Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.34.2-322"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the boundaries between television, the Internet and telephone services are becoming increasingly blurred, and this presents us with new challenges. The legislation currently in force at EU level is inadequate in the face of such challenges, for example when it comes to safeguarding the mental and moral development of the youngest media consumers.
The most problematic aspect of the Directive is the way in which Member States are absolved of responsibility for the content of programmes broadcast beyond their borders. The notion of state borders, or that of an EU made up of nation states, is an anachronism in today’s media world, and it would be irresponsible to ignore programmes merely because they are broadcast outside national borders.
The mandatory technical safeguards for programmes that pose a threat to children’s moral development are both outdated and ineffective nowadays, and the sole purpose they serve is to boost the egos of those who incorporated them into the Directive. We are also overlooking the fact that provision is made in Article 22 for a type of programme that should not be broadcast at all, in addition to programmes to which as a rule children should not have access. According to the Directive, programmes should not contain obscenities or pornography, and they may not be broadcast if they pose a threat to children’s mental development. In spite of this, we are incapable of dealing with the problem of harmful programmes being supplied as part of packages to families that have no desire for them.
It is plain to see this is where we come up against the fundamental principle of freedom of speech, and that this is a battle that we will lose to the porn industry. It is a sad fact that we are incapable of resolving this simple conflict of standards in favour of common sense and the public good.
The great many loopholes and exemptions in the Directive will encourage Member States, and the European Union itself, to avoid dealing with issues covered by the Directive, in particular those falling under Article 22. A good example of this is the European Commission’s failure to take action over complaints that have been lodged regarding the French Supreme Audiovisual Council’s registration of a porn channel. This registration not only constitutes a violation of the Directive within France, but also now provides a basis upon which applications can be made for the automatic approval of the channel, for example in Poland.
We are making poor use of the opportunity to afford greater protection to viewers by means of national legislation. The De Sarnez report responds to the majority of these challenges and problems, which is why it deserves our support. It should not go unmentioned, however, that the frequent references to the dead and buried draft Constitutional Treaty detract significantly from the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples