The Filtering of Adult Pornography on the Internet

AS and A Level Media Studies

The Filtering of Adult Pornography on the Internet

According to an estimate made in April of 2002, 165.75 million people in the United States, approximately 59 percent of the entire American population, were online (NUA). With such a large number of people connected to the Internet, concerns for the safety of viewers have arisen, especially in the area of adult pornography. Many of the people who oppose adult pornography have advocated a law requiring Internet filters that restrict access to all pornographic material on the Internet. However, a law that requires Internet filters for all citizens are not the best solutions because there is insufficient justification to implement them and that many problems would occur from their implementation.

The filtering of adult pornography on the Internet is not justifiable for a myriad of different reasons. First, children can be protected from accidentally viewing pornography through more convenient solutions than a law requiring Internet filters. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence showing the negative effects of adult pornography on the adult population to warrant an Internet filter that restricts all Internet pornography websites. Thirdly, the first amendment rights given to every citizen would be violated by a law calling for Internet filters. Finally, Internet filters may not only block adult pornography websites, but may also block legal and informative websites.

To protect children from accidentally viewing adult pornography on the Internet, a law that requires Internet filters is not the best solution. As the numbers of pornographic websites continue to grow and grow, protection is indeed needed. However, this protection could be provided through more convenient and less restrictive methods, rather than through a law requiring Internet filters. The easiest solution would be for parents to monitor younger children while on the Internet. Parental supervision would be able to direct children away from pornography websites and protect them from any potential harm (Hacker). This guidance would also educate the children so that when they become older, they would learn what to avoid on the Internet and how to protect themselves from accidentally viewing pornography in case parents are not available to supervise. A second solution to prevent children from accidentally viewing pornography would be to install filtering software on private computers. Filtering software is currently available on the market and can easily restrict all unwanted websites (Wade). Many different filtering programs, such as CYBERsitter, Cyber Patrol, Net Nanny, BESS, X-Stop, SmartFilter, and SafeSurf are all available for use on private computers (Miner). By using private Internet filters, rather than a government implemented Internet filter, individual families can decide what they deem as appropriate and inappropriate, instead of having a restrictive blanket pressed impressed on every person. A third solution would be laws requiring adult pornography websites to be “tagged” with warnings (Stevens). This system would provide easy identification of adult pornography websites, thereby deterring children from accidentally viewing them (Stevens). Fourthly, a system of age-verification techniques, such as credit card verification and adult check programs, could be required by all adult pornography websites (Wade). By using this security measure, children are effectively blocked from accessing adult pornography websites (Wade). With so many easier and more convenient solutions to protecting children, it is clear that a law requiring an Internet filter is unnecessary and should not be implemented.

There has always been a negative outlook upon pornography because of its supposed correlation with sexual violence; however there is no substantial evidence to support this claim and warrant a filter of all Internet pornography. Although in the 1970s and 1980s, studies performed by Donnerstein and Berkowitz (1981) and Zillmann and Bryant (1982) showed a direct connection between pornography and increased sexual aggression, these results were greatly exaggerated due to the biased anti-pornography nature of the research teams (Hunter). It is almost impossible to objectively measure the effects of pornography upon a person, because responses are different for each individual ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

There has always been a negative outlook upon pornography because of its supposed correlation with sexual violence; however there is no substantial evidence to support this claim and warrant a filter of all Internet pornography. Although in the 1970s and 1980s, studies performed by Donnerstein and Berkowitz (1981) and Zillmann and Bryant (1982) showed a direct connection between pornography and increased sexual aggression, these results were greatly exaggerated due to the biased anti-pornography nature of the research teams (Hunter). It is almost impossible to objectively measure the effects of pornography upon a person, because responses are different for each individual and cannot be accurately reproduced in a laboratory environment (Gever). The 1986 Anti-Pornography Meese Commission admitted that data it recovered dealing with the connection between pornography and increased sexual violence was “unreliable” (“Pornography” McElroy). Attempts to verify the findings achieved in the 1970s and 1980s were unsuccessful. Studies performed by Donnerstein and Linz (1989) and Krafka et al. (1999) resulted in no direct link between pornography and increased sexual aggression. (Hunter). Not only is there no proof that pornography and increased sexual violence are related, but a 1983 study by the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women found that pornography may have a cathartic effect and can therefore reduce incidences of sexual violence (“Pornography” McElroy). With a lack of scientific evidence, it is incorrect to associate adult pornography with increased sexual violence. Therefore, a law requiring Internet filters to block Internet pornography based on the fear of increased sexual violence is unjustified.

Although there is a belief that adult pornography portrays women as sex objects and that women are coerced into the pornographic business because of the patriarchal society, this, however, does not warrant a law that filters all adult pornography on the Internet. This belief lacks scientific evidence that proves pornography is harmful to the image of women and is based upon ideology (Hunter). Wendy McElroy, former president of Feminists for Free Expression/Canada and author of XXX: A Women’s Right to Pornography interviewed hundreds of women involved with pornography and found zero who believed they had been coerced or knew of anyone who had been (“Pornography”). All of these women had voluntarily participated in pornography (“Pornography” McElroy). According to McElroy, women who enjoy making pornography should not be considered mentally incompetent, but may “come from another background,” have “a different psychological makeup, different goals in life or an unusual perspective" (“Pornography”). It is obvious that society has an impact upon the decisions of all, but to say that women involved with pornography cannot make a decision due to cultural pressure eliminates the option of choice in any situation (“Censoring” McElroy). It is a women’s choice and right to participate in pornography if she so desires. One is rightfully allowed to protest this act. However, using Internet filters to block all adult pornography on the Internet on the basis of protecting women is completely unwarranted.

Contrary to belief, pornography is not an obscenity, a form of expression that is not protected by the first amendment, and therefore laws that filter all Internet pornography should not be allowed. According to the Supreme Court, neither nudity nor the depiction of sexual activity is obscene, and the terms “obscenity and pornography are not synonyms” (Peck 50). Objections against pornography are raised because it offends one’s own religious or social beliefs (McWilliams). However, what is offensive to one group is not necessarily offensive to another. One group’s ideals should not be used as the standard for all, just as an Internet filter would do. As the Supreme Court has ruled that adult pornography does not violate the first amendment, an objection to the morals or nature of pornography cannot be used as a reason for a law requiring a filter that blocks all pornography.

The use of Internet filters to block adult pornography on the Internet would also violate the First Amendment, as declared by the Supreme Court in the 1996 case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. The Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act, which effectively outlawed any indecent online speech in order to protect children, unconstitutional (ACLU). In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the Internet deserves the highest level of free speech protection, the same given to books, newspapers, magazines, etc (Miner). They continued by stating that the Internet is not the same as radio and television, and should not be regulated as if it was (Miner). Through this decision, it is clear that the use of Internet filters to block Internet pornography would be an unconstitutional act, just as the Communications Decency Act was.

Besides merely blocking pornography, Internet filters may also block many other legal websites. Internet filters typically work by identifying words in the titles or website addresses (Miner). This type of system has many flaws, and can potential block thousands of useful websites with one word the filter objects to. For example, a filter set to block out the word “sex” would prevent users from accessing websites about Middlesex, England or Anne Sexton (Miner). A study by Peacefire.com revealed a list of websites blocked by CYBERsitter, one of the largest Internet filter programs on the market. The list included websites such as “The National Organization for Women” and “The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,” both websites which are informative and in no way pornographic (Miner). In 2003, the Kaiser Family Foundation performed a study in which they found that six popular Internet filtering programs blocked up to fifty percent of sexual health sites and twenty-five percent of general health sites (KFF). The Electronic Privacy Information Center also performed a study in which they tested a filtered search engine called “Net Shepherd” (Miner). Their results showed that up to ninety percent of materials containing relevant search terms were blocked (Miner). A non-filtered search for “NAACP” listed four thousand documents, while a filtered search yielded only fifteen documents (Miner). In a search for “Thomas Edison”, the non-filtered search listed 11,552 documents, while the filtered search showed only nine documents (Miner). Clearly, Internet filters block much more than indecent material on the Internet. In order to filter out adult pornography from the Internet, thousands of other websites may also be blocked in the process, therefore limiting the rights of citizens to view legitimate information. This infringement upon an adult’s rights clearly shows that Internet filters to block adult pornography on the Internet should not be used.

Although there are objections to the continually growing number of adult pornography websites, laws requiring Internet filters should not yet be implemented. The protection of children from accidentally viewing pornography could be solved through alternative methods that are better and more convenient. There is not enough scientific evidence proving the negative effects of pornography upon both males and females that warrants a law restricting it. A law requiring Internet filters would also violate the first amendment, while also potentially blocking legal and informative websites because of the broadness of the Internet filters. Clearly, there is not enough justification to call for a law that would create such problems. Therefore, laws requiring Internet filters to block adult pornography on the Internet should not be created.

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “Censoring Indecent Material on the Internet Violates Free Speech.” . 1997: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=4&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=American+Civil+Liberties+Union&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010118232&bl2=AND&bConts=1>.

Corry, John. “Internet Pornography Should Not Be Censored.” . 1995: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=3&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=corry%2C+John&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010158223&bl2=AND&bConts=9>.

Gever, Mathew. “Pornography Does Not Cause Violence.” . Dec. 1998: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=1&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=gever%2C+mathew&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010158239&bl2=AND&bConts=1>.

Hacker, Nina George. “Internet Pornography Should Be Restricted.” . Mar. 1997: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=2&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=Hacker%2C+Nina+George&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010046224&bl2=AND&bConts=1>.

Hunter, Christopher. “The Dangers of Pornography? A Review of the Effects Literature.” . Mar. 2000: University of Pennsylvania. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects.html#rape>.

Kaiser Family Foundation. “Internet Filters Often Block Sex Education Sites, Study Says.” . 11 Dec. 2002: Kaiser Family Foundation. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=15026>.

McElroy, Wendy. “Censoring Pornography Would Harm Women.” . 1997: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=1&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=mcelroy&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010158245&bl2=AND&bConts=9>.

McElroy, Wendy. “Pornography Does Not Cause Violence Against Women.” . 1997: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=4&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=mcelroy&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010068214&bl2=AND&bConts=9>.

McWilliams, Peter. “Pornography Should Not Be Censored.” . 1993: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=2&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=mcwilliams&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010113252&bl2=AND&bConts=9>.

Miner, Barbara. “Internet Filters Should Not Be Used.” . 1998: Opposing Viewpoints
Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.
<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=1&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=Miner&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010037219&bl2=AND&bConts=9>.

Peck, Robert S. “Libraries, The First Amendment and Cyberspace: what you need to know.” Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2000.

Stevens, John Paul. “Banning Indecency on the Internet Is Unconstitutional.” . June 1997: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=1&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=gever%2C+mathew&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010158239&bl2=AND&bConts=1>.

Wade, Keith. “The Government Should Not Regulate Internet Pornography.” . Feb. 2000: Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Mar. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=207&locID=carnegielib&sl3=TD&srchtp=adv&bl1=AND&c=1&ste=54&tbst=ts_adv&sl2=TD&tab=1&tx1=keith+wade&n=10&sl1=A0&docNum=X3010236220&bl2=AND&bConts=1>.