According to the Federal Commission for Communication (FCC) (1), there have been developments in the communication sector where many players have come up. The use of internet to spread information has become quite popular with many organizations and media houses. Individuals can also access the information with much ease. These developments are worth having in the modern times. However, the FCC (1) also observes that there are some contents accessible through the internet sites that are quite explicit. These include some hate speeches as well as adult material such as pornography. Accessibility of such material by young children could be harmful to their moral development. With this in mind, various countries have come up with means of controlling the viewing of these objectionable materials by the young.
Canada is on the list of the countries that have an issue with such materials. However, according to the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) (1), the Canadian Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) held a public discussion through which it sought to find out whether there is a role that can be played by the public in terms of controlling the objectionable materials. The conclusion of the forum was that the media houses in Canada are quite professional and do not have to be regulated in order to maintain their professionalism. In other words, there is no major regulation for the Canadian media owners on how they can regulate the materials they post online. Furthermore, the offline measures of control in the country are province based. As such, some of the materials rated as explicit in one province are allowable in others. This makes the system quite confusing, since an individual can access the content just by crossing to a different province.
Such loop-holes in the regulatory system can give way for corrupt-minded people to post any material on the internet, making it accessible to the children and other unintended people. Even if they are prosecuted in court, there would be no regulation by which they can be convicted. For instance, Hutchinson and Petersen (143) indicate that the Canadian law has no provision that gives the court authority the binding power to prevent the production, distribution and sale of objectionable materials. Therefore, it is upon the publishers and the producers to know what they can post on the internet or not.
There is only one option for the Canadian community to prevent the spread of such materials, as suggested by EFA (1). Following the recommendations provided therein, the parents can by V-Chips for their television sets as well as their computers so that they can regulate the content that their children get exposed to. This is the only way that objectionable material can be controlled; at the home level.
Alternatively, the government can adopt some regulations as other countries like the U. S have done. This can help in controlling the media’s activities. In as much as the Canadian media houses might have a strong fiber of integrity, it would not be a bad idea to impose some regulations that seals the loopholes that can be exploited by those who have no societal virtues.
Electronic Frontiers Australia. Internet Censorship: Law and Policy around the World. 2002. Web, 7th March 2012, http://www. efa. org. au/Issues/Censor/cens3. html#canada
Federal Communications Committee. Protecting Children from Objectionable Content on Wireless Devices. 2012. Web, March 7th 2012, http://www. fcc. gov/guides/protecting-children-objectionable-content-wireless-devices
Hutchinson, Allan C. & Petersen, Klaus. Interpreting Censorship in Canada. 1999. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Web, 7th March 2012, http://books. google. co. ke/books? id= O7tFPZ33_NcC&pg= PA143&lpg= PA143&dq= objectionable+materiall+in+canada&source= bl&ots= Y64Q4RL4BF&sig= RXFBLw1pqQuFBQxRrJQ2VqV8R5g&hl= sw&sa= X&ei= IeVWT4bgOIPzrQeWkbiIDA&ved= 0CFYQ6AEwBg#v= onepage&q= objectionable%20materiall%20in%20canada&f= false