Following Ed Vaizey’s illiberal comments regarding internet access earlier in the week, the ISPs have responded. In essence, they are saying that it is not practicable, which is a good thing. However, what they should be doing is saying something much more robust; that it is none of the government’s business to be poking about in this in the first place. Something they do almost say.
In response to the government proposal, Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Ispa industry body, said: “Ispa firmly believes that controls on children’s access to the internet should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down.”
They could go much further and be much more forceful, frankly. But this is a step in the right direction, so is welcome.
As usual there is the hysterical fact free codswallop being trotted out in support of illiberal censorship of our internet access. Take this, for example:
Miranda Suit, co-chair of Safer Media, which campaigns to make media safe for children, told the BBC that the pornography available on the internet was “qualitatively and quantitatively” different from any that has gone before.
Ms Suit cited a report compiled by the US conservative think tank The Witherspoon Institute which suggested that easy access to pornography was damaging some young people.
“Children are becoming addicted in their teens to internet pornography,” she said. “They are being mentally damaged so they cannot engage in intimate relationships.”
Evidence, please… Note the weasel words being used; suggested not proven. Where are all these mentally damaged people? And how, exactly is internet pornography qualitatively and quantitatively different to what has gone before? This is a classic case of junk science being peddled in order to justify the unjustifiable.
Let’s be clear here, there comes a time in a developing child’s life when the opposite sex becomes attractive and pornography is surreptitiously viewed. As mentioned in the previous discussion, my first exposure was at about the age of ten or eleven. I, and my friends, did not become mentally damaged and I have managed to form relationships since that time – and, I presume, so did my childhood acquaintances.
Pornography is not a new phenomenon, all that has changed is the delivery medium. A medium that parents can control should they choose to do so. It is not up to the government to do so and it is not up to think tanks (an oxymoron, surely?). Ms Suit can take her junk science and stick it where the sun don’t shine, frankly. No one is forcing her to look at online pornography and as far as other peoples’ children are concerned – it’s none of her damned business.
Safer Media backed the government call to block pornography “at source”, said Ms Suit.
“What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children,” she said.
No, it’s just censorship and is ethically indefensible.
“Miranda Suit, co-chair of Safer Media, which campaigns to make media safe for children, told the BBC that the pornography available on the internet was “qualitatively and quantitatively” different from any that has gone before.”
Ummm, at the risk of being proved very, very wrong, there’s not many ways to ‘do it’, surely? Even on camera. Have they not all been discovered long before now?
“”“What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children,” she said.””
Who are “Our children”? There are your children and my children. There is no “Our children”.
She should take responsibility for her own kids and leave everyone else to do the same.
“Ms Suit can take her junk science and stick it where the sun don’t shine.”
And could she post a video of it on line so that we can be sure?
Is ‘safer media’ yet another government funded quango that should have been burnt on the bonfire that never was?
I have two sons aged 17 and 13. They both have unfettered access to the internet, except it goes off at 10-30pm every night otherwise I’d be on it all night.
My wife and I take the view that they will find horrific things, far worse than pornography, on the Internet come what may so far better they deal with them in an open way rather than always be wondering ‘what the filter is hiding’ and ‘why is that filter hiding what it is’.
As of the time of writing both are ‘perfectly normal’ teenagers, if there is such a thing, but what they are not is addicted to pornography and have perfectly normal ‘interaction’ with all ages and both sexes so are not mentally damaged by naked humans engaging in sexual activity.
Is this the same Miranda Suit?
http://www.christianchoice.cpaparty.org.uk/?page=map&id=10
If it is it explains a lot.
Should Miranda’s wet-dream succeed, and the ISP’s be forced to, and fail as they surely must at, blocking all porn, will she then be demanding that the sites themselves be taken down?
EnquiringPrurient minds etc, etc.“”qualitatively and quantitatively” different from any that has gone before”? I think I’d agree with that. My first sight of pr0n was at the age of about 11, in a mate’s garage, where he had a stash under an old carpet. Black and white photos of busty women in corsets, with their naughty bits airbrushed smooth. One guy later on turned up at school with a slide (yes, a transparency) of a proper porny photo with it actually going in. Pretty hard to see, never mind do anything with it. Today, if your tastes run to asian granny crack addicts urinating in a sink while shoving a dildo up their arses and fellating a dwarf of colour, you can find images of that within seconds – er, so I am told. And not just bizarre stuff, but huge, massive, endless amounts of the more routine stuff, more in ten minutes’ browsing than someone like me saw in total between the ages of 10 and 18. I’m against censorship, and I believe that this particular issue is the responsibility of parents alone, but let’s not pretend there isn’t a massive amount of it around, freely available and in any flavour you like, compared to, say, twenty years ago. On this, at least, the Suit speaks the truth.
The hard core stuff’s been around for longer than the internet. Twenty or thirty years ago you’d have to go to one of those shops that specialised in Swedish mags to get it. The internet has made access easier, that’s true enough, but to suggest that the really hard/weird stuff wasn’t available before is to deny reality – you just had to go out of your way to get it. I have to say, some of the stuff I saw when I was at college was pretty extreme and graphic and that was in the seventies.
Longrider,
you’re right that a more forceful rejection is needed. The problem is the industry often falls back on a practical argument, about how such things won’t work, but there are always companies working to make these control systems, so the rejection must be one of principle.
Of course the industry responds to harebrained government initiatives with practical objections, because they don’t want to get embroiled in an ideological battle about the rights and wrongs of censorship.
Taking Stephens comment a wee bit further, perhaps this is because the industry knows that they may well lose such an arguement, as they would be arguing against those who have made a profession out of their cause. The industry on the other hand are experts in providing a technical service rather than being experts in moral rights and wrongs.
Flip the coin the other way and you will see MAG using a “philosophical” arguement against the motorcycle helmet law, as they know damn well thet they would lose any safety based arguement. So they argue for freedom of choice and ask “What sort of a world do you want to live in?”
All this touches on a thought I had some time ago (maybe I am just slow on the uptake, so bear with me,)about how we have replaced the old “might is right” with reasoned debate. This is all very well if one is a good debater with a strong command of language – but having a better arguement does not mean that one is right. It only means that someone can state their point more convincingly. We are seeing a lot of this now. Does anyone else ever get the feeling that they are sinking in a sea of bullshit?
Longrider, the porn you looked at as kid was most likely of the soft variety, i.e. naked women. Certainly it was when I was a kid, maybe I’m older than you. It most likely didn’t have penises inserted in every available orifice, other objects inserted, hands, fists up to the elbow, defecating into mouths, simulated rapes and bondage torture. This is the kind of stuff that kids are looking at on their mobile phones in the playground, and if you are happy with that, then this is not the right blog for me. If libertarianism means weirdos who don’t want the state interfering with their perverted masturbation material, then ta-ta.
“The internet has made access easier, that’s true enough, but to suggest that the really hard/weird stuff wasn’t available before is to deny reality – you just had to go out of your way to get it.”
I think that was my point. I know the hard stuff has always been around, but it was hard to find – I tried my best as a teenager (really I did), but all I could find was what would today be considered very soft stuff. As Brian says, there is what in an earlier age would have been considered extreme, now available to any kid with the kit and a modicum of expertise. It might be an inevitable consequence of technology, and there is whole debate about whather it’s desirable or not (I doubt it), but you can’t deny that both in quality and quantity there has been a massive change since I was growing up in the 60s.
You have hard evidence that children are looking at this (simulated rapes, fisting etc.,) in the playground, yes? Secondly, it is not the state’s place to censor – period. Once they start, there is no stopping them. Porn is an easy target (as are cheap jibes about weirdos), but this is merely the toe in the door. Frankly, I don’t care what people look at – their business. Equally, it is no business of the state. What children look at – or not – is a matter for parents and no one else. Parents can easily have their ISP put a block on mobile phones as the facility has been around for some while now – if you follow the link I put in the original article you will see that in some cases it is put on as a default. Orange certainly do, much to my annoyance when I couldn’t access my webmail as it was blocked as an “adult” site.
Actually, that’s precisely what it means. Whether we agree with what other people do, whether we find it distasteful or repugnant is neither here nor there. Liberty means the state not being involved. Providing the material itself is made by consenting adults and viewed by consenting adults, it is no one else’s business – weird, distasteful, repugnant or not. It is easy to defend things we agree with, less so to defend those we don’t, eh? If you can’t hack that, the problem is yours, not mine. If you choose not to come back here because I defend things you would prefer the government to censor, be my guest.
Richard, I think we are probably in violent agreement. My issue with Ms Suite remains – it’s always been around. I do recognise that the medium makes access easier and I conceded that point in the original post. It doesn’t – as you seem to agree – make a case for censorship.