Which parent has not, one day, taken their 8-year-old to see a “general audience” film, because it had no ban for under-12s, and discovered during the screening that they would have preferred their child not to see certain violent or erotic scenes? And which parent has not felt helpless on learning that their child had been able to watch pornographic sequences on a classmate’s mobile phone during break?
In August 2018, the CNC commissioned Serge Tisseron to make proposals on the theme: What protection for minors in audiovisual media in the age of the internet?
His report is here: https://www.cnc.fr/professionnels/etudes-et-rapports/rapport/quelles-protections-pour-les-mineurs-dans-laudiovisuel-a-lere-dinternet_1130002
Its first objective is that parents should always be fully informed about the audiovisual content made available to their children, in cinema and on television, so that they can exercise their responsibilities with full knowledge of the facts, and that on the internet, certain programmes, notably pornographic ones, should be impossible for them to access.
1. Better informing parents and protecting children
Today, there is no reference grid making it possible to ban certain shows to minors on precise criteria validated by scientists. Nor is there any advice for parents on the quality of the shows offered to minors under 12.
To remedy this twofold problem, it is urgent to create a committee of independent experts with a twofold task. The first would be to draw up an assessment grid for audiovisual content according to the age of the children: 3, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 18. This grid would be common to cinema, television and the internet.
The Commission de classification des œuvres cinématographiques (CCOC, the film classification commission) would continue to rule on the age bands above 12 (that is, 12, 16 and 18), as is the case today before any cinema release or television broadcast. However, so that the CCOC’s twofold purpose (protecting young people and respecting works) is fully achieved, we recommend that the classification committees, which carry out 90% of the classification work and whose decision is endorsed by the CCOC, may sit only on condition that a balanced representation is established between 50% child protection professionals and 50% representatives of the film professions. The quorum set would therefore necessarily be an even number respecting parity.
Another commission, whose creation we propose, which could be called the Commission de classification des œuvres cinématographiques pour enfants (CCOCE, the film classification commission for children), would make recommendations for the age bands below 12 (3, 6 and 9). These recommendations would have no binding force and would entail no additional burden for cinema operators. Their role would be advisory. They would inform parents when a film is released in cinemas and would have the advantage of accompanying the film throughout its career, whether on VOD, for family use or at school.
A second task of this committee of experts would be to create pictograms explaining the reasons why certain shows are not recommended for certain age bands, on the model of what already exists for video games with the PEGI standard.
These bans and recommendations would appear on all media, and in particular on film posters and DVD packaging, at the start of each film, each trailer and each television programme.
2. Making all content providers accountable
Any provider of audiovisual content, whether an individual, a company or an association, would be required to accompany the public release of any audiovisual product with two indications: the recommended age (a “3” would appear by default), and one or more possible pictograms indicating the nature of the problematic images. Individuals, companies, institutions or associations that do not respect this principle, or apply it badly, could be penalised, in the form of a warning and/or a fine. This self-assessment would be validated – or invalidated – after the fact by the relevant commission: the CCOC for the “12”, “16” and “18” recommendations applied to films; the CCOCE for the “3”, “6” and “9” recommendations applied to films; the CSA for the “3”, “6”, “9”, “12”, “16” and “18” recommendations applied to television programmes, with the possibility of going further than the recommendations of the CCOC and CCOCE while respecting the same age bands.
Specific recommendations concern internet platforms (Netflix Juniors, YouTube Kids, YouTube and Facebook), as well as pornographic sites. To respect the principle of the information that must accompany all programmes, internet platforms would undertake to set up software enabling a first check of the information supplied by the individuals and companies putting content online, and sufficient staff to verify that works comply with the grid recommended by the committee of experts.
3. Better informing those who deal with children and making them resource persons
Finally, teachers, educators and socio-educational youth workers, as well as school psychologists, would be trained in the question of images and how children receive them, both in initial training and in continuing training. This training/information could involve municipalities and existing schemes.
Let’s make this report known! Better informing users, making content providers accountable and strengthening the training of resource persons are today the three objectives that the overhaul of legislation must aim for, in favour of better protection of young audiences in audiovisual media in the age of the internet.
Serge Tisseron is a psychiatrist, doctor of psychology with accreditation to supervise research, member of the Academy of Technologies, and associate researcher at Université de Paris (CRPMS).
