Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS Denis Naughten has defended the decision made by the government to set a digital age of consent at 13, saying that banning under 18s from the internet isn’t practical.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio One’s Today with Sean O’Rourke, presented by Richard Curren, Naughten said that the government is moving towards appointing a Digital Safety Commissioner.
Doubts were raised by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar before Christmas when he suggested that a commissioner was not the correct solution to internet safety. However, an upcoming forum on the matter has been backed by Varadkar and Minister for Children Katherine Zappone.
Naughten warned that legislation cannot keep pace with changes on the internet.
However, he said that there are practical steps that can be taken to protect children online, adding that he believed that the industry was committed to driving the types of changes that are needed.
He said that it is important to put a broad spectrum of protections in place that would automatically be built into new apps and websites.
“Technology is changing and we need to look at the most innovative tools that can protect children today so that they can fully exploit the internet,” Naughten said.
Curren hit back at Naughten and told him that the issue is more about children being exploited by the internet rather than children exploiting it.
“The people who want to exploit children will use all of the tools that are available on the internet, will use new and changing tools that are being developed,” Naughten responded.
Curren also pressed Naughten on the government’s decision to set the digital age of consent at 13.
Naughten said that banning under 18s from the internet just isn’t practical.
“It’s not about age limits. The idea that you would ban anyone under 18 years of age, or under 16 years of age, from using the internet altogether when it is a very useful educational tool, I think is not the way to go either,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good man Hugh. Can I suggest that you circulate this to some of your younger colleagues who have posted articles over the past few days which have suggested that the fans were responsible for this tragedy.
Hi Eamonn, can you give me any specific examples here?
@ Hugh. Sure, check out an article posted 22 hours ago in the Score section. The original wording was amended after I pointed out the facts of the Taylor Report but in the discussion below the article the writer repeats the assertion that " fan irresponsibility" was the cause of the tragedy. This is totally untrue. The Taylor Report clearly states poor crowd management and Stadium design as the key factors. Thanks Hugh.
@Eamonn: I understand this is a highly emotive subject, and I accept your point re:the ambiguity of the original wording, but your claim that I blamed the actions of fans for the tragedy is grossly inaccurate. I think if you re-read my comment, you’ll see that’s the case.
The significance of the Commons debate lay in its attempt to dispel the myth of fan irresponsibility once and for all, bringing the official, government narrative in line with the experience of supporters and victims. The PM is contemplating a public apology because that never really happened, even in the wake of the Taylor Report.
@ Conor. My concern is that comments like “The question of official blame, however, has historically been reduced to one of fan irresponsibility” is just simply untrue and unfortunately, only helps perpetuate the myth. I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to read this. This is totally at odds with the only official inquiry into the events leading up to the tragedy. That’s my point, nothing personal. Over and out. Thanks Conor.
Another of Thatcher’s legacies.
have your say