When discussing the issue of Internet Pornography Censorship three questions invariably arise; What is porn, how should censorship be regulated, and who should be responsible for regulation?
"The boundary between porn and art has been argued since the creation of cave paintings, and there is (still) no definitive answer" (White, 2001). Despite this fact individuals use the term as though there is a universal understanding of what is and what is not porn, even though the lines separating their opinions of what is and what is not porn do differ greatly. For instance, what one person deems to be illicit and harmful, another may see as acceptable or even enjoyable. Akdeniz (1997) argues that ‘in a multi-national environment such as the Internet with cultural, moral and legal variations all around the world it is difficult to define 'pornographic content' in a global society.’ To further the problem he argues that the internet is a “complex, anarchic, and multi-national environment where old concepts of regulation, reliant upon tangibility in time and space, may not be easily applicable or enforceable.� Thus making the task regulation a complex and difficult objective.
An important point to consider is the difference between illicit content such as harmful or graphic pornography, and illegal content such as child pornography. Although again the problem of international boundaries arises as the exact definition of child pornography varies from one country to another. In the debate against regulation legal pornography benefits from freedom of speech arguments, however these cannot defend child pornography where real physical harm to children is inevitable in its production. But who should be responsible for enforcing such regulations and policing the internet to ensure that such illegal content does not exist?
In July 2004 the US Supreme Court blocked the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (copacommission.org), a law designed to punish those responsible for placing material ‘harmful to minors’ on the internet, as well as those responsible for child pornography. The act was rejected as it violated freedom of speech laws. According to Mears (2004), attorney Ann Beeson argued that “There are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults.�
One regulatory solution posed is that of self-regulation. Self-regulatory systems may work if they are accepted as a general standard. One such standard is the ‘Platform for Internet Content Selections’ or ‘PICS’. According to Akdeniz (1997) “PICS works by embedding electronic labels in text or image documents to vet their content before being displayed or passed onto another computer.� The labels can be added by the publisher, an ISP, or an independent body. The most common rating system combines PICS with a system used by the US based ‘Recreational Software Advisory Council on the Internet’ (RSACi) which rates material according to the level of violence, sex, nudity and language. However the PICS/RSACi system has recieved strong criticism because it's methods are seen to be covert and there is no room for public dissent.
Generally speaking each country has its own definition of what is and what is not permissible regarding pornography, each implementing different levels of censorship and legislation. In Australia for example it is illegal for an ISP to host a pornographic website. However should the government take responsiblity for 'protecting' users, such as the Chinese government who has gone to great lengths to eradicate online porn? Should the ISP take responsibility and will they be willing to do so? Or should it be left to the end user to censor themselves using methods such as filtering technology?
According to a 1996 Communication to the European Commission 'the answer to the challenge is a combination of self-regulation by ISP’s, new technical solutions such as rating systems and filtering software, awareness actions for parents and teachers, information on risks and possibilities to limit these risks and of international co-operation.' (http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/content.html).
--Chris McCosker 14:26, 26 Oct 2004 (EST)
--Chris McCosker 19:51, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
Internet Pornography Censorship: Access
Internet Pornography Censorship: Censorship in China
Internet Pornography Censorship: Filtering Technology
Internet Pornography Censorship: Arguments For and Against
Pornography and Internet Technologies
Moral Panics and the Internet
