Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-343"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.14.3-343"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Pack, how much television violence can a child tolerate? The question is not nearly as easy to answer as some people think. And that is one of the findings that has come out of the highly commendable “Study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting” that is the subject of the Commission communication. Despite an impressive number of international studies, there is still no clear evidence of any direct link between violence and media consumption. Someone may commit a particular act under the influence of an image seen on the media, but that does not mean that the cause of that act is also to be found in the media image. That is a most important finding, for we must not overshoot the mark in our legitimate concern for the well-being of children and young people and, in particular, we must not mistake the real causes of the sad reality of youth violence.
Youth violence is the result of a build-up of several factors, such as experiencing violence in the family, suffering serious social disadvantages, having poor chances for the future because of lack of education, which leads to frustration, which in turn finds its outlet in violence. That fits in with the experience I myself have gleaned during ten years of voluntary jury service at a number of juvenile courts. Technical measures to control television offerings cannot resolve these problems.
Fortunately, however, the vast majority of children and young people grow up in an environment free of all these types of problem. That is the best youth protection there can possibly be. Here we see parents who are committed to passing on their own moral values and life experiences to their children. As a rule these are rooted in a particular cultural, social and societal background. Systems of parental control must therefore also leave room for individual action on a pluralist basis. That is also what the Commission is seeking to do, with reference to the findings of the study. Basically, the report we are to vote on here also supports that approach. At the same time, of course, no-one disputes that media images can influence moral values.
But we must make it equally clear that even if we place our confidence in a differentiated supply of filter systems, that in no way takes away from broadcaster responsibility. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport has therefore called in so many words for the programme and provider responsibility to be established. That is and remains mainly the task of Member State legislation, although it certainly does not preclude a consensual agreement on certain basic values in a dialogue with all concerned at European level. Finally, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport also considered it important to urge the Commission to extend all youth protection measures to multimedia offerings of all kinds, since images of violence and other harmful content are certainly no longer confined to conventional television. Europe’s children have been surfing the Internet for a long time now, and they are doing so more and more.
It is more important for the children and their parents to learn to use the media properly than to introduce legal restrictions and electronic filters. That is an educational and social task."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples