Failures

by Glyn Moody


Filed Under:
evidence, porn filters, surveys, uk



Evidence That UK Needs Mandatory Porn Filters? Informal Survey Done At One School

from the serious-policymaking-much? dept

In the UK there is currently a campaign and associated petition from the organization "Safety Net: Protecting Innocence Online", which calls for mandatory Net filtering of pornography -- people would need to opt out of the system if they wanted to view this material. The justification -- of course -- is the usual "won't someone think of the children?" Here's the pitch:

Every day children and young people are accessing mainstream pornography on the internet, including the most hardcore, violent and abusive images. Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation, negative body image and unhealthy notions about relationships. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Nick Pickles from Big Brother Watch looked into what that "evidence" might be, and found something rather interesting:
One of the key statistics relied upon by the campaign is that "1 in 3 10 year olds have seen pornography online". They do recognise it was published in Psychologies Magazine in 2010, but the appearance is given that this is a serious statistic. It’s also used in their 'Key Facts' briefing.

When you dig a little deeper however, that definitely isn't the case. The full section in the magazine reads:
"We've had plenty of letters from concerned readers on this very topic, and when we decided to canvass the views of 14- to 16-year-olds at a north London secondary school, the results took us by surprise.

Almost one-third first looked at sexual images online when they were aged 10 or younger."
So, the statistic -- […] at the heart of the petition's press release -- is based on one magazine's anecdotal research at a single school.
Actually, it's even more ridiculous than that. That "statistic" states "[a]lmost one-third first looked at sexual images online when they were aged 10 or younger." But as is well known, UK newspaper titles like Rupert Murdoch's "The Sun" carry "sexual images" -- pictures of topless women -- every day. Given the large circulation of the those titles, it's far more likely that children will have seen "sexual images" there, rather than online, and that their attitudes to women will have been harmed more by this kind of relentless objectification than by isolated images they come across on the Internet. And yet strangely no one is calling for Rupert Murdoch's newspapers to be censored.

It's a classic demonization of the Internet that ignores the broader context, and is based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Worryingly, the UK government is sending out clear signals that it supports this campaign regardless. It's currently conducting a consultation on "Parental Internet controls", which closes on September 6. It's extremely poorly worded and clearly biased in favour of the idea of making blanket censorship the default.

If such Net blocks are brought in, legitimate sites will inevitably be blocked by mistake, but it's not so clear that the objectives of protecting children will be achieved. With blocks in place, parents may be lulled into a false sense of security, and so fail to supervise their children's online activities adequately, which will leave the latter exposed to greater not lesser risks. Meanwhile, young people will find ways to circumvent the blocks -- or just buy a copy of "The Sun".

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    exPupil, 6 Sep 2012 @ 5:16am

    School pornography

    I think I was 9 or 10 when I first came into contact with pornography, and although I think my first exposure was outside of school, I can remember being exposed to it within school as well, albeit on my own time, egged on by a few friends of mine.

    Now unsurprisingly, my school subscribed to the local council's internet filtering effort, so if you tried to look at anything interesting and non-educational, you were soundly rebuffed and redirected back to the safe parts of the internet. Except for the fact it wasn't a terribly good filter and was probably operating off a blacklist or something because there were a number of websites were not blocked, including a number of pornographic ones.
    Now this is the bit where it gets interesting, because when you filter the internet, you go for all the obvious stuff, the softcore, the tamer hardcore, the normal stuff. The stuff I found, which fell through the net, was the abnormal stuff: BDSM, female domination, scatology, and other stuff that people /really/ don't want kids looking at (and to be honest stuff, I probably didn't want to look at, but did as a way of sticking it to the man), and it was only because this was the stuff that was available that I encountered it.

    As I 10 year old, I would probably have been content with a few pictures involving nipples and maybe a penis, and not gone any further, but because that was denied me, I ended up finding the more unpleasant stuff. And I think that is the problem with draconian measures such as this, not only does it usually not work as intended, it might even make things worse than they already are, and that's the way I see this going.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.