The threat here is that a proposal to prevent children being able to see pornography will in practice prevent everyone from being able to access many non-pornographic sites unless they verify their age and ask for access to adult material. It is clear from some of the report that simple nudity, of the sort that might appear on a medical site, in an encyclopaedia, or on a naturist site, might be regarded as "inappropriate" by some people.

The dangerous proposal is that anyone, individuals or pressure groups, should be able to specify what they regard as inappropriate and barred from universal access. There is no idea of consensus here, just ban anything that might offend someone. As the filtering is intended to be done by commercial organisations such as publishers, advertisers, broadcasters and ISPs, there will be no appeal.

This requires care in opposing, because the front-line argument is against pornography, and most of us probably would agree to the control of serious sexual images, scenes of violence and hateful propaganda. Opposition risks being branded as in favour of pornography, on the not with us so against us principle. It requires some sophistication in the audience to be clear about the danger of suppression of all knowledge of the body and its workings.

So many websites are put behind the adult screen that to opt-in becomes the norm. As the proposed opt-in is on a household basis this will negate the effect of the censorship. As more and more innocent searches and links return "banned" many people will be frustrated.

Many organisations will have two sites, one to keep on the right side of the filters and one with full information.

2012-05-03