In Thursday's Alligator, Rebecca Ganzak wrote in her column that she feels there needs to be regulations governing the "appropriateness" of content available on the Internet. I feel that the actions proposed in Thursday's column are the wrong ones to take.
The writer seems to assume that there is a wide-reaching government regulatory committee that oversees all television programming and ensures that inappropriate content does not find its way to the eyes and ears of children. However, this is not the case.
According to the Web site of the Federal Communications Commission, the government regulatory commission that oversees television and radio, it only regulates indecent and profane content on broadcast stations. Obscene content does not fall under First Amendment protection. However, they do not regulate cable or satellite broadcasts, nor violence on any channel.
So, the "government regulations" on TV apply only to sexual content and foul language on broadcast stations, such as the major networks and local channels. In fact, most of the "regulations" on television are self-imposed by the broadcasters to keep their shows accessible to a wide audience.
Most of the outrage expressed in the column seems to stem from the "disturbing" videos the writer has viewed on the Internet. One video mentioned is that of a group of teenage girls beating up another 16-year-old girl. In the column, the writer expressed outrage that such a video was online for anyone to see. She also mentions that she was unsure of whether the video was on YouTube or MySpace.
In fact, the video is not on either of those sites. If it ever did make it to those sites, it was removed due to its breach of the terms and conditions of use. Instead, this disturbing video is posted prominently on most Central Florida news Web sites. I found it on both the Orlando NBC affiliate WESH and the Orlando Sentinel Web sites. Based on the WESH video, it appears that the video was on their nightly broadcast, a show that is governed by the regulations the column's writer wants imposed on the Internet. So in reality, this admittedly disturbing video was broadcast over television, but YouTube would not host it.
Much like television broadcasters, sites like YouTube self-regulate the content posted there. And this self-regulation is the right way to control content. Most sites have comprehensive terms of service agreements, which prohibit the posting of questionable material. The only reason these videos sometimes appear is that it is impossible for YouTube or other sites to know and judge the content of a video before it is uploaded.
Well, why not just have every video screened by a human before going online? The sheer volume of videos posted every minute would make that impractical. As it stands now, the staff reviews any video that YouTube receives a complaint about, and if the video is inappropriate it is removed.
Another issue with regulation of the Internet is that YouTube and MySpace are not the only places to host videos on the Internet. Anyone with an Internet connection and computer know-how can set up their own Web server and host videos from their own computer. How is the government supposed to regulate this? Unless they restrict where and how you can post videos online, there is no feasible way to do this. And if you start restricting the Internet in this manner, it becomes a very slippery slope indeed.
The awesome thing about the Internet is that it allows for personal expression to reach a worldwide audience. In fact, in addition to the column calling for regulations on the Internet, Thursday's Alligator featured student entrepreneurs who used the Internet to start their own businesses. So while the freedom of the Internet has a downside, it is much more of a shining positive that allows for anyone anywhere to have a voice as big as the next person.
So how do we deal with inappropriate material? The best way will always be parental supervision. Just like television, parents should keep tabs on what their child is watching, and yes, posting on the Internet. The beating of the 16-year-old girl stemmed from remarks she posted on MySpace. This is not to say that the response was warranted, but if their parents were keeping track of what they did online, there would have been warning flags long before this brutal attack.
There are already dozens of companies selling parental guardian software designed to help protect kids online. It is the parents' responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their children and to enforce that. The problem is that most parents don't seem to put in the effort needed to know what their kids are doing online. And no amount of government regulations will fix that.
Kevin Dion is a digital arts and sciences senior.
