This document outlines a philosophical position on internet regulation and censorship. It argues for regulation but not censorship, defining censorship as banning content unless it violates universal codes like those against violence and child pornography. It discusses the principles and goals of regulation as giving information, protecting children and unwilling adults, but not protecting people from being offended. It also notes problems with the lack of clarity, transparency and consistency in current censorship rules and administration.

1. 1.INTRODUCTION

2. 2. PHILOSOPHICAL
POSITION
A. The need for a fundamental rather than
incremental review
1. How the internet changes the game
2. Why we need to trust our citizens to decide

3. B. Our Position: “Yes to regulation, no to
censorship”
i. Does not mean that we are asking for a “free
for all”.
ii. “No to censorship” means content should be
allowed unless there are transgressions of
universally accepted codes (those against
murder, child pornography, incitement to
violence)

4. In other societies, we would say “transgression of
laws”, but here, the laws are so restrictive that too
many things which are not universally condemned
are also deemed illegal.

5. C. The purpose of regulation
(i) To give information so people can decide
(ii) To protect two groups:
(a) Children, from content they are not ready
for or not ready to consume unless guided by
adults.
(b) Adults, from inadvertent exposure to
content which they might find offensive

6. i.e. to ensure people are not forced to see what
they don’t wish to see.
(iii) Not to protect people from being offended
that material which they don’t approve of
should exist and is being consumed by willing
and informed adults.

7. D. The principles of regulation
(i) To give information to adults so they can have
choice (and be protected), rather than censoring
content
(ii) Designation of "safe" zones and times where
nothing objectionable can be shown
(iii) That government allows material doesn't mean
it approves of it: But it should take approach of
"censure rather than censor”.

8. E. The Myth that
“Censorship is History”
(i) Why censorship is as prevalent as ever: cases
studies referred to.
(ii) Why the myth exists: censorship going
becoming procedural, and the use of the incorrect
slogan 'From censorship to regulation'.

9. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF
CENSORSHIP & REGULATION
(i) How the present rules are not good enough in terms of:
a. Lack of clarity of rules and process.
b. Lack of transparency of rules and process.
c. Lack of transparency in telling public about what is censored and the
deliberations which led to it
d. Dependence on who the censoring official is.
(ii) How the present rules are not even followed. Examples.

10. 5. REGULATION
& FUNDING
(i) How ratings and other regulatory measures now
has a negative impact on funding for artists.
(ii) In principle people who want funding should
either abide by rules of funder or should not ask for
funding, but in practice this poses a number of
difficulties.

11. 6. Consequences of
Censorship
(i) Freedom of speech of artists.
(ii) Freedom of choice and freedom of access for
public/audience.
(iii) False sense of security on part of parents who
think that government can and is censoring. Better
to not pretend that people can be shielded and then
to put effort into educating the population about
dealing with the content.

12. (iv) Prevents society from becoming stronger by
talking through difficult issues that have been
censored.
(v) Detrimental to the creativity, and hence
development of the arts and creative industries.

13. 7. CASE STUDIES

14. 8. COUNTER ARGUMENTS
AGAINST
ARGUMENTS FOR CENSORSHIP
(i) “People have base instincts” aka “society is not
ready”
(ii) “People will not observe the regulations”
(iii) “How does that help society”
(iv) “But we are a conservative society”
(v) “Artists don’t understand the concerns of
concerened parents.”

15. 9. ANNEXES
(i) A review of past censorship reviews
(ii) Our reservations about the process of the current
review
(iii) Arts community proposal 2003
(iv) Weng's column to ST on regulation vs
censorship
(v) Our consultation process

16. ARTS ENGAGE CORE
Tan Tarn How <tantarnhow@gmail.com>,
T. SASITHARAN <sasitharan@mac.com>,
Alvin Tan <alvintan@necessary.org>,
Paul Rae <paul@spell7.net>
Tan Pin Pin <pin@tanpinpin.com>,
Jasmine Ng <ngkinkia.jasmine@gmail.com>,
Tay Tong <ttong@singnet.com.sg>,
Sun Koh <emailsunkoh@gmail.com>,
June Yap <yapjun@gmail.com>,
Audrey Wong <wyen2@yahoo.com>,
Ong Keng Sen <okengs@singnet.com.sg>,
Loretta Chen <loretta@zebracrossing.com.sg>,
Tien Woon <tien@post-museum.org>,
Weng Choy Lee <wengchoy@mac.com>,
Lucy Davis <lucydavis77@pacific.net.sg>
Audrey Wong < audrey@substation.org>