding topics that some religious zealot finds objectionable, or some Parliamentarian? That is the end result, when you go down the road of censorship, and like all the attempts so far, it won’t work. It will fail, to protect children, but it will limit information, that could save their lives, could help eradicate racism, and hate.

Mr. Burnham, and other Conservative Wankers, need to realize, that the internet already has a working labelling system, and that they should look for other ways to boost their faltering public opinion stats, and find other ways to get re-elected. Perhaps if they spent more time dealing with the reality of today’s world, dealing with corporate greed, with political ambition over pulic safety, they might find more success in their re-election bid.