![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
The issue of protecting children from the potential hazards of the Internet environment has led to various legislative attempts to regulate content on the Internet. However, the constraints it imposed on valuable free speech rendered most of them futile. While the importance of protecting children is not disputed, the problem lay in the delicate issue of finding a balance between free speech rights and the protection of children. This paper looks at the legal aspects involved in the protection of children, privacy issues, etc in the context of the growing popularity of mobile phones and other portable devices that offer Internet access. The Internet was mainly confined to PC or laptops until recently. However, over the last few years newer technology devices such as wireless, PDAs and 3G mobile phones, etc also provide Internet access, which are probably more invasive and direct than the traditional PC. These new media and delivery channels give new dimensions to the problems associated with the impact of inappropriate content on the child, especially with the widespread use of camera-phones. These forms of access for content may lead to quite different expectations regarding privacy and freedom of expression and raise new issues in the arguments for strengthening the law for protecting children from potential dangers. In the absence of a consensus on whether/how to regulate content on the Internet for the protection of children, an examination of some of the legal issues involved merits consideration. While acknowledging that technology does more good than harm, the paper argues that it is important to take adequate measures to counter its abuse and create a safer environment for children, more so in light of the growing popularity of mobile Internet.
Notes
1 According to Neilsen/Net Ratings, there was a worldwide Internet population of 580 million users, as of 2002. For a detailed report on Internet usage, see the research findings of a study conducted in Berkeley University, available online at http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/internet.htm (last accessed, 16 June 2005).
2 47 U.S.C. §223 (1996) (amended by 47 U.S.C. §223 (1999)).
3 521 U.S. 844.
4 47 U.S.C. §231 (2000).
5 See, generally, C Netterville-Heieck ‘Ashcroft v. ACLU: protecting our children from harmful online material without infringing upon First Amendment Rights’ Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, 4(1), pp 95–114, Fall 2004.
8 See www.mobileyouth.org
9 The case is pending trial and the accused have been released on conditional bail at the time of writing this paper. For a general discussion on the case and cyber law issues in India see www.naavi.org.
10 Section 72(3), ‘Whoever intentionally captures or broadcasts an image of a private area of an individual without his consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual, shall be liable to pay compensation not exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs to the person so affected, and shall also be liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or with fine not exceeding Rs 2 Lakhs, or with both on the complaint of the person so affected’ (10 lakhs = 1 million).
11 See www4.gartner.com.
13 See ‘Putting U in the picture, Mobile Bullying Survey 2005’, National Children's Home, available online at www.nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/mobile-bullying-%20report.pdf.
15 ‘Self regulation of digital media: converging on the Internet: Industry codes of conduct in sectoral analysis, 2004’, Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Oxford University Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, available online at http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/text/IAPCODEfinal.pdf (last accessed, 30 June 2005).
16 443 U.S. 622 (1979).
17 443 U.S.622 (1979), pp 633–639.
18 See, generally, Stephen N Roberts ‘Tracking your children with GPS: do you have the right?’ http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/01017/009618/title/Subject/topic/Family%20Law_Dependent%20and%20Neglected%20Children/filename/familylaw_2_3309.
20 The code, the UK Code of Practice for the Self-Regulation of New Forms of Content on Mobile Phones, is available from the websites of different mobile phone operators, for example see www.t-mobilepressoffice.co.uk/company/conten-code.pdf.
21 See, R Durie, ‘Code of practice—joint code of practice by mobile phone operators to regulate adult content on mobile phones’ Entertainment Law Review Vol 15, No 5, pp N48–49, 2004.
22 R. v. Green (Patrick Steven) [2001] EWCA Crim 642.
23 A A Gillespie ‘Children, chatrooms and the law’ Criminal Law Review pp 435–446, June 2001.
24 A A Gillespie ‘Tackling grooming’ Police Journal Vol 77, p 239, 2004.
25 See ‘Children and families: safer from sexual crime’ Home office website, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/children_families.pdf.
26 Sec 15, Sexual Offences Act, 2003.
27 See generally, http://www.childnet-int.org/downloads/online-grooming2.pdf.
28 Title 18, section 2241(c).
29 §16-12-100.2, Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999.
30 See op cit, note 27.
31 There are 191 countries that have ratified the Convention so far, thus making it the most popular human rights instrument in history.