A few weeks ago I had written about the UK’s online pornography block.
At first blush, it seemed like a good idea. I had said,
“Like most laws that place limits on activity, it can be taken to an extreme and be used to abuse the citizenry; but when it comes to limiting something as obscene as pornography and all the extremes that are tangled-up in that genre, I think the UK has made a good move in putting these safeguards in place.”
After some push-back in the comments, I’m rethinking this…
The Problem with Internet Censorship
Someone I know from Finland brought up some great points on Facebook, as The State can take use censorship like this to oppose anything that they deem “bad.” They have a similar censorship law in Finland; this is what he had to say about it:
“We’ve had “child pornography” censuring for quite some years now. Ironically, one of the first sites to go under censorship was lapsiporno.info (lapsiporno is Finnish for child pornography), which is NOT a site that contains pornography, rather it’s a site which criticizes the whole censure system.
Also, the site is still under censure even after years of complaints to the police which maintains the block list. The case also went to court, and the site maintainer won the plea – one should be able to complain about decisions made by authorities. Still, nothing has happened.”
Wow. Pretty amazing, right?
Who wouldn’t be against child pornography, yet we can see that a system built to censor never functions like it should. He goes on to bring up some other excellent points:
“Censuring the internet is a stillborn idea, as contents can be moved from server to server in a matter of seconds. Also, servers that contain suspicious material can also contain legitimate material as well.
Internet censure is like putting a ribbon around a book in a library. It doesn’t remove access to the contents, but rather can attract exactly the wrong kind of use.
Because the Internet is HUGE, there’s no way of maintaining the censure lists by hand. Instead, this will be done by some sort of computer algorithm.
In addition to the problems I listed above, this opens up the whole possibility of abuse: it just takes one person to upload a couple of files (using his/her account, or a security hole in your site) with illicit contents and the system to pick it up to get your whole site censored. Just think about the bad publicity you’d get because of this kind of smearing. And this could happen to any site… and it could be painstaking to impossible to relieve the censure.”
So even if we wanted to censor something disgusting or something that everyone agrees to be wrong, there are hurdles that are simply too difficult to overcome. Hurdles that are not worth sacrificing for the greater freedom of the Internet.
Thoughts?
Phil Schneider says
It’s a tough thing. I agree that, technologically, it’s very hard to actually censor the Internet. Politically, it might be a dangerous thing as well.
Child porn is considered dangerous, damaging, disgusting, and a whole host of other d-words. That’s why we want it blocked….but what happens when political, religious, or social believes are viewed in this way? Sure, no one would probably care if we blocked Nazism from the Internet, but what happens when the majority finds YOUR political beliefs to be dangerous, damaging, etc.?
This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.
Metaphorically, of course. Generally, I’m asleep before I hit the pillow.
Eric Dye says
Well said. Well played. I know that feel.
Adam Shields says
The very nature of censorship has always been a part of the defense against censorship.
It is very much like the defense of religious freedom. If you impede the religious expression of a minority group religion (or even a hated group), then you allow for an exemption to freedom of religion. Which may come back and impact you when your group is minority or hated.
This is why mostly Jewish lawyers for the ACLU vigorously fought to allow KKK to do a public rally in a very Jewish part of the Chicago suburbs in the 1970s. It is why Christians worked with Native Americans to keep smoking Peyote legal as part of Native American religious ceremonies.
It what I find so troubling about many current Christians protesting the building of Mosques in the US now.
At the same time, I do think that the UK is right to try and have a system of filtering that is nationally based. I just think it has to be opt in, not opt out. And there needs to be a public way and transparent way to protest and complain about content being inappropriately filtered.
Phil Schneider says
I think that the opt-in/out plan is a solid compromise. It would be wonderful to know that the Internet coming into my home or church was porn-free from the provider, but I, too, worry about what damage such a precedent could do if it was applied against Christianity.
Eric Dye says
Interesting….
Eric Dye says
Always well said. Thanks, Adam, for adding so much value to this discussion.
Paul Alan Clifford (@PaulAlanClif) says
I think this is like the NSA spying. Sure, now it’s to fight terrorists, but what happens when a militant atheist gets in the White House and wants to fight Christians? Just as with child porn, we want the worst things gone, but at what cost?
I don’t want to live in a world with required universal nudity and random body cavity searches, but that would make the world much safer; there would be nowhere to hide weapons or bombs in that world. I don’t want to live in a world where everything offensive is censored because that’s what the Chinese do and they find Democracy offensive. See the problem? Offensive and safe aren’t things we can quantify. They change and the people in charge can abuse them.
Phil Schneider says
Once again, Paul, you take the conversation up a notch. I completely agree. That’s why I wrote my recent post on the NSA, the only branch of the government that is listening. I’m very concerned that any “offensive” or “controversial” beliefs will become increasingly censored.
Eric Dye says
It’s true.
BENNETT says
Think back to when the first internet was created (i.e. radio propagation). Anyone could broadcast anything at anytime anywhere over as large an area as they could technologically achieve. Our society decided it was in its interest to regulate it. And today it is more or less safe for my kids to turn on any radio I own (including broadcast TV, amateur radio, and dozens of other wireless gadgets).
What is different about the internet? I mean the question seriously. Why are pornographers free to broadcast “across the web” but not across radio waves? Perhaps because radio is free but the internet requires ISP? Is it because radio waves by nature are a natural occurrence and the internet is man made? Maybe it is more of a sociological question. Radio advanced during a time when moral ethics was a little more universal. They could agree on censorship better than we can today.
Then again it probably all comes down to money.
Phil Schneider says
I think you might be right on every count.
Eric Dye says
Well, the reason why radio is regulated is because there is a natural-as in, nature-limitation to the number of frequencies allowed to be created within the frequency spectrum. That is why they are heavily regulated. With the Internet, however, this limitation does not exist.