Vietnam imposes a positive responsibility upon the state, society, and schools to protect children from the negative impacts of information that is either obscene or incites
violence, which includes authorizing state agencies to build and disseminate content
filters. 90 All providers must refuse or suspend services to individuals engaged in prohibited online activities, implement a reporting regime, and submit to inspection and examination by competent state agencies. However, online social service providers must
also ‘‘block and remove illegal content upon detection or at the request of competent
state agencies.’’ 91
South Korea authorizes regulation of Internet content through the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), whose authority extends to ordering the blocking of Web sites, the deletion of a particular message identified as an improper
communication, a Web site’s closure, or the suspension of the particular user ID of
the individual who posted the improper writing. 92 The KCSC was originally empowered to develop general principles or codes of telecommunications ethics, conduct
deliberation of and request the ‘‘correction’’ of information declared illegal by presidential decree, and operate reporting centers against unhealthy telecom activities. 93
Thus, its filtering mandate is part of its power to make determinations on information
‘‘harmful’’ to youth, 94 as well as recommend action against Web sites containing
illegal content, including pornography, information for cyber criminals, gambling
services, and Web sites that express support for communism or for the government of
North Korea. 95
Filtering
Asia, with its diversity, is home to several organically grown models for Internet filtering. Singapore, along with China, began experimenting with Internet filtering as early
as 1996. Beginning September 15, 1996, users were forced to access the Internet
through proxy servers that filtered sites banned by the Media Development Authority
or MDA (then called the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, or SBA). 96 These servers
reportedly contained a database of frequently accessed ‘‘approved’’ material, and also
refused access according to an SBA list of banned Web sites. 97 At the time, the SBA
targeted primarily pornography, with plans to also restrict ‘‘unacceptable political and
religious discussion, defamation, and racist writings.’’ 98 However, by 2002, these ambitions had been scaled back to the ‘‘ceremonial’’ filtering of a modest number of Web
sites, a policy the government reaffirmed in March 2007. 99
Singapore has refined a ‘‘dual regulation approach’’ to content regulation, 100 where
mainstream media are state controlled or heavily regulated while alternative media
such as independent Web sites and blogs are relatively free to publish. At the core of
this ‘‘light touch’’ regulatory framework for online content is a class license scheme
that requires all ISPs and those ICPs determined to be political parties or persons
418
Asia Overview
violence, which includes authorizing state agencies to build and disseminate content
filters. 90 All providers must refuse or suspend services to individuals engaged in prohibited online activities, implement a reporting regime, and submit to inspection and examination by competent state agencies. However, online social service providers must
also ‘‘block and remove illegal content upon detection or at the request of competent
state agencies.’’ 91
South Korea authorizes regulation of Internet content through the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), whose authority extends to ordering the blocking of Web sites, the deletion of a particular message identified as an improper
communication, a Web site’s closure, or the suspension of the particular user ID of
the individual who posted the improper writing. 92 The KCSC was originally empowered to develop general principles or codes of telecommunications ethics, conduct
deliberation of and request the ‘‘correction’’ of information declared illegal by presidential decree, and operate reporting centers against unhealthy telecom activities. 93
Thus, its filtering mandate is part of its power to make determinations on information
‘‘harmful’’ to youth, 94 as well as recommend action against Web sites containing
illegal content, including pornography, information for cyber criminals, gambling
services, and Web sites that express support for communism or for the government of
North Korea. 95
Filtering
Asia, with its diversity, is home to several organically grown models for Internet filtering. Singapore, along with China, began experimenting with Internet filtering as early
as 1996. Beginning September 15, 1996, users were forced to access the Internet
through proxy servers that filtered sites banned by the Media Development Authority
or MDA (then called the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, or SBA). 96 These servers
reportedly contained a database of frequently accessed ‘‘approved’’ material, and also
refused access according to an SBA list of banned Web sites. 97 At the time, the SBA
targeted primarily pornography, with plans to also restrict ‘‘unacceptable political and
religious discussion, defamation, and racist writings.’’ 98 However, by 2002, these ambitions had been scaled back to the ‘‘ceremonial’’ filtering of a modest number of Web
sites, a policy the government reaffirmed in March 2007. 99
Singapore has refined a ‘‘dual regulation approach’’ to content regulation, 100 where
mainstream media are state controlled or heavily regulated while alternative media
such as independent Web sites and blogs are relatively free to publish. At the core of
this ‘‘light touch’’ regulatory framework for online content is a class license scheme
that requires all ISPs and those ICPs determined to be political parties or persons
418
Asia Overview