UK Draft Law Reignites Porn Blocking Debate

“The time is coming when the internet should not be treated any differently to any other form of media.” This statement, delivered by British Conservative Party representative Claire Perry, has re-energised an ever-recurring British issue – the establishment of an automatic filtering system for all content deemed pornographic. Certain body parts are soon to become genitalia non grata online in the UK.

At the end of 2010, the then British government suggested banning porn online, in the name of protecting children on the Internet. At the time their plan consisted of asking any users who were particularly attached to their X-rated activities to report them to their service provider (ISP), so that the majority view on the situation could be established.

In April 2012 the process began again. As the initial project in 2010 was never ultimately completed, a new text was introduced before the House of Lords – the upper chamber of the British parliament – at the end of April. The Online Safety Bill has the same basic framework: no more dirty stuff online by default, with afficiandos being asked either to restrain themselves or to request access to their favourite sites. Passions have been aroused on both sides of the debate.

Farewell to asses, dicks and…freedom?

“We do not accept [pornography] on any other form of media, whether television or mobile phones, why must we accept it on the Internet?” asked Claire Perry in a broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on May 1. Days earlier, the face of the movement wrote an opinion piece in the Daily Mail, itself engaged in a large anti-porn campaign. Entitled ‘How much more evidence do we need before we start protecting children from depraved imagery?‘, the subtitle reads “[The] experiences of a mother, and [the] concerns of a politician.”

When I entered the term ‘American Girl’ in the Google search box the images that popped up had nothing to do with the innocent toys (my daughters) loved to play with.

Unbowed by this unfortunate misadventure, the member for Devizes concludes that parental control software is not enough because “the internet can be accessed via iPhones and Wiis as well as computers, laptops, mobile phones and internet-enabled TVs and at the moment every piece of kit needs its own separate safety filters.” Conclusion: time to filter out Internet pornography.

How much more sensible would it be if all internet service providers (ISPs) changed the system so that instead of placing all the responsibility on parents to install filters, the internet was filtered for our home networks and customers ‘opted in’ if they wanted access to pornography and other adult sites rather than trying to ‘opt out’ as they do now.

Censorship and overblocking

For the ISPs concerned, and many network experts, this solution is not as “simple” as is claimed by the Conservative MP. In technical terms, the massive scale of the filtering raises many questions about its potential effectiveness. When blocking a site identified as pornographic, any filtering system runs the risk of also blocking other, less controversial content. In the UK the entire Wikipedia page of the band Scorpions was once blocked because of the cover art for their album Virgin Killer, deemed  objectionable by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). The organisation, which seeks to “eliminate any image of child sexual abuse” had included the link on a blacklist of sites to be blocked by English ISPs.

“It perpetuates the myth that this is a simple technological solution to a complex problem” argues Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch. That observation is shared by Nicholas Lansman, a member of ISPA, the association of English ISPs. “It’s very difficult to define what is illegal or not,” says Lansmann. “We do not want to arbitrate what people are doing online.” He argues that ISPs already provide technical solutions, such as parental control software, to protect the young from pornography.

There’s also been outcry from the adult entertainment industry. “I think we take a step back as a society when you allow the government to dictate what you can and can’t watch,” says Steven Hirsch, co-founder Vivid Entertainment.

Just who are the moral police? This ultimately leads you down a path of taking our freedoms away.

“Some people may feel uncomfortable about letting their Internet Service Provider (ISP) know they want adult content,” he adds, reminding parents of their own responsibility to protect their children. According to the Daily Mail, the blocking of Internet porn “would limit him (Stephen Hirsch) and others in his sordid profession from making vast profits from a business worth billions a year.”

Responsibility

The standoff has intensified in recent days with the case of The Pirate Bay. British ISPs were ordered by a judge to block access to the torrent sharing site, as part of a crackdown on Internet piracy. Claire Perry believes it’s a sign that the face of the web is about to change.

I think what we can see with the Pirate Bay decision is that it refers to a set of changes which says that ISPs have a role to play.

It would appear that what is at stake amidst this trench warfare is less the legitimate or illegitimate place of porn on the Internet, and more what face we want to give to the web. “You are the ones that give access to the Internet: why do you not police the Internet?” was the question heard on the BBC regarding the role of ISPs. The crux of the problem is the notion of responsibility.

On the one hand, we have proponents of a more closely regulated Internet where, as articulated on the BBC, “the protection of children eclipses any concern of censorship” and where it is incumbent on ISPs to police their networks. On the other, defenders of a network where the blocking of sites is “not only [seen] as ineffective but also morally undesirable“. And where individuals, consumers and producers, are responsible for their actions.