52 (“snailmail”). Distribution of racist literature through the Internet is as unacceptable as distribution by hand or through the mail; similarly, distribution of child pornography or “snuff” films is unacceptable irrespective of the medium of distribution. In this sense, Botswana, like other countries, should look to its general criminal law and social policies for guidance on dealing with Internet content. In a number of cases, existing legislation is sufficient to deal with the issues of illegal (as opposed to unacceptable—to some) content. The policy question is how to identify and communicate information about content to users, as well as enforcement of existing legislative provisions regarding illegal content. 7.3.15 Censorship has been attempted in some jurisdictions (e.g., South Korea through its Electronic Communications Business Law, which established the Information and Communication Ethics Office), but a more general approach has been the development of self-regulatory or co-regulatory systems51 that place responsibilities on the various players, particularly Internet Service Providers.52 7.3.16 The EU has put in place an Internet Action Plan which focuses on selfregulation, supports a network of hotlines where offensive content can be reported, benchmarks content filtering and rating, and supports a European network of safer internet awareness centres. The Safer Internet Directions for 2003-2004 extend to new online technologies, including mobile and broadband content, online games, peer-to-peer file transfer, and all forms of real time communications, such as chat rooms and instant messages. A study of the implementation of the Internet Action Plan53 has indicated that adequate resourcing is key to successful selfregulation and that significant economies of scale can be realised through the functional integration of key aspects of content regulation 51 Self-regulation is defined in this context to mean a scheme under which bodies draw up their own regulations or rules to achieve certain objectives and take full responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the rules. Participation is generally voluntary and the rules often take the form of industry codes of conduct. Co-regulation is based on a self-regulatory framework except that a state authority either lays down the basis for the self-regulatory framework, providing it with the authority to function and potentially enforce its activities, or integrates the self-regulatory framework into an existing public authority framework. There are a number of possible co-regulatory combinations of industry and public authority. Germans often use the term “regulated self-regulation” for co-regulation, which is the common European and Australian term. 52 See Decision No 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and European Council of 25 January 1999, Official Journal L 033, 06/02/1999 53 A report of the self-regulatory regime in Europe from 1999 to 2004 can be found at the Oxford University Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Programme in Comparative Media Law & Policy, “Self-regulation of Digital Media, Converging on the Internet: Industry Codes of Conduct in Sectoral Analysis,” 30 April 2004.