Child+Porn+Censorship

=__Censorship of Internet Child Pornography__=

Additional Information About:

 * "Virtual" Child Pornography
 * The Punishments for Internet Child Pornography Offenders

Civilization have long debated whether pornographic works should be subject to censorship, and the question of how to distinguish between artistic works and pornography has puzzled governments ever since they began to take freedom of expression seriously.

Censorship of Internet child pornography is a big controversial issue among countries and society. Some view censorship as an important step in protecting minors from pornography, on the other hand there are those that feel that censorship violates their freedom of speech and in some cases ignores artistic expression. Depending on the types of law in a particular country, the views on censorship change accordingly.

The United States, feels very strongly for the censorship imposed by child pornography laws. This is because these laws try to protect minors from pornography. However, the idea of censoring child pornography also goes against the First Amendment, where freedom of speech is encouraged. To just say that child pornography should be banned because it causes harm to children, actually lacks First Amendment protection since it is supposed to be a crime, which abuses a child (Adler). So generally, the censorship of what is constituted as child pornography may in fact ignore the artistic value for works of ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value’ (Adler). Of course there are other issues raised with the laws of child pornography. Sociologists might argue to say that prohibiting child pornography will actually raise the sexual desire of pedophiles, making children more sexually alluring (Adler)

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court was considering the 1996 law, which banned computer, generated images of child porn and brought issues of ‘morphing.’ (Lyman) The 1996 law, which was let go by the Supreme Court because it violated the First Amendment and it, is a “…muzzle on the use of technology in creating content.” (Lyman) is being reconsidered by the Bush Administration. This would indicate that the U.S. is moving towards a more conservative government. The law would prohibit computer-generated images, as well as visual depictions of minors engaging in sex acts. The members of legislation want to point out that no matter if the child pornography is virtual or real, it still creates danger for children. This situation shows how the censorship of child pornography laws are being more strict, making the U.S. one of the few countries who ignores artistic expression.

Unlike the U.S., Canada has been criticized for having weak laws protecting minors from pornography. The Committee to End Child Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking (ECPAT) harshly criticized Canada for flawed legislation for the prevention of child exploitation. They said that Canada lagged behind many industrialized nations and even some developing countries such as Mexico, which is traditionally-known for being a haven for child pornographers (McDonald). At first, the legislation was broad and it required clarification. However, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Bill C-15A) was passed, it made Canada’s child pornography law the toughest in the world (Rubin). Canada goes beyond possessing but the simple act of viewing is a criminal offence. In order to avoid access to child-porn websites, there are products specifically designed to block access to questionable material, such as NetNanny, CyberPatrol, CYBERSitter and Surf Watch (American Bar Association) to name just a few. But, unlike the U.S., Canada actually takes in consideration works, which are seen as having artistic expression. Since the Badgley and Fraser Report (Kimber) provide distinctions between works with artistic merit and pornography, Canada has the ability to make sure works of pure tasteful imagination are not censored.

United Kingdom government favours a self-regulatory approach form of censorship and encourages ISPs to “devise a Code of Practice to control access to illegal and unsuitable material or face increasing political pressure for curbing legislation, (Akdeniz, p.9).” This is because ISPs have not been defined by the law as, “publishers, distributors or common carriers” so they cannot be forced to compel with any regulations regarding controlling sites and people’s access.

In the summer of 1996, along with US, UK police tried censoring Usenet discussion groups alleged carrying child pornography, but the case was criticized and the attempt was challenged in the courts.

“There are more than 14000 Usenet discussion groups all around the world but only around 200 groups are sex related, and some of these relate to serious and legitimate discussions, such as about homosexuality or sexual abuse,” (//Akdeniz//)

So when governments put censorships on online sex related discussions, it prevents those expressing their freedom of speech by putting a limit on what can be discussed even though it may not be anything criminal.

According to Pedophiles, child pornography is a form of expression involving fantasies and therefore there is the argument that the law ought to be less severe because its citizens’ freedom of speech and expression to fantasize about whatever one chooses.

V21, a UK Internet Service Provider says that it has adapted the Internet Explorer (IE) browser to block access to unsuitable areas of the Web that can help fight the online child pornography war. However, critics of their claims say that the ISP will not succeed at this. Also, such censorship will block people’s freedom of expression and access. Because,

//“ The more safety that is guaranteed on the Web, the more restrictive Internet access becomes. Their claims are large and extravagant, and by not providing any access to chat or newsgroups, they are removing a key feature of the Internet that kids love. And an ISP who doesn't provide moderated chat is missing a key point, says John Carr of Internet consultant at NCH Action for Children.”// //(Wendy McAuliffe.)//

In Russia, censorship arises in the law’s failure to clearly define censorship. A major loop hole in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation’s treatment of pornography is that it defines a “punishment for the “illegal” proliferation of pornography which implies that there is a possibility of “legal” dissemination of pornography, which, in its turn, is not reflected in the Russian legislation at all” (“Battle Pornography”, online). More clarity would arise if the law was amended to place responsibility for proper pornography use on the user.

As it can be seen, censorship is viewed differently in each country. The U.S. wants to impose stricter laws on child pornography, making virtually anything that includes an image of a minor to be illegal. On the other hand, Canada tries to determine if the material containing a minor has artistic value or simply child porn, before it makes any claims. The U.K. on the other hand, seems to fall in between U.S. and Canada while Russia has no concrete set of pornography laws. Their views on censorship is that ISPs should be somewhat liable for the content their customers access, which is why ISPs are told to have rules of conduct when providing their service.