The terror of technology and children

COMMENT

A NUMBER of weeks ago, in or around the day of the latest royal in birth Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron made an announcement regarding the introduction of an “opt-in” system for online pornography.

 

 

He stated there were plans to institute a code whereby all adult content was turned blocked using filters by internet service providers (ISPs). The proposal would mean that every householder who purchased internet access would have to contact their ISP and ask that they be allowed to access pornography.

At the time I dismissed the announcement as a hollow political stunt coinciding as it did with the birth of a child who, as the media reminded us ad nauseam, “will be king”. In the midst of all the royal coverage at the time, the plan received very little coverage or discussion in the media, which concerned me, given its implications. That said, I had forgotten about it almost completely until last week.

I was reminded of it by a discussion on the Vincent Browne programme on TV3 where the possibility of a similar action being taken in Ireland was put before a panel.
The panel included Barnardo’s Fergus Finlay, who argued vociferously that a ban of the kind proposed by David Cameron should be introduced in Ireland as well. Arguments put forward by TJ McIntyre, law lecturer at UCD and chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, that filters of this kind would breach EU law were essentially ignored.

It was disappointing to see Finlay, normally an important and articulate voice for the vulnerable, muddy the waters of the debate by treating pornography and content portraying child abuse as similar and even somehow connected. To suggest censorship in the form of a blanket ban be introduced as a form of child protection measure is ludicrous and represents a step too far by the State.

What appears to characterise this debate is fear. It is not a fear of those who abuse children so much as a fear of technology and children. Suggestions that responsible parenting and supervision of technology might be the answer to preventing children accessing adult material is often met with cries of horror regarding the superior abilities of children to use technology with greater competence than their parents. This is pathetic. Computers are an everyday aspect of life these days and, as such, if a parent has them in the house, they have a responsibility to know how to use it enough to protect their children.

Pornography is adult material and there is no question but that it should not be viewed by children. However, instituting a nationwide policy of censorship in order to compensate for parental failings is not the answer. In days gone by, access to pornography was not as easy as it is nowadays but that didn’t mean that young men of my own and previous generations never saw it.

In magazines or on well-worn video cassettes, pornographic materials were shared and distributed in schools and communities all over the country. It speaks to the ingenuity of hormone-addled young men that illicit material can generally be found, no matter what kind of censorship the state imposes to prevent access. Even if internet access is blocked, a single flash drive containing multiple movies and clips can easily be passed between friends, its contents copied and the small device returned to its owner within a few minutes. The only thing a ban would achieve would be to drag Ireland back towards its dark past where censorship was a fact of everyday life.

It is heartening to see that Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte is adopting a position opposing the introduction of legislation requiring ISPs to block online pornography. Writing in the Irish Independent, he stated, “I remain to be convinced” that a blanket default blocker would be effective.

This is not the kind of staunch position which precludes the possibility of change, so the pro-censorship lobby may well stand a chance of changing his mind.
Claims the filter might prevent people accessing images and footage of child abuse, euphemistically referred to as child pornography, is born of ignorance. These illegal images are clandestine in their nature and shared between abusers and those who fund them. They are not accessed by typing explicit terms into search engines.

Just as things have always operated in the non-digital world, illicit activities take place in dark corners, not in the signposted thoroughfares of the internet where most travel on a daily basis. Therefore there is no point in blocking the routes used by the vast majority of internet users and claim that a problem is being addressed, when the actions will do nothing to tackle that problem.

Non-pornographic information will also be blocked if a filter is introduced because it is a blunt instrument and far from the catchall solution some seem to be suggesting.
I do not want this column to seem like a pro-pornography piece. I am not advocating for pornography but for the protection of online freedoms for the adult population of Ireland. People may have a moral opposition to pornography but if the people taking part are consenting adults and the activities they are engaging in are legal, then no matter how outlandish or distasteful people find their actions, they have a right to do what they are doing. Those adults who wish to watch them engage in these acts, whether out of curiosity or for sexual gratification, also have a right to watch them without having to seek permission from an ISP or government.

Despite the proliferation of pornography online, there remains a stigma attached to the public disclosure of its use. People will no doubt be uncomfortable contacting ISPs to request that adult content be accessible on their account. They will wonder, rightly, whether this request will somehow brand them and their internet use as ‘of interest to the authorities’. This is because of the links insinuated by pro-censorship groups between internet pornography and images of child abuse.
It is right the issue of child protection is to the fore but content filters like those proposed are not going to contribute anything meaningful to the struggle. They will only serve to limit the free access of information online and that is a slippery slope.