 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Last update: 25/7/2020 17:09
The ICRA (Internet Content Rating Association) is a non-profit organisation whose primary aim is to make the Internet safe for children while preserving freedom of expression. A secondary aim is to convince governments and "moral majority" pressure groups that the Internet is capable of self-regulation. From the point of view of anybody who wants to regulate or censor it, the Internet has two very awkward characteristics.
The first characteristic is that it takes little notice of national borders. A government can pass laws forbidding certain kinds of material on Internet sites within its own borders, but it cannot prevent sites in other countries from posting such material and (more to the point) it can do very little to prevent its citizens from accessing it.
The second characteristic is that it is very difficult to connect anyone on the Internet with a real-world person. This means that any law that tried to regulate what a person could do or see on the Internet based on some real-world attribute (such as their age) would at present be unenforceable.
If we must have some sort of regulation for the Internet, then self-regulation is not merely the best option: at the moment, it is the only option.
The ICRA's rating system works by asking webmasters to rate their sites, or parts of their sites, for potentially offensive or harmful content in four categories: language (swearing), nudity, sex and violence. Within each category are a number of yes-or-no questions that ask whether a particular thing or action is described or depicted anywhere on the site. There are a number of "get-out" clauses that allow the webmaster to say "yes, this site has content that would otherwise be harmful to children, but it's OK, because it's in an artistic or medical context."
(The above paragraph describes the new ICRA rating system. You may also come across the older system, which assigns each category a number from zero (nothing to worry about) to four (very strong or explicit).)
Parents (or indeed anyone else) can set up filtering software to allow a child to see whatever they feel is appropriate for them in each category. There's usually an option to prevent access to any sites that don't have a rating. As the scheme is voluntary, you can't infer anything from the fact that a site has no rating, but doubtless many parents would take the "better safe than sorry" view.
I can't recommend any particular filtering program or service, since I don't use one myself, but ICRA or a good search engine should be able to give you some pointers.
The site as a whole rates as "mild expletives" for language. This is not to say that you will find swearing on every page. Rather, it happens occasionally, sometimes because I want to emphasise a point, and sometimes because I'm ranting. I really don't want to go through every one of this site's 300-plus pages just to tag the 10 or 20 that have swearing. Doing this would also create seemingly arbitrary gaps in the site for anybody who had a swearing filter switched on - rather like removing pages 33, 57 and 91 from a novel, without considering how important they are to the plot. If someone has told you that each of those pages has a couple of words that would offend you, might it not be better (or at least less frustrating) to read another book, rather than try to puzzle out what happened on the pages you decided not to read?
The other categories, nudity, sex and violence, all rate as zero, or nothing that a reasonable person would consider offensive or harmful. (As you might expect, the ICRA assume that this "reasonable person" lives in the USA...) A couple of areas have higher ratings.
If you feel that such material is likely to offend or harm you or someone you care about, either:
The ICRA's system is entirely voluntary on both sides. No-one is forcing me to rate my site with them, and no-one is forcing you to take any notice of my site's ratings. (Of course, if you're a child with (ahem) concerned parents, Mummy and/or Daddy have probably made the latter decision for you.)
As well as rating the site with ICRA, I have warnings in front of any page with content that I think you might find harmful or offensive. If you come in through the front page or any page that's directly accessible from it, you will see the warnings. If you come to my site through a search engine, it's possible that you'll bypass the warnings. This is why the site is rated with ICRA.
If you get a message saying that you aren't allowed to access a page, this is probably because you or somebody who's responsible for the computer you're using has installed some sort of filtering software ("censorware"). This is different from a message saying that the page couldn't be found. Those are usually caused by broken links - carelessness on my part, in other words. Gaining access is up to you: because the filtering is done by software on your computer, I have no control over what it blocks and what it lets you see. (Well, I can influence it indirectly, by changing my site's ICRA ratings, but if I did that I would be lying about the site's content.)
Before complaining to anybody, be sure you can answer "yes" to at least one of the following questions:
If you answer "no" to both questions, then frankly, I think you have no right to complain. It's like looking out of your window and seeing that it's raining, but then going for a walk without a coat or umbrella and complaining that you're wet when you come back.
If, in spite of your filtering software and my warnings, you find something on my site objectionable, please contact me to begin with. Please state the URL of the page and why you think it is offensive or harmful.
If you are not satisfied with my reply, you can go to ClaraNet (my ISP) or the ICRA. Contact ClaraNet if you think that the page may be in violation of their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) or if you think that the warning before it is not sufficiently clear or prominent. Contact the ICRA if you think that I've rated a page too low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last update: 25/7/2020 17:09