Mass media regulation

Last updated

Mass media regulations are a form of media policy [1] with rules enforced by the jurisdiction of law. Guidelines for media use differ across the world. [2] This regulation, via law, rules or procedures, can have various goals, for example intervention to protect a stated "public interest", or encouraging competition and an effective media market, or establishing common technical standards. [3]

Contents

The principal targets of mass media regulation are the press, radio and television, but may also include film, recorded music, cable, satellite, storage and distribution technology (discs, tapes etc.), the internet, mobile phones etc.

Content regulation

The transmission of content and intellectual property have attracted attention and regulation from authorities worldwide, due to the memetic nature and possible social impact of content sharing. The regulation of content may take the form of selective censorship of works and content most often featuring obscenity, violence, or dissent, with wide variation through time and geographical situation concerning the bounds of legal content transmission. Content regulation also concerns the rules regarding transmission of the content itself. Regulations on content vary, and may come into conflict with each other more often in the context of global information exchange via the Internet.

Restrictions that vary between jurisdictions exist that focus on ceasing the broadcasting of specific forms of content. This may include content that has a specific moral standard or "non-mainstream" viewpoints. About 48 countries have taken legislative or administrative steps to regulate technology companies and the content that goes along with them. The regulations work to temperate the societal issues that occur online, such as harassment and extremism, to protect people from fraudulent activity and exploitative business practices (such as scams) and protect human rights. [4]

A decrease in freedom of expression and anonymity on the Internet has been denounced in recent years, as governments and corporations have expanded efforts to track, monitor, flag, and sell information regarding Internet activity of users through systems such as HTTP cookies and social media analytics. Some[ which? ] of the laws regarding content admissibility are designed to suppress content that is relative to the government and harmful content towards users. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and algorithms is in use to flag and remove inappropriate content, with possible abuses and algorithmic bias. [4] Over the years, content regulation has been put in place to protect and promote human rights and digital rights, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation which sets limits on the information collected by Internet giants and corporations for sale and use in analytics.

Principal foundations

The negative defined liberties, legislating the role of media institutions in society and securing their freedom of expression, publication, private ownership, commerce, and enterprise, must be balanced by legislation ensuring the positive freedom of citizens of their access to information.
Media is at a position between the commerce and democracy.

These require the balance between rights and obligations. To maintain the contractual balance, society expects the media to take their privilege responsibly. Besides, market forces failed to guarantee the wide range of public opinions and free expression. Intend to the expectation and ensurance, regulation over the media formalized. [5]

Public service

Commercial mass media controlled by economic market forces are not always delivering a product that satisfies all needs. Children and minority interests are not always serviced well. Political news are often trivialized and reduced to tabloid journalism, slogans, sound bites, spin, horse race reporting, celebrity scandals, populism, and infotainment. [6]

This is regarded as a problem for the democratic process when the commercial news media fail to provide balanced and thorough coverage of political issues and debates. [7] [8] [9] [10]

Many countries in Europe and Japan have implemented publicly funded media with public service obligations in order to meet the needs that are not satisfied by free commercial media. [11] [12] [13] However, the public service media are under increasing pressure due to competition from commercial media, [14] as well as political pressure. [15]

Other countries, including the US, have weak or non-existing public service media. [16]

By country

Egypt

Egypt's regulation laws encompass media and journalism publishing. Any form of press release to the public that goes against the Egyptian Constitution can be subject to punishment by these laws. [17] This law was put in place to regulate the circulation of misinformation online. Legal action can be taken on those who share false facts. [18] Egypt's Supreme Council for Media Regulations (SCMR) will be authorised to place people with more than 5,000 followers on social media or with a personal blog or website under supervision. More than 500 websites have already been blocked in Egypt prior to the new law in 2018. Websites must go through Egypt's “Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media” to acquire a license to publish a website. [19]

Media regulation in Egypt has always been limited, but as in recent years, it has become even more limited. In 2018, a law was put in place to prevent the press and any media outlet from putting out content that violates the Egyptian Constitution, and/or contain any “violence, racism, hatred, or extremism.” If any content causes national security concerns or is broadcast as ‘false news’, the Egyptian Government will put a ban on those media outlets that produced that media. The law known as ‘The SCMR Law’, creates a media regulatory restriction plan that allows the government authorities to be able to block the content and those who want to be able to produce content, or be able to publish a website, have to obtain a license. In order to do that, those would need to go to Egypt's “Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media.”

China

At the early period of the modern history of China, the relationship between government and society was extremely unbalanced. Government held power over the Chinese people and controlled the media, making the media highly political.

The economic reform decreased the governing function of media and created a tendency for mass media to stand for the society but not only authority. The previous unbalanced structure between powered government and weak society was loosed by the policy in some level, but not truly changed until the emergence of Internet. At first the regulator did not regard Internet as a category of mass media but a technique of business. Underestimating the power of the internet as a communications tool resulted in a lack of internet regulation. Since then, the internet has changed communication methods, media structure and overthrown the pattern of public voice expression in China.

Regulators have not and would not let the Internet out of control. In recent years, the strategy when approaching the Internet has been to regulate while developing.[ citation needed ]

The internet regulation in China generally formed by:

China is the one who owns the greatest amount of legislation in the world. According to statistics, up to October 2008, 14 different departments such as the NPC of China, the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, and the State Council Information Office, had been published more than 60 laws related to internet regulation. [20]
Internet regulation departments in China have respective distribution of work. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is responsible for the development and regulation of the industry, Ministry of Public Security regulates security and fights crimes, and the Propaganda Department leads the system where departments of culture, broadcasting, journalism, education, etc. regulates the information contents. [21]
The Internet regulation departments restrain the wrongful expression and behaviors by techniques such like blocking information negative to social stable and carrying out real name system through Internet.
It requires communicators to set up the relationship between expected information targets and the real targets, guide the direction of information to reach the expectation.
Traditional media affiliated into government strives to develop Internet with relatively flexible administrating system to increase the communicating power of mainstream media of authority to compete with social communication.
Regulator delivers the expectation of Internet environment to the population through training and educating to intense people’s conscious about behavior norms.

European Union

Most EU member states have replaced media ownership regulations with competition laws. These laws are created by governing bodies to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. However, these laws cannot solve the problem of convergence and concentration of media. [22]

The Digital Services Function (DSA) governs the responsibilities of digital services that act as mediators between customers and goods, services, and content. This comprises, for example, internet marketplaces.

To reduce hate crime and speech, the 2008 Framework Decision deemed that it is illegal to encourage and spread any form of hatred based on a person's race, nationality, ethnicity, and religion. [23] In addition, a Voluntary Code of Conduct was passed in 2016 to counter hate speech online. [23]

European countries could also request a removal of content in other countries so long as they deemed it as a form of "terrorist" content [24]

To control personal data of European citizens, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was passed on May 25, 2018 [25]

On April 23, 2022, the European Parliament and Council established a political agreement on the new rules. [26]

Norway

The media systems in Scandinavian countries are twin-duopolistic with powerful public service broadcasting and periodic strong government intervention. Hallin and Mancini introduced the Norwegian media system as Democratic Corporatist. [27] Newspapers started early and developed very well without state regulation until the 1960s. The rise of the advertising industry helped the most powerful newspapers grow increasingly, while the little publications were struggling at the bottom of the market. Because of the lack of diversity in the newspaper industry, the Norwegian Government took action, affecting the true freedom of speech. In 1969, Norwegian government started to provide press subsidies to small local newspapers. [28] But this method was not able to solve the problem completely. In 1997, compelled by the concern of the media ownership concentration, Norwegian legislators passed the Media Ownership Act entrusting the Norwegian Media Authority the power to interfere the media cases when the press freedom and media plurality was threatened. The Act was amended in 2005 and 2006 and revised in 2013.

The basic foundation of Norwegian regulation of the media sector is to ensure freedom of speech, structural pluralism, national language and culture and the protection of children from harmful media content. [29] [30] Relative regulatory incentives includes the Media Ownership Law, the Broadcasting Act, and the Editorial Independence Act. NOU 1988:36 stated that a fundamental premise of all Norwegian media regulation is that news media serves as an oppositional force to power. The condition for news media to achieve this role is the peaceful environment of diversity of editorial ownership and free speech. White Paper No.57 claimed that real content diversity can only be attained by a pluralistically owned and independent editorial media whose production is founded on the principles of journalistic professionalism. To ensure this diversity, Norwegian government regulates the framework conditions of the media and primarily focuses the regulation on pluralistic ownership.

United Kingdom

Following the Leveson Inquiry the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was set up under the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press to judge whether press regulators meet the criteria recommended by the Leveson Inquiry for recognition under the Charter. By 2016 the UK had two new press regulatory bodies: the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates most national newspapers and many other media outlets; and IMPRESS, which regulates a much smaller number of outlets but is the only press regulator recognised by the PRP (since October 2016). [31] Ofcom also oversees the use of social media and devices in the United Kingdom. BBC reports that Ofcom analyzes media use of the youth (ages 3 to 15 years old) to gather information of how the United Kingdom utilizes their media. [32]

Broadcast media (TV, radio, video on demand), telecommunications, and postal services are regulated by Ofcom. [33]

United States

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press. However, there are certain exceptions to free speech. For example, there are regulations on public broadcasters: the Federal Communications Commission forbids the broadcast of "indecent" material on the public airwaves. The accidental exposure of Janet Jackson's nipple during the halftime show at Super Bowl XXXVIII led to the passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 which increased the maximum fine that the FCC could level for indecent broadcasts from $32,500 to $325,000—with a maximum liability of $3 million. This is to shield younger individuals from expressions and ideas that are deemed offensive. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to touch the internet, but that could change if net neutrality comes into play. [34]

Seal of the Federal Communications Commission Seal of the Federal Communications Commission.svg
Seal of the Federal Communications Commission

In 1934, the Communications Act worked to create the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States. The FCC is a federal agency that works to regulate interstate and foreign communications. They are given the power to make legal decisions and judgments about regulation content under the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, including the regulation of cable television operation, telegraph, telephone, two-way radio and radio operators, satellite communication and the internet. The FCC helps to maintain many areas regarding regulation which includes fair competition, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security. [35]

Content on the Internet is also monitored in the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the CIA using the provisions of the Patriot Act among other acts of legislation, to profile interactions between users and content, and to restrict the production and dissemination of dissenting content such as whistleblowing information.

Content on the Internet is also monitored in the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the CIA using the provisions of the Patriot Act among other acts of legislation, to profile interactions between users and content, and to restrict the production and dissemination of dissenting content such as whistleblowing information.

Brazil

Brazil’s constitution, written in 1988, guarantees freedom of expression without censorship. It also protects privacy of communications unless by court order. [36] Journalists in Brazil are protected under the constitution and are able to report freely [37] Many media outlets in Brazil are owned or invested in by its politicians that have an influence on their editorial decisions. [38] Much of Brazil’s media regulations change with their change in government, the current government has had very little expansion of laws regarding media regulation past freedom of speech guaranteed in their constitution.

In 2021, President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree setting out an intention to curb arbitrary removal of social media accounts through new legislation. [39] [40] Judges in Brazil have also ordered blocks on a number of social media and social networking platforms including Telegram, [41] WhatsApp, [42] and Twitter.

Fiji

In June 2010, the Fijian Government passed the Media Industry Development Decree of 2010 establishing the Media Industry Development Authority of Fiji which enforces media ethics governing all media organizations in Fiji. The Authority has implemented penalties which includes fines and imprisonment in case of any ethical breaches. [43] The aim of the decree is to promote a balance, fair and accurate reporting in Fiji. [44]

Indonesia

Indonesian Ministerial Regulation #5 (MR5) grants the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology the authority to compel any individual, business entity or community that operates "electronic systems" (ESOs) to restrict or remove any content deemed to be in violation of Indonesia's laws within 24 hours. The breadth and open-ended nature of the regulation, implemented by the ministry in November 2020, can lead to censorship. [45]

Myanmar

The Myanmar government drafted a law in February 2021 that would empower authorities to "order internet shutdowns, disrupt or block online services, ban service providers, intercept user accounts, access personal data of users and force the removal of any content on demand." The "cybersecurity law" was drafted after a military coup ousted Aung San Suu Kyi. [45]

Criticism

Lowstedt and Al-Wahid suggested that the authority need to issue diverse media laws centering at anti-monopoly and anti-oligopoly with democratic legitimacy since media outlets are important for national security and social stability. The global regulation of new media technologies is to ensure the cultural diversity in media content, and provide a free space of public access and various opinions and ideas without censorship. Also, the regulation protects the independence of media ownership from dominance of powerful financial corporations, and preserves the media from commercial and political hegemony. [46]

In China, the possibility that a film approved by Central Board of Film Censors can be banned due to the disagreement of a specific leading cadre has never been eliminated. The Chinese screenwriter Wang Xingdong stated that regulation over literature and art should be based on laws and not the preference of some individuals. In the field of media, relative legislation must be introduced as soon as possible and applied strictly to avoid the case that some leaders overwhelm the law with their power to control the media content. [47]

See also

Related Research Articles

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ofcom</span> British government agency

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. The right of free speech can, however, be lawfully restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Communications Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Communications Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act, which came into force on 25 July 2003, superseded the Telecommunications Act 1984. The new act was the responsibility of Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell. It consolidated the telecommunication and broadcasting regulators in the UK, introducing the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the new industry regulator. On 28 December 2003 Ofcom gained its full regulatory powers, inheriting the duties of the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). Among other measures, the act introduced legal recognition of community radio and paved the way for full-time community radio services in the UK, as well as controversially lifting many restrictions on cross-media ownership. It also made it illegal to use other people's Wi-Fi broadband connections without their permission. In addition, the legislation also allowed for the first time non-European entities to wholly own a British television company.

Censorship in Bhutan refers to the way in which the Government of Bhutan controls information within its borders. There are no laws that either guarantee citizens' right to information or explicitly structure a censorship scheme. However, censorship in Bhutan is still conducted by restrictions on the ownership of media outlets, licensing of journalists, and the blocking of websites.

Censorship in Myanmar results from government policies in controlling and regulating certain information, particularly on religious, ethnic, political, and moral grounds.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass media in Bosnia and Herzegovina</span>

The mass media of Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to mass media outlets based in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Television, radio, magazines and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina guarantees freedom of speech, although political and business pressures - coupled with administrative fragmentation - still hinder the independence of journalists and media outlets.

The mass media in North Macedonia refers to mass media outlets based in North Macedonia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of North Macedonia guarantees freedom of the press and of expression, yet they are not upheld impartially by the authorities. As a country in transition, North Macedonia's media system is under transformation.

Information technology law, also known as information, communication and technology law or cyberlaw, concerns the juridical regulation of information technology, its possibilities and the consequences of its use, including computing, software coding, artificial intelligence, the internet and virtual worlds. The ICT field of law comprises elements of various branches of law, originating under various acts or statutes of parliaments, the common and continental law and international law. Some important areas it covers are information and data, communication, and information technology, both software and hardware and technical communications technology, including coding and protocols.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in South Korea</span>

Internet censorship in South Korea is prevalent, and contains some unique elements such as the blocking of pro-North Korea websites, and to a lesser extent, Japanese websites, which led to it being categorized as "pervasive" in the conflict/security area by OpenNet Initiative. South Korea is also one of the few developed countries where pornography is largely illegal, with the exception of social media websites which are a common source of legal pornography in the country. Any and all material deemed "harmful" or subversive by the state is censored. The country also has a "cyber defamation law", which allow the police to crack down on comments deemed "hateful" without any reports from victims, with citizens being sentenced for such offenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of expression in Canada</span>

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada.

The Authority for Television on Demand (ATVOD) was an industry body designated by Ofcom as the "co-regulator" of television on demand (VOD) in the UK from 2010 until 2015. ATVOD was founded following a European Union directive on the regulation of audiovisual media. It was responsible for regulating on-demand services such as ITV Player and Channel 4's All 4, as well as paid-for content on websites which were deemed to be "tv-like". ATVOD's role with regard to VOD ended on 31 December 2015, when the function was taken over by Ofcom directly.

Internet regulation in Turkey is primarily authorized under the Electronic Communications Law (ECL) and the Internet Act and carried out by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA).

<i>Broadcasting Services Act 1992</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which broadly covers issues relating to content regulation and media ownership in Australia. The law stipulates what is political advertising and the specific conditions which must be met before they are authorised for publication.

Censorship in Ecuador refers to all actions which can be considered as suppression in speech in Ecuador. In the Freedom of the Press Report 2016 by Freedom House, the press in Ecuador is classified as "not free". The 2016 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders placed Ecuador in the "noticeable problems" category for press freedom, ranking the country 109 out of 180.

Human rightsandencryption are often viewed as interlinked. Encryption can be a technology that helps implement basic human rights. In the digital age, the freedom of speech has become more controversial; however, from a human rights perspective, there is a growing awareness that encryption is essential for a free, open, and trustworthy Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in the Americas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Safety Act 2023</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Online Safety Act 2023 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online speech and media. It passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant Secretary of State the power, subject to parliamentary approval, to designate and suppress or record a wide range of speech and media deemed "harmful".

References

  1. ↑ Picard, Robert G.. Media and Communications Policy Making: Processes, Dynamics, and International Variations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
  2. ↑ Freedman, Des. "Media Regulation - Communication - Oxford Bibliographies - obo". Oxford Bibliographies.
  3. ↑ "What is media regulation?". Media Regulation. Leicester: University of Leicester. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
  4. 1 2 "Freedom on the net". Human Rights Documents online. doi:10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-1234-2014001 . Retrieved 2021-11-15.
  5. ↑ Sjøvaag, H. (2014). "The Principles of Regulation and the Assumption of Media Effects". Journal of Media Business Studies. 11: 5–20. doi:10.1080/16522354.2014.11073573. S2CID   167513598.
  6. ↑ Fuller, Jack (2010). What is happening to news: The information explosion and the crisis in journalism. University of Chicago Press.
  7. ↑ MacChesney, Robert W (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. University of Illinois Press.
  8. ↑ Barnett, Steven (2002). "Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?". The Political Quarterly. 73 (4): 400–408. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00494.
  9. ↑ Bucy, Erik P.; D'Angelo, Paul (1999). "The Crisis of Political Communication: Normative Critiques of News and Democratic Processes". Communication Yearbook. 22: 301–339.
  10. ↑ Esser, Frank (2013). "Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic". In Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc (eds.). Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 155–176.
  11. ↑ Donders, K. (2011). Public Service Media and Policy in Europe. Springer.
  12. ↑ Barwise, Patrick; Picard, Robert G. (2015). "The economics of television: excludability, rivalry, and imperfect competition". In Picard, Robert G.; Wildman, Steven S. (eds.). Handbook on the Economics of the Media. Edward Elgar. pp. 165–187.
  13. ↑ Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (2000). "The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment". In Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (eds.). Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 402–448.
  14. ↑ Hjarvard, Stig; Kammer, Aske (2015). "Online news: between private enterprise and public subsidy". Media, Culture & Society. 37 (1): 115–123. doi:10.1177/0163443714553562. S2CID   154934034.
  15. ↑ Powers, Matthew (2018). "Pressures on public service media: Insights from a comparative analysis of twelve democracies". In Freedman, Des; Goblot, Vana (eds.). A Future for Public Service Television. MIT Press. pp. 88–96.
  16. ↑ Pickard, Victor (2020). "The Public Media Option: Confronting Policy Failure in an Age of Misinformation". In Bennett, W. Lance; Livingston, Steven (eds.). The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–258.
  17. ↑ EL-SADANY, MAI. "The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy".
  18. ↑ Cairo, Bureau. "Ruters". Reuters . Archived from the original on 2018-07-17.{{cite web}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  19. ↑ Cairo, Bureau. "Ruters". Reuters . Archived from the original on 2018-07-17.{{cite web}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  20. ↑ 李, 永刚 (2009). 我们的防火墙. 桂林：广西师范大学出版社. p. 75.
  21. ↑ 温, 云超 (April 2009). ""我们的意志是乐观的"：中国另类传播的生机就在夹杀中". 新闻学研究: 261–264.
  22. ↑ Harcourt, Alison; Picard, Robert (2009). "Policy, Economic, and Business Challenges of Media Ownership Regulation". Journal of Media Business Studies. 6 (3). Jönköping International Business School: 1–17. doi:10.1080/16522354.2009.11073486. S2CID   167929232 . Retrieved 26 April 2015.
  23. 1 2 "Combating Hate Speech and Hate Crime".
  24. ↑ "European Parliament confirms new online censorship powers". European Digital Rights (EDRi). Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  25. ↑ "What is GDPR, the EU's new data protection law?". GDPR.eu. 2018-11-07. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  26. ↑ "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  27. ↑ Hallin, D.; Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press.
  28. ↑ "Medienorge". MiediaNorway. Retrieved April 5, 2015.
  29. ↑ Syvertsen, T. (2004). "Eierskapstilsynet – en studie av medieregulering i praksis [Ownership oversight: A study of media regulation in practice]".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  30. ↑ Krumsvik, Arne (2011). "Medienes privilegier – en innføring i mediepolitikk [Media Privileges: An Introduction to Media Politics]".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  31. ↑ "Panel Gives Alternative Press Regulator Royal Charter". Press Gazette. 25 October 2016.
  32. ↑ "Facebook's popularity dips with UK children, says Ofcom". BBC News. 29 January 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  33. ↑ "What is Ofcom?". Ofcom. Retrieved 19 January 2018.
  34. ↑ Biagi, Shirley. Media/Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media. Cengage Learning. p. 319.
  35. ↑ Guillen, Matthew (2001). "Media Type and Content Regulation". Revue Française d'Études Américaines. 88 (2): 101. doi:10.3917/rfea.088.0101. ISSN   0397-7870.
  36. ↑ Rosenn, Kieth (26 August 2021). "Brazil's Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2014" (PDF). constitutionproject.org. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  37. ↑ "Media Systems in South America | Brazil and Venezuela". sites.psu.edu. Retrieved 2021-10-29.[ dead link ]
  38. ↑ "Press Freedom in Brazil: Mixing Media and Politics". CJFE | Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. Retrieved 2021-10-29.
  39. ↑ "Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro signs decree changing social media regulations". Reuters. 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2021-10-29.
  40. ↑ "Bolsonaro: New bill will limit tech giants' power to remove content". BBC News. 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  41. ↑ Roth, Emma (2022-03-20). "Telegram's ban in Brazil has been lifted". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  42. ↑ "WhatsApp officially un-banned in Brazil after third block in eight months". The Guardian. 2016-07-19. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  43. ↑ "Review media Act, says FMA". FijiTimes. Retrieved 2022-10-11.
  44. ↑ Fijivillage. "AG hopes the judiciary picks up on the development of the laws surrounding social media". www.fijivillage.com. Retrieved 2022-10-11.
  45. 1 2 P, Jyoti; ay (2021-03-18). "Regulation of Digital Platforms in Asia". Internet Governance Project. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  46. ↑ Löwstedt, Anthony; Al-Wahid, Sulaiman (2013). "Cultural diversity and the global regulation of new media technologies". International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics. 9 (2): 195–200. doi:10.1386/macp.9.2.195_3.
  47. ↑ "王兴东建议：加快立法根治电影审查"以言代法"". 新华网. 2 March 2015. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.