Mass media regulations or simplymedia regulations are a form ofmedia policy[1] with rules enforced by the jurisdiction of law. Guidelines formass media use differ across the world.[2] Thisregulation, vialaw, rules or procedures, can have various goals, for exampleintervention to protect a stated "public interest", or encouraging competition and an effectivemedia market, or establishing common technical standards.[3]The principal targets of mass media regulation are thepress,radio andtelevision, but may also includefilm, recorded music, cable, satellite, storage and distribution technology (discs, tapes etc.), theinternet,mobile phones etc. It includes theregulation of independent media.
 | The examples and perspective in this sectiondeal primarily with the United States and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this section, discuss the issue on thetalk page, or create a new section, as appropriate.(February 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
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 selectivecensorship of works and content most often featuringobscenity,violence, ordissent, 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 asharassment andextremism, to protect people from fraudulent activity and exploitative business practices (such asscams) 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 asHTTP 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 ofartificial intelligence (AI) technology and algorithms is in use to flag and remove inappropriate content, with possible abuses andalgorithmic 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'sGeneral Data Protection Regulation which sets limits on the information collected by Internet giants and corporations for sale and use in analytics.
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]
Commercial mass media controlled by economicmarket 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 totabloid journalism,slogans,sound bites,spin,horse race reporting,celebrityscandals,populism, andinfotainment.[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 inEurope andJapan have implementedpublicly funded media withpublic 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]
Egypt's regulation laws encompass media and journalism publishing. Any form of press release to the public that goes against theEgyptian 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.”
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
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.
Theeconomic 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:
MostEU member states have replaced media ownership regulations withcompetition 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]
TheDigital Services Act (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 andspeech, 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]
The media systems inScandinavian countries aretwin-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 themedia ownership concentration, Norwegian legislators passed the Media Ownership Act entrusting theNorwegian 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 ensurefreedom 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.
Following theLeveson Inquiry thePress Recognition Panel (PRP) was set up under theRoyal 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: theIndependent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates most national newspapers and many other media outlets; andIMPRESS, 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 byOfcom.[33]
TheFirst 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: theFederal Communications Commission forbids the broadcast of "indecent" material on the public airwaves. The accidental exposure ofJanet Jackson's nippleduring the halftime show at Super Bowl XXXVIII led to the passage of theBroadcast 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 ifnet neutrality comes into play.[34]
In 1934, the Communications Act worked to create theFederal 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 theCommunications 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 theCIA using the provisions of thePatriot Act among other acts of legislation, to profile interactions between users and content, and to restrict the production and dissemination of dissenting content such aswhistleblowing information.
Brazil’s constitution, written in 1988, guaranteesfreedom 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] Manymedia 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, PresidentJair 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 includingTelegram,[41]WhatsApp,[42] andTwitter.
In June 2010, theFijian Government passed the Media Industry Development Decree of 2010 establishing theMedia Industry Development Authority of Fiji which enforces media ethics governing all media organizations inFiji. 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]
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]
TheMyanmar 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]
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 thecultural 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 screenwriterWang 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]
{{cite web}}:|first1= has generic name (help){{cite web}}:|first1= has generic name (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)