Filtering porn sites - a workable solution?

 It is not very often that the government of India is seen discarding its cloak of paternalism in cases involving freedom of expression. Especially if the content is pornography- fraught as it is with conflicting opinions and laden with value judgements.  Therefore it was both surprising and heartening when the government submitted before the Supreme Court on May 9 that a blanket ban on internet pornography would be an infraction of an individual’s Fundamental Rights to freedom of expression as well as privacy.

 

Practical considerations also weighed on the government’s mind.  For instance, proactive monitoring and blocking could make works of literature, even medical literature on AIDS, breastfeeding and the like, inaccessible to those who require it the most.  Instead, installation of filters and specific software could be a feasible option, the government proposed.

 

Here lies the catch. Internet filters to keep out smut are never perfect, and come with a big baggage of threatening accoutrements.  From what appears to be the case, the government is most likely to be swayed by the mechanism recently adopted in the United Kingdom.  Reeling under the violent effects of child pornography, the Tory government last year introduced mandatory “opt-in filters”. This meant that blocking of pornography would be the default option, but people would always have the liberty to contact the service provider and get these hurdles out of the way.

 

 

Much has been written about how Cameron’s preferred system is turning out to be quite a disaster.  The instances of hilarious blockades aside - like “Sussex“ or some relatively salacious double entendres running into a wall, a more serious concern is with privacy.  The seemingly innocuous opt-in system compels one to disclose certain intimate preferences to the Internet service providers, including BT (British Telecom), which means that such information is ending up with either the government or with private corporations. 

 

Experience has shown that no data is insulated, and there’s a very real possibility of a certain company passing on these details to marketers.   It’s not only the public but the private realm of the family which is also coming under threat and strain. How could anyone confess to his or her partner about onanistic fantasies and habits without necessarily jeopardising the relationship? Everybody cannot be expected to share the same liberal values and understanding.  The spectre of the State in the form of loco parentis, acting like a bull in a china shop isn’t an unrealistic one.

 

We need measures that restrict the manner in which vulnerable people can access “harmful” material, rather than those directly affecting the content itself. 

 

Child pornography is abhorrent- children need to be protected from it, and adults' access needs to be completely cut off. But this shouldn't come at the cost of ramming in controls which block legitimate and legal access to other material.

 

The situation in the United States has been different, and not as bad.  The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) and subsequently, the Children’s Online Protection Act (CHIPA), started the experimentation with filters.

 

The COPA imposed restrictions on all forms of child pornography, including pseudo images. This was struck down by a Ninth Circuit Court in Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (1999) as breaching the First Amendment, since no child was actually being harmed, abused or exploited. It is noteworthy that "MacDworkinism"- the theory which propounds, even without incontrovertible evidence, that porn = rape, and exposure to pornography causes and instigates men to commit acts of sexual violence, lies in tatters in the US and other jurisdictions, but in India it enjoys significant currency among the judiciary, government and society.

 

The CHIPA took a different approach. It mandated opt-in filters for all libraries – school, college and public, which accepted funding from the federal government. Exceptions were made for “bona fide research” by adults.  The law also provided for grading and categorisation of computer terminals- those being used by children couldn’t do away with the filter. This method too, came with its own share of problems. “Bona fide research” is a loaded term, and susceptible to prejudicial treatment, especially with regard to sexual minorities. 

 

Even if a straight man or woman walks up to librarians for certain sites to be unblocked, the possibility of being stigmatised and surveilled  as well as having their privacy threatened, could have a potential chillingeffect on speech and expression.

 

Also, those unable to access the Internet from places other than libraries are also put at risk of being denied access to information. Most significantly, would this process subject a researcher to whims or biases of librarians who have the power to sanction unblocking of content?

 

Assuming a variation of the US system is adapted in India, one has more reasons to be concerned. In a country with a predominantly prudish and homophobic population, with still rudimentary Internet and broadband penetration, filters would exacerbate the situation. Lack of access would be compounded by discriminatory barriers, inevitably freezing free speech.

 

As it is, free expression is already cajoled by officialdom. Not that private entities do not censor (Facebook and Tumblr’s blocking of breastfeeding images, or those used for imparting sexuality education, are infamous by now. Internet filters, premised upon the ostensible objective of keeping out child pornography, would add to the further infantalisation of the population by the State and private corporations. Something all of us could definitely do without.

 

Instead, everyone could benefit from a self-regulatory model, something like the one prevalent in UK. All the main Internet service providers support and finance an organization called the Internet Watch Foundation. It is a self-regulatory body that works in partnership with government, law enforcement and other stakeholders to combat criminal online content, primarily child abuse images. But then, our courts and government have to get over its pornophobia and direct all energies on child pornography- for that’s where the real danger lurks.

 

No regulation can be perfect in an imperfect world. It isn’t exactly the best example in the context of free speech, but the results of Microsoft’s search engine Bing’s experiment with filters is relevant. Ignore keywords such as lesbian or orgy, for they will surely raise the hackles of Indian authorities too, but how flabbergasted would you be if you were prevented from placing an order online for chicken breasts?