British media is again buzzing with demands to clamp down on online porn, a stance broadly backed by politicians. The movement this time was triggered by the tragic death of April Jones, with various figures and charities now claiming a “proven” link between porn and sexual assaults, without offering much actual proof. The problem, as ever, is the vast majority of reporting and commentary on this subject remains a mishmash of half-truths, ignorance and outright deception.
Here are the problems as I see them.
Blocking technology simply doesn’t exist
Politicians and the media now regularly argue porn should be blocked by default, and customers should apply to have an ‘unfiltered’ feed should they demand it. Leaving aside the obvious issues of what prosecutors would no doubt dub “a demand for hardcore porn” from those who simply want unfiltered web access, the big problem is there is no magic bullet technology.
At best, blacklists will cover some porn, but some will leak through, meaning it will still be accessible to all, including children. It also won’t require more effort to find—there would just, by default, be less of it. This creates a false sense of security—people expect technology of this sort to be flawless, but it’s far from it.
A better solution would be teaching parents about whitelisting technology, and also more general openness about sex (and even the realities of porn) in British society, rather than the ongoing clampdown to remove even basic sex education from British schools.
Blacklisting blocks access to other content
Blocking technology is, as already noted, imperfect. Often, it’s compiled algorithmically, and it’s driven by a set of rules dictated by the viewpoints of those dictating policy. On that basis, through error or design (or both), blacklists don’t block everything they should and can also include false positives.
There was a case in Australia where a dental surgery was caught in a blacklist, which was clearly an unfortunate error. Sexual health websites are routinely blocked by blacklists, which probably isn’t. This has the potential for a huge negative impact, especially on teenagers genuinely trying to learn and find out information about sex and sexuality. The UK already has a fairly puritanical stance and one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the west; blocking information to such subjects will only make matters worse.
The media is hypocritical
One of the more astonishing aspects of the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection was The Sun’s agony aunt, “Dear Deidre” Sanders, being the Inquiry’s first expert witness (PC Pro). When asked about the fact a child can very easily stumble across Page 3 (which, for those who aren’t aware, features topless women, who are often only 18), she said:
They often say one person’s erotica is another person’s hard-core pornography, it is really really hard to draw that line and I would like to point out certainly that the Editor of The Sun thinks it’s okay, but it’s 9 million people actually; 3 million who buy it and 9 million read it.
So the editor of The Sun thinks it’s OK. Phew! And nine million read it, which is a lot! Surely, that’s far more people than who use the internet! Her subsequent clarifications are that online porn is “too much”, but, as noted The Sun’s Page 3 is “OK”. On that basis, will Rupert Murdoch be pushing for the government to only block hardcore porn by default? Will it still be OK for softcore porn sites to be viewed by default in the UK? What about the Daily Mail’s regular pictures of famous girls in bikinis, alongside innuendo-oriented headlines and remarks that they “look old beyond their years”?
For me, this is all about context. I for the life of me cannot see any justification for Page 3 in a national newspaper (or on its website). But in the context of a silo where that’s what would be both what’s expected and also appropriate on visiting (rather than a child stumbling across such material while within the same silo), that seems acceptable, so long as the content is legal.
Additionally, the media’s falling over itself (including, surprisingly, The Observer), slamming Google for not blocking pornography involving children, and saying something should be done. This ignores the rather pesky fact that the IWF already works with ISPs to do this very thing (PC Pro; also, the IWF’s own site). Still, facts get in the way of good stories (and, in the case of The Sun, teenage breasts), so they’re probably best ignored. Unless you’re Ministry of Truth, out to tear apart the claim that 1.5 million British adults have somehow stumbled across online child porn.
This can be a slippery slope
It’s a bit of a tin-foil hat thing to say, but once you start blocking bits of the internet by default, where do you stop? Should the UK government succeed in its efforts to block ‘porn’, would it be satisfied with that? Or would it continue to nibble away at things it doesn’t want online (for our children’s safety, obviously)? I’m not suggesting the UK’s version of the internet would become North Korea’s overnight (nor, for that matter, ever), but once precedent has been set, it would be relatively easy for a government to start blocking something else it doesn’t like—perhaps anti-government political movements.
Porn is being redefined
Finally, one of the more curious things happening during this recent flurry of media activity has been the redefinition of pornography, or more accurately lumping it all together. The path has been that child porn is unacceptable (which is true, but really that should be termed assault) to hardcore porn being unacceptable to the generic ‘porn’ being something that should be blocked online.
Conflating lots of separate issues is good for headlines but bad for everything else. We shouldn’t be lumping in something that’s perfectly healthy (porn for consenting adults) with something that’s abhorrent and illegal (child porn, i.e. sexual assault on children). By the same token, we also shouldn’t be making knee-jerk reactions against tragedies because they play well with pollsters and get eyes on websites.
If there is a problem in the UK that involves pornography, there should be wider investigations, not least involving education. Whatever solution is found, it should put the power into the hands of parents (provide information and education for those who need it; offer blocking but as an opt-in), rather than being a prescriptive decision forced on everyone by politicians looking for a boost in the polls, and that in the long run won’t be nearly as beneficial as its advocates claim.