Freedom of speech has been debated ever since people became capable of communication. Now the internet removes past restraints – is this a problem or a solution?

Broadcast mediums like television and radio deal with content control in unique ways such as the watershed and content watchdogs that decide whether content is appropriate for the audience. The broadcast element of the internet doesn’t have this kind of strict regulation and is blended with one-to-one communication, so who decides what can and can’t be viewed and how do they make the decision?

It’s an understatement to even say this is a huge question that cannot be answered easily; it’s also a question that it seems no one wants to answer. This article isn’t here to answer this question, but it does take a snapshot of a tiny portion of issues to be addressed.

Governments

High levels of controversy surround the serious questions asked by governments, including the UK’s, as to what is and isn’t acceptable for the internet. Hot topics include the familiar suspects of religion, children, violence and sexually explicit material (usually combined). Internet specific issues include the monitoring of user generated content on the likes of YouTube and MySpace, protection of user data and its use for marketing and copyright infringement through file sharing; to name but a few.

Certain governments around the world are taking control into their own hands by actively blocking sites if opinions expressed on them contradict their own messaging or if they paint their activities in a bad light. Recent examples include blocks on Google, YouTube and the BBC imposed on the populations in China, Thailand and Turkey. In some instances the blocks are because content is deemed offensive to religious beliefs.

The UK government is beginning its research into possible regulations for the internet starting with user data protection and exposure of inappropriate content to children. It’s currently a softly, softly approach that is taking into consideration many factors through extensive research and consultation. This approach is being mirrored by the likes of the US and the European Union which result in educated advice and action.

Internet users

The internet is an entirely different kettle of fish to the likes of television and radio because its users request and generate content rather than sit back and absorb it. While large sites do have an element of broadcasting, nothing is forced on any person. The person has to actively click to view.

There is a lot of inaccurate and false information on the internet, yet the empowerment of people to discover truth through research, exposure and cross-comparisons makes it the most reliable source of information available. This puts forth the argument that internet users should be made free to decide for themselves what is and isn’t appropriate.

Access to anything is a scary thought, particularly for the vulnerable and more susceptible to messaging like children. Like the protection of children from bad language and 18+ films, the responsibility in this scenario falls back upon the parents or guardian. Companies like Apple and the manufacturers of computer game consoles Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are helping parents by installing built in internet parental controls in some of their products.

Industry

Arguably content producers do have to take responsibility and thankfully in most cases in the UK the more authoritative sites are doing just that. Issues largely begin to arise in two instances; when a small website or piece of content is made available that isn’t part of a responsible organisation or user generated content (UGC).

Search engines allow access to any content you can imagine and even some you can’t. This allows what people consider to be inappropriate content to be freely available because at the moment anyone can produce content online by starting a website, blog or simply posting a comment. Again, controls are available on search engines as long as people know they exist and then actively activate them.

The above does fall under the true definition of UGC, but the problems are caused by an entirely different ball game – companies that provide a website for users to upload content to for free. These companies make money from user generated videos, written content, images or social interaction. Some do offer percentages of profit to users and monitor some content, but few seem to actually monitor and regulate every piece of content.

Problem or solution?

Whether the lack of restraint giving anyone a voice is a problem or a solution depends on where you place the responsibility of the regulation of online content.

Giving everyone a voice means voices can also be found – surely a huge bonus for anti-terrorism and anti-criminal initiatives. If the user population is vigilant, they can draw the attention of police and publishers to inappropriate content.

Giving everyone a voice also offers the chance to be heard – not so good for pro-terrorism and crime. This means publishers and governments have to be given the right to take the responsibility and to decide levels of inappropriate content.

Like most things in life, there can't be a one sided answer and the situation is made worse by the fact that the internet is still constantly evolving. In a society that always wants to pass the blame, it is apparent that in this instance blame can't be passed and everyone is going to have take a portion of responsibility, be it at an individual or wider societal level. Whether individuals or society are capable of doing this responsibly is another matter and one that will define the shape of online content in the future.