Debate on Policing of Chatrooms

Post Reply New Topic

Next time you think that WP moderators are being too harsh, just remember, it could be much worse. Could this be the future of chatrooms on the internet? I hope not.

I've made bold the points I think are questionable.

Please, Without flaming each other and the people with comments that are brought up in this article or speaking of any "specific" incidents, I'd like to know what all of you think of (generally) the responsibility of the Authorities, website owners, moderators, and the members that post their thoughts online. It makes me wonder...Just how free is free speech?


Violent events fuel debate on policing of chatrooms

By Daniel Bardsley, staff reporter/ Gulfnews

The internet can be a priceless tool for finding out information on almost every subject under the sun just ask any harassed journalist who has a deadline looming.

However, as we all know, it can be misused in all sorts of ways and recent events have raised new questions about whether further regulation or censorship is needed.

For example, unfounded fears that an earthquake was imminent in the UAE have been spread through online chatrooms.

There were clashes in Birmingham in England between black and Asian youths after malicious internet rumours said that a 14-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted.

In Los Angeles, 19-year-old William Freund posted violent rantings on the internet shortly before going on a rampage, shooting dead two neighbors and killing himself.

What if anything should be done to control internet discussion rooms and with whom should the responsibility for policing them lie?

According to security guard Ajith Viswambharan, 25, from India, it is important for children in particular to be closely monitored if they are using chatrooms.

For example, he said they should not be able to put their mobile telephone numbers on sites.

In general, he said chatrooms did more harm than good and tougher rules on their use possibly by blocking them altogether should be considered by the authorities if the people who run the sites do not monitor them properly.

“There are many internet sites that are blocked in the UAE and maybe they should consider using this software on chatrooms as well because most people are using sexual language on them,” he said.

Indian advertising executive Sonali Braganza, 35, was less in favor of tight controls although she acknowledged some regulation probably was needed.

“You need some intervention but at the same time there should be some freedom of speech people should be able to express opinions. It’s a very fine line between what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be.

“If it’s causing harm or spreading false propaganda, a line should be drawn to control it and it should be down to the people who run the sites, not the authorities because they can be a bit biased,” she said.

By contrast, Saloni Dewan, 44, an Indian housewife, said the authorities were the best people to police chatrooms.
“The people who run the sites won’t necessarily be strict about what’s posted because they want as many people as possible to log on.

“I have two children and I try not to encourage these chatrooms because they are so addictive and what’s on them disintegrates into nothingness,” she said.

UAE national Ahmad Al Nowais, 35, a businessman, also took a dim view of chatrooms and said tough regulation was vital.

“Most of the things on them are from people who want to just try to destroy the community.
“The authorities should monitor them 100 per cent and the owners of the sites should be responsible if they are not used in the proper way. They should find where the material is coming from and control it,” he said.

Gose Luis, 49, an operations director from Portugal, said; “The authorities, not the people who run the site, should control what’s written.”

However, not everyone was in favor of regulation. Nabeel Khoury, a 39-year-old from Lebanon who is self-employed, said it was wrong to try to sensor what people wrote on the internet.

“If you start to control what people say on the internet, you might as well start controlling what they say by mouth,” he said.

He added that television was far more likely to promote violence than the internet, saying he felt the authorities should not try to “shut down media”.

“You cannot control people’s thoughts,” he said.

Why are they quoting a security guard?

They also quote a housewife, an advertising executive, an operations director and two businessmen. It appears to be more of a "man on the street" interview than a news article.

I don't know where the line is. I'm a little more on the open side. Parents should be monitoring their children and if I find an offensive site, I leave. I do beleive site owners have a right to set limits. Its not free speech...someone else is paying the bandwitdh and they get to set the limits. I son't beleive police should set limits but certainly they have to right to step in if laws are broken. That last one is a bit of a stickier as was pointed out to me it becomes a question of which laws.

BeeBee

it's up to the site owner/moderators to keep an eye on what goes on in their chatrooms and messageboards, as in it's a right but not a responsibility. it's the parents' responsibility to keep an eye on their kids.

It's because that he was someone who was willing to speak at length about the subject. It's the same reason that the media picks anyone to speak about any subject.

I think the operators, not the moderators are to have the final say (apart from the site owner), because they are used to chats, and use them often. They know how to handle them.