Netflix says that it will consider removing movies and TV series from its library to avoid clashing with the U.K. government over proposed regulation that the government says will bring streamers more into line with traditional broadcasters, but Netflix says represents an “onerous” burden for streamers, who Netflix says have good reason to be regulated differently from their TV competitors, since watching something on streaming is more interactive and more a direct personal choice than watching on TV. The British Media Bill would impose “due impartiality” rules for streamers, which aim to remove controversy from broadcasts by forcing equal treatment on issues of “current public policy” and matters of “political or industrial controversy.” What this means in practice is that programming accused of bias could result in hefty fines.
It’s easy to look at that language (provided by Deadline, who have been covering the Media Bill) and see the dangers: stories involving “political or industrial controversy” are all over the place, and under that broad definition, Netflix could end up facing fines for content that the vast majority of people do not object to. The streamer also cites the dangers of “complaint tourism,” where activists from outside the U.K. could lodge complaints about content they don’t even have access to.
Videos by ComicBook.com
“The range and variety of Netflix’s content, generally considered a strength of our offering in terms of maximising choice for British viewers, could equally become a potential source of risk from a compliance perspective if it fell within Ofcom’s remit,” Netflix said in a five-page document sent to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. “Without considerably greater clarity around the scope and application of these provisions, it would inevitably be easier to remove content pre-emptively from our UK catalogue than risk an onerous compliance burden and potential liability.”
Netflix’s document suggests that documentary films will be likely targets, and that compliance with the proposed regulations will create a chilling effect on speech. They argue that the vague language and broad scope of the bill is what they object to, and not regulation as a general principle.
Netflix’s concerns are likely informed by current events. In the U.S., a number of states are engaging in heated debates around censorship of books in schools, with a key piece of the puzzle being parent complaint forms, which are being weaponized to remove anything deemed objectionable by a relatively small group of activists. School board and local regulatory meetings to discuss the issue will attract activists from outside the district or sometimes outside the state, and in some cases, the complaints are coming from perspectives outside of the mainstream, allowing fringe ideologies an outsized influence on the system.
Even beyond current examples, it’s easy to read the vague language above and see how movies about the history of the civil rights movement or organized labor could be singled out for censorship under the umbrella of “political or industrial controversy.”
Disney has also voiced objection to the proposal, writing in part, “Given the differences between linear broadcasting and VoD , the robust audience protection measures put in place by most VoD services, the varying consumer propositions and brand promises made by different VoD services, it seems inappropriate to apply uniform rules on all VoD services, whether that is strict content rules or mandated ratings.”
