Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-093"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001005.5.4-093"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-05-Speech-4-0942
lpv:speaker	lp:Konstantinos Alyssandrakis2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Children are the first victims of violence on television. We all now recognise the impact and the harm which the daily and increasing bombardment of violent television programmes and similar multimedia products wreaks on young people, who are less discerning because their critical faculties are not fully developed. The Commission text and the report contain a number of accurate findings as regards the adverse impact on the psychological makeup and developing personality of children and, consequently, on the dangers in store for tomorrow’s society as the result of their watching these programmes and using these products. However, their proposals are confined to watersheds and programme classification and, in adopting the Oxford University report on television programme filtering devices, which parents have to buy before they can use them to protect their children, are targeted specifically at digital and subscriber television. Once again, the delicate and sensitive issue of the protection of our children, i.e. the members of tomorrow’s society, are being hijacked by commercialisation and the profit motive. The entire onus of protecting children is on the parents and the question of the actual production and broadcasting of programmes which are harmful to children is hardly even touched on. And, assuming that they can afford these filtering devices, how are parents supposed to protect their children from so-called children’s programmes, the majority of which contain scenes of violence and some of which are scarier than horror films? And how are they supposed to protect them from the violence which inundates multimedia products and the Internet? The Commission communication acknowledges the problem but proposes no specific measures because it is blinkered by the philosophy of market liberalisation and competition, and any proposals which it makes fail to get to the heart of the harsh reality – a reality especially harsh on children – of the unaccountability of multinationals which, in their lust for profit, are indifferent to the impact which their programmes and products have and which not only shift the entire responsibility to parents but even expect them to buy new products to protect their children. The only reference to companies is to do with a code of self-regulation. We do agree with a number of interesting proposals on protecting children in the Angelilli report, such as the need for a detailed study into the moral and legal aspects of the protection of minors."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph