Why blocking pornography is an offense against all of us

I've just been interviewed on Radio 5 about the Prime Ministers idea on saving us all from pornography by making it an opt-in system. The insanity behind this idea leaves me entirely speechless, but I will do my best to overcome that and tell you why I think it's not only a bad idea, but it's an offense against all of us, regardless of if we do or don't look at pornography.

The idea is that that ISP's will have to contact people to ask if they want to opt into a system. I don't even understand what that means - does this mean that what we type is going to be filtered when it reaches the ISP? Does it mean that certain sites will be blacklisted? Does it mean that certain images are going to blocked from reaching us? Let's look at each possibility in turn. Who defines what a 'bad' word is? This is particularly important if you are a medical librarian for example - the chances are that perfectly acceptable terms are going to be blocked. If it's done on a word by word basis are we going to end up with - as we did in with AOL in the 90's - people in Scunthorpe being unable to search for their location. If we're having a banned word list, people will just make up new words. If sites are blacklisted, what about the 600 new sites that come online *every minute*. Who is going to be responsible for checking them? If certain images are blocked, this might be done on the basis of the amount of flesh available (it is possible to do this), which means the innocent shots of you and your partner on the beach might be blocked.

There are already filtering systems available - search engines have them by default. You can add filtering software yourself if you want to protect your children. The woman from the (I think) NSPCC was complaining that it was 'too difficult' for parents to do it. If parents are capable of buying a computer and setting it up, they're capable of installing software that is designed to be easy to do just that. How insulting - how insulting to assume that it's too complicated for people to do. And, if it is, then parents need to damn well step up to the plate and learn how to use the computer in their household. They either care enough about their children's safety to do something about it, or they don't. Why should your choice be taken away from you because of them? And it's not about watching porn at all - it's about having the *choice* to watch it. There's already another filtering system in place - you. If you don't want to look at porn, don't look for it; that's the opt-in system there already. And if you're concerned about seeing images that you don't want, put your own filters on, or use those provided by search engines.

The next problem - sites that are perfectly acceptable and widely used which have pornographic content, such as Flickr. Does opting out mean that you can't look at Flickr? If you can still look at Flickr, you're still going to be able to look at pornography without typing in any words that are going to be blocked. And if words are blocked - do you really want to have a system where an ISP is checking every single word that you write?

Extreme imagery will continue unabaited, despite all of these blocks, because they will come through bit torrent sites or via encryption or private bulletin boards. This ridiculous idea won't help with any of that. Cameron is also talking about 'images of rape'. Again, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If it's photographs of a real rape, this is going to be covered under existing laws. If it's images depicting rape scenarios, then we're going to find that we can't watch a lot of films - Straw Dogs comes to mind for example. Does this mean that a movie website can or will be coming under the blocked list? Even if you have no interest in looking at this type of material, but you want to watch movies, is that going to mean you have to opt in, just to watch the other films you want to see?

The really big screaming hypocrisy here of course is that it's apparently a bad thing to see two people physically loving each other, but it's perfectly acceptable to watch their heads being blown off. Not a word about violence at all! If we're going to be adversely affected by pornography, aren't we also going to be affected by violent imagery? You can't really go down one route without going down both. And this is another reason why this is an offence to all of us - are we really saying that we're so weak willed that watching porn or violent imagery is going to make us go out and do it ourselves? Actually, most of us have this thing called 'respect for other people'. Sure - child murderers have got child abuse images on their systems - anyone who is going to kill a child has issues that run a lot deeper than looking at images, and it can easily be argued that they'll use whatever material they can - including Mothercare catalogues - to justify to themselves that they're ok in doing what they do. Are we all to be tarred with the same brush? Apparently we are. Here's the thing - Cameron thinks you might abuse a child. He thinks, if you're a bloke, that you might rape someone because you've looked at porn. If that doesn't make you angry, it damn well should.

If Cameron is actually interested in reducing either instances of extreme pornography, or particularly child abuse images, why has the funding to CEOPS been cut? He's bleating on about how terrible this stuff is (and yes, he's absolutely right to), but he doesn't actually want to do anything about it himself. He's expecting Google et al to do the work for him. They're already doing a lot. He's expecting ISPs to do it - where do they get the money? That's right, they're going to get it off you and I by increasing subscriptions.

That's not what this is all about though. It's another attempt to get government controls onto the internet. The woman from the NSPCC was most enlightening here... Nicky Campbell said to her - and I'm paraphrasing - 'what about violent material?' She was very up for that too - she wanted to ban that as well. Where does this stop? I don't want to go all thin end of the wedge here, but if this is enacted, what could happen next? What if we get a government that doesn't like gays? It does happen; look at the Tory party. With a structure in place, it's going to be easy to force people to opt into anything a government doesn't like or wants to control.

So you see, it's not about if you watching pornography or not. It's about the right to chose to watch material that is at stake. It's about a government, under the usual 'we must protect the children' mantra to control the rest of us.  And I'll bet any money that you like that there will be a surreptitious linking of  the freedom to search for material and perverts looking for porn. I can see it already 'oh no, you're really interested in freedom of thought and expression, that's just a cover for the fact that you want to look at pornography.' Adults should be able to make adult decisions for themselves, and parents have to take responsibility for their children.

Comments

[Charles Oppenheim]

Brilliant post. Well said. DC doesn't seem to understand how the Internet - or human beings - work at all. My hope is that he's out of office well before this stupid idea of his gets any sort of legal backing.

[Robin (@inrepose)]

I agree with you. Censorship won't restrain the really nasty people that will always find a way to find the junk, even if it is just through physical sharing of images on disc or visits to foreign countries. So if it can't stop them why the rhetoric from Cameron?

All I can think is that he wants to use the mechanism of forcing control and monitoring into the ISP's. A convenient banner to force the setup of more monitoring and control technology. To be honest I think that technology is already there, this is instead a way to soften and justify the use of it so it does not come as such a surprise.

[Neil Infield]

Well argued Phil.

Will this count as pornography?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Urbino

[Phil Bradley]

This is a very good point Neil. I think the line that might be taken is 'material that is designed to provide sexual arousal'. So in theory, this might also include fetish wear shops and god knows what else besides!

[bookburner09]

well put Phil.

It will restrict a lot of art on the web or great works of fiction that would be now be classed as pornography. It's a sad day for common sense and the rise of Big Brother again

[David Bradley]

Fundamentally, Cameron and his ignorant cronies are led by their egos. They make endless idiotic kneejerk reactions to lobbyists and people who shout the loudest. Then, when it all blows up in their face because they were too stupid, quick to react and ignorant of the myriad consequences that would ensue, they make a U-turn.

Thatcher, for her many faults, must be turning in her grave.

Democracy my *rse.

Plus ca change...

[Katharine Schopflin]

"Material that is designed to provide sexual arousal" would count for an extremely large proportion of mainstream newspapers and magazine content.

[P. Matthews]

A lot of the arguments against filtering are either a) focusing on edge cases; and b) assuming that the current policy has not had any expert input. It is actually relatively easy to maintain a blacklist that is kept up to date by the community - I have been using OpenDNS for several years now and it works well. *Of course* it doesn't block everything but it just makes it a litle harder to stumble upon pornography if you're not looking for it.

[Richard]

Hi Phil,

I swear when I first read this yesterday there was a section devoted to the US first amendment and how it make it impossible for Cameron to get US search engines to filter out content. But this morning, it seems to have disappeared. What happened?

[Phil Bradley]

Hi Richard,
I think you must be getting two sites confused - this wasn't something that I included in my blog post and I haven't edited it at all.

Phil.

[David King]

I'm playing devils advocate here, but you've raised a bit of an ignorant point:

"...if parents are capable of buying a computer and setting it up, they're capable of installing software that is designed to [protect your children]."

That covers the 90's household with a single PC shared by the family, but you've forgotten the modern world has mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, TVs and everything else that connects to the 'net. If each one runs a different OS then you're probably looking at a not insignificant bill for all those filtering apps. Then there's the mobile networks too.

[John Kirriemuir]

It's an electoral numbers game and political posturing. There's well under two years now to the next general election. Cameron will have been briefed on things Internet, and will know that most of what he says is misleading and unworkable, and that the very bad people will easily find technical ways around any measures he puts in place.

However, he'll also know that it sounds great to the ill-informed, naive and technically illiterate: "We will make it harder for bad people to look at bad things online, and we will protect children, etc etc". And that the opposition, if they counter, can be spun to look irresponsible e.g. "Labour are trying to block our measures to protect your children. The Conservatives are the party of the safe family".

Cameron's lost a lot of support, especially in the senior demographics who may abstain or vote UKIP, partially because of gay marriage (one of the few good things he's achieved), and needs that massive block vote of previously reliable seniors to (re)turn out and vote Conservative in May 2015 so he can remain Prime Minister. "The net is bad and we will make it harder for bad people to use it" is calculated to sound good to them, especially the many in that demographic who do not use the net and "learn" (cough) about it from the papers.

It would be so good if someone senior from Labour or the Lib Dems would just stand up and say a frank and 100% accurate piece about what is possible and what is not, as well as privacy, safety and libertarian aspects. But after watching PMQs for the last few years, not optimistic on that. At all.

At some point after the next general election, if he remains in office, any plans or promises will be watered down or quietly dropped.

[Kevin Morrissey]

My concern is the database of people who opt in which will be created and then made available to the Police, local councils including social services and uncle tom cobbley etc.

You opted in, no job as a teacher for you. Sorry you failed the adoption process, you opted in. Further down the line your "opt" status could be included with information like CRB checks.

[Sarah]

"Material that is designed to provide sexual arousal"

Well there goes Page 3. Mr Murdoch is not going to be happy about that. There goes Ann Summers, 50 Shades of Grey and Last Tango in Paris, basically the middle class and working man's vote.

I'm hope I'm not the only one who had visions of Maude Lovejoy shrieking "Won't someone please think of the children" when they heard about this.

[Garry Humphreys]

That's telling 'em, Phil, and I couldn't agree more. In fact I'm forwarding your piece to my (Conservative) MP. Perhaps others should do likewise.

Thank you!

[Karen]

Hmm, interesting that when DC has been questioned regarding page3 his response to parents is to simply 'turn the page' Hypocrisy much...?

[David Sant]

As my 'career' sails into the sunset, how fascinating to watch librarians, presumably of the usual soggy left-wing variety, falling over theselves in the rush to defend access to pornography.

[Ian]

As you watch careers sail into the sunset, you realise they really didn't understand the profession they worked in. Which perhaps explains the mess we are in...here's hoping the next generation make a better job of it. One wonders what other *legal activities* David thinks should have restricted access? If anyone is 'soggy' it's the kind of people who cave in to state propaganda so willingly and without engaging their critical faculties.

Good post, Phil.

[Norman]

Phil, your excellent argument hinges on "Why should your choice be taken away from you because of them?". But why is choice so important? I have no choice over many things in my life. PLEASE expand.

[Phil Bradley]

Hi Norman,

Thanks for your reply, which I have to admit that I find puzzling. The only people - it seems to me - who dislike choice are those who want power. The lack of choice is obvious in totalitarian regimes. Bullies like lack of choice and forcing people down one road. There are of course lots of things that we have no choice over, but to use that as an argument to lose even more choice seems somewhat peculiar to me.

[David Sant]

I'm sure 'Phil' has had a very nice time in librarianship, as, no doubt, have 'Ian' and the rest of the library trendies. Goodbye librarianship.