By silicon.com, 15 August 2005 16:00
The UK government is reportedly set to announce a crackdown on websites which promote or publish violent pornographic content - but what impact would such a move really have?
Is it a case of being seen to act or a case of acting effectively?
A report in one UK newspaper claimed the government is expected to push for powers to close UK websites which include violent pornographic content but it will of course be unable to block access to overseas websites offering the same content, or take action against those sites. Without forcing the hand of the ISPs, the government will also be powerless to stop UK web users accessing such content, though it may bring in new powers for the police, based on current anti-paedophile measures, to intercept such materials and prosecute those distributing them retroactively.
The only hope for cracking down on such content is for other governments to follow the UK's proposed lead, though there are more precedents of disagreement than accord where international initiatives are concerned in such matters - take the infamous case of US-based Yahoo! and the French government falling out over the auction of Nazi memorabilia, or Google and Altavista falling foul of the Chinese government's restrictions on search terms.
The problem is that legality and censorship vary wildly from country to country and there is very little chance of agreement on an international standard of what is and isn't acceptable.
It's unlikely that anybody could reasonably defend the kind of pornography being addressed here - which includes portrayals of rape, torture and strangulation - but if all nations act on this then we are left with the inevitable question of where the concessions must end?
In military terms our 'island nation' used to be a strength when it came to protecting our population but it now seems there is little value in being isolated in a particular stance in the digital age.
In all likelihood there will always be some country willing to host such content, or at least care little enough about doing so to ensure its continued existence and while that remains the case the government's proposed actions appear little more than well-intended, if entirely ineffective.
Mark Herbert, founder of start-up managed security service provider intY, said in an email to silicon.com such proposed measures fall well short of the mark, adding that the government would be better served encouraging UK ISPs to solve the problem of obscene content being viewed.
And that is the key, and in truth it's the very most we can hope for. But don't hold your breath.
If we can't prevent something we can at least build our digital walls high enough to ensure such content cannot be viewed - as well as cannot be hosted - in the UK. It then falls to everybody else to get their house in order.
Whether we like it or not we are still an island.
But the third argument the government must win will be those people who will always have one more thing they want to block. Because as soon as they go down this route the government will find the most important decision it has to make is where does it stop, rather than how does it start, censoring the internet.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
No I don't look at pornographic sites before anyone asks, I do have some questions though
Who will decide what I can and cannot look at on the web ?
What qualifies these persons as arbiters of my taste and why don't I get a say in their selection ?
Will these powers be used solely in the fight against pornography or will 'scope creep' affect this and have it affect sites the government doesn't think I should see, and once in place how would I tell ?
Will my website have to be vetted before being allowed to be put on the web and what will the application process consist of ?
And the final question is, as always of course, exactly how much will this add to my tax bill on an annual basis ?
2. Allan M. Huss
Ms. Challinor is completely correct. The fundamental problems here, as with all other well meaning government initiatives, are twofold: (!) Is any person themself a better arbiter of what they should say/read/see than a bureaucrat? (2) At what point do other people have a right (or no right at all) to impose restrictions on what that person says/reads/sees?
And, Qui custodiet ipso custodes?
3. MikeW
You missed the 's' from 'Quis' and 'ipsos' !