Why you shouldn't support legislation blocking internet porn

[Andrewjh]

Ed Vaizey and Claire Perry and a number of other politicians are trying to force ISPs to block adult content under the pretence of "think of the children", however this will have the opposite effect and could lead to children being exposed to far greater problems.

• Children these days are very tech savvy, especially with regard to the internet. And they need to be - the UK is the largest internet economy in the world. To succeed in the UK in the future, you'll need to know your way around a computer and around the internet from an early age.

• What happens when ISPs block sites is something called the Streisand Effect. Basically by banning it, they generate a huge amount of publicity and support for the sites. The Pirate Bay site last week got blocked in the UK, and it received traffic increases of 12 million users downloading millions of pounds worth of software, music, films and games. Blocking something increases its internet traffic, its exposure, and suddenly 30 times more people know about it than did before.

• What also happens when you block these sites is a huge amount of internet users figure out free and easy ways around the blocks. ISP's don't have the resources to stop this, and in most cases, it is impossible for them to do so. anyway. The Pirate Bay blocks can be got around within 20 seconds, and that is just googling "how do I get around pirate bay blocks".

• Many of the methods employed by users to get around the Pirate Bay blocks so they can illegally download files will also be posted as guides to get around porn blocks. These are accessible through any search engine (google, bing, yahoo).

• The problem is that tech savvy children (it only takes one to find out how from the internet or an older brother, then tell his friends, who tell their friends etc) can easily find out how to get around it. I mean it is as easily as it is to look up something for their homework, if not easier.

• The other more dangerous issue is that whilst once they've gone through those guides, they can easily find links to far darker sites which host horrific viruses, hackers, as well as references to drugs, drink and other adult content. They can also find links to anonymous chatrooms where they could meet anyone without you knowing.

• This is the danger that opt in and blocking poses. They will give you a sense of security when there is none.

• This is also based on the assumption that the block actually blocks all porn. They rarely ever do, and sites posing as sex education sites which don't get blocked get through with adult content. So you'll be under the illusion that the internet is safely blocked when it isn't.

Think of it like this. Imagine the internet is a cliff, and we are having a picnic at the top of the cliff. It's a mostly beautiful view, but if you let your guard down, you could fall off. You wouldn't let your child play near the edge. Installing the opt in system is like putting a strong looking but flimsy fence in place. You could be fooled in to thinking it was safe but left to their own devices your child, could easily fall through. We can't put a brick wall there otherwise it spoils the natural beauty of the view (the educational benefits of the internet).

So what to do? Firstly don't support legislation calling for blocks. It doesn't work, its been shown not to work in the past as well as more recently. Children can easily find a way around it, and in doing so find a far darker side of the internet.

Secondly: If you are concerned, use censoring software on your computer, but don't be content with just that. Use Browser tracking software like this - www.any-activity-monitor.com/free-browser-history-recorder.html so you can accurate tell what your child has been viewing, even if they delete it off the browser. There are also many simple, free and easy tutorials written online on how to better protect your computer and your child.

Thirdly: Take some time to talk to your child about internet use. It can be an amazing tool but it can be dangerous. They need to know that right and wrong, safe and risky, they all still apply online (something easy to forget I assure you). They'll avoid things if they know its wrong. They will be curious about things if its only blocked.

Lastly, don't be fooled by people using the "think of the children" line. It's an alarmist appeal to emotion. There is very little danger so long as you use your common sense and only allow a child a sensible amount of time on the internet. As a politics student, I have to question whether this has been saved up till now to gain support for the government after an miserable turn in recent polls.

Thanks very much for reading, I hope you'll consider your position.

In fact if you read Claire Perry's so called Independent Parliamentary Inquiry you will see it was actually prepared and sponsored by Premier Christian Media. A lobby group of the christian right.

So she's a Christian. Big bloody deal. I fail to see how that negates her argument.

It does if her study was not a independent study but just a right wing christian groups propaganda dressed up as fact by a group set up by a woman who did not like seeing the BBC's version of Lady Chaterleys Lover in the 90's.

During questions in parliament about the study Jaqui Smith was reported to have asked if there was a need for better education in schools for children about online safety but without even looking into that avenue or taking a submission from the expert witness Claire Perry didn't let any answer be given to Ms Smith but forced the dialogue onto Harriet Baldwin.

I would think if she was interested in online safety knowing how to improve education would have been a fantastic bit of advice.

Yes, I see your point. I am not up on UK politics as I don't live there. My contribution to this argument has been solely to point out that there are options to restricting porn to children, and also to point out that the images on the internet are not all of pneumatic glamour models earning megabucks.

mariefromstmoritz I completely agree with your last post! :-)

I'm really very grateful for this thread. If someone had just asked me the question my knee jerk reaction would have been "Yes yes, block the sites, ban porn, protect children"

I've spent the last couple of hours reading; this thread, the others linked, I've googled VPN and educated myself.

I've checked my Internet settings, and downloaded better controls onto the PC that DD uses (and written a detailed 'how to' for my technophobe DH). I can't always monitor her (and would rather gouge my eyes out than watch Boomerang with her!) and we can't have the PC in any other room. She has my old iPhone to play games on but can't access the Internet (yet).

Thank you so much to the reasoned, intelligent and IT savvy people on this thread. I thought I was pretty good, but you've opened my eyes - wide.

I now know that a 'ban' or 'block' is a waste of time. Just another way for the gov to waste money on something that won't work. A soundbite and nothing more.

(and I wouldn't trust anything funded by a Christian - or any other faith - group. There is ALWAYS another agenda)

Again, thanks.

LtEveDallas, how lucky your DD is to have such a caring and intelligent mum - if only every child was that lucky. And yes, we do have to legislate for other people's children, not just our own.

I think you are being slightly taking in by some of the views on here. You seem to firmly believe that an Opt-in facility will not work, equally you seem to be putting all your faith in the parental controls on your computer to the point where you are happy to leave your DD on the internet unsupervised.

Why completely dismiss one filtering technology whilst putting all of your faith in another? What's the difference?

A quick question to those who believe blocking websites will work: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia etc all 'switched off' the internet at times and even attempted to block access to Twitter and Facebook. Yet videos of government oppression were still uploaded all the time despite these restrictions. How do you think a government block will work in the UK where most children are so much more tech savvy than a posh tory?

Apparently TalkTalk have done it, you have to opt for blocking or not blocking. Probably the rest will now get their act together and you won't be able to have a provider without opting.

Starwisher "Nudity and porn are not the same."

Yes, of course they aren't, but you haven't said where you'd draw the line still.

Also, it's not quite clear whether you're only talking about images and videos, or whether you'd want to block the written word as well.

And with images, are we talking only photographic images, or would you want to make looking at the work of Egon Schiele opt-in only, too? Or Marini?

How about the more graphic music videos? Should someone prove they're 18 before gaining access to them? And again, where's the line drawn there?

Widowman

Art is not porn. It is representing and celebrating the human body.

I drawn enough naked ladies in my time to know.

I dont children seeing explicit sexual movies of pornographic nature

What do you think its ok for underage children to see?

Starwisher - ah, so as long as it's a drawing, it's ok, no matter how explicit? Can photography be art?

Yes widowman art is photography do. I had to use photographs of naked ladies as references to draw from too.

Bless you, widowman I think you think im some massive prude who faints at sight of a willy!

She is not being taken in at all. She is seeing it how it is.

The point is people on this plant have many different views and we do not want to end up like Iran or China or North Korea where the state determines what is appropriate for everyone. I as on the North Korea web site the other day (yes they have one in Englisn and a rather nice National Anthem actually) and it is a travesty, like Animal Farm, telling them how many rights they have when they don't.

This unworkable proposed porn block is not the way to go and particularly no from a supposedly libertarian conservative administration.

Starwisher the point you are missing is not how you define it in your head, but how you turn that into actual policy.

In order to restrict access to something you need to be very clear what that something is.

And how to define porn is more difficult than you might think at first. And if you were successful in banning movies (hypothetically, as the proposal discussed here won't achieve that) then I would imagine that hand-drawn porn would find a market if it wasn't banned.

So, how do you define porn?

No one is thinks you're a massive prude who faints at the first sight of a willy!

We're trying to get you to think on aspect of this through, to show how the simple promise that they're going to restrict access to porn is much more complicated then they would have you believe (as simple solutions appeal to people - sadly this one isn't a workable simple solution however!)

"an aspect" not "on aspect" gah!

Look, its not the naked body I object underage kids seeing its the ACT

I dont want a kid seeing blonde and busty getting gang banged for instance.

Now threeleft and Widow what do YOU think underage kids are ok to see? Rape porn? Threesomes? Beastality?

I wouldn't be happy for my children to see bestiality, threesomes or rape porn. What gives you the idea, I would?

It's just that I'm aware that people's definiton of porn varies, and it's hard to get a definition in place which covers porn without restricting access to what normally wouldn't be described as porn, too.

I haven't said you're a prude, but your answers are a case in point for my argument.

I don't think that is really the issue is it.

We can all pretty much agree what is acceptable porn and what is imoral filth. the real point is not the immorality of the image or not but more to the amorality of the internet as a delivery method is it not? After all what the police regard imoral images will be hunted and prosecuted pretty much in any jurisdiction in the world by the passing on of details through international cooperation.

The rub is do you want the internet to be amoral blind to what is delivered and you can choose to limit the morality at your end of the tube or do you want that level of immorality to be decided for you on your behalf further up the track by any special internet group that exerts sufficient influence.

How my answers a case in point exactly?

Well, you say "oh, of course art isn't porn" - Schiele, one of the examples I've given had hundreds of his drawings seized by police for being pornographic.

It's impossible to do a blanket definition of porn. And therefore it's pretty much impossible to do a blanket block of porn without either blocking plenty of stuff which most people wouldn't think is porn or letting plenty of porn through anyway rendering it quite useless.

Bans and blocks are no way of protecting children. Education is.

I'm trying to get you to think through how restrictions might work (or not) on a practical level, but you seem to think that means I am happy for my child to see porn?

What makes you think that?

No one is arguing that they want kids to have access to porn!
Do you really think they are?!

I would love porn to be controlled because guess who wins- our children with their freedom.

Why on earth should any parent have to infringe on their kids privacy by constantly checking what they are viewing online?. Why not get their diaries out, as thats what it is the equivalent of.

If porn was more controlled our children could be entitled to privacy without mummy and daddy needing to know every thing they googled.

Threeleft if your failing to fight for our childrens protection from the word go, then hardly makes you look passionate about safeguarding them.