Contact: Robert Peters, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210

NEW YORK, Dec. 21, 2010 /Standard Newswire/ -- According to a report in today's N.Y. Daily News, the British government wants "to cut off access to pornographic websites to protect children." Under the proposal, said the report, "ISPs would block household computers from all porn sites, and parents who wanted to watch porn would have to opt in."

Morality in Media president Robert Peters had these comments.

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court there are now no enforceable laws in the U.S. that require those who distribute "adult pornography" on the Internet to take reasonable steps to restrict children's access to this material, because a majority of that Court's Justices are of the mistaken opinion that parental use of filters is the whole answer to protecting children from Internet pornography.

Today, if a child were to walk into a U.S. "adult bookstore," he or she would be told to leave, because it is against the law to sell pornography to children in real space. But if that same child were to "click" to most commercial websites that distribute hardcore adult pornography, he or she could view pornography free of charge and without restriction, because when it comes to cyberspace, there are no laws that restrict children's access to "adult pornography."

Parental use of filtering technology on computers under their control should be the "first line of defense" when it comes to protecting children from Internet pornography. But many parents are unable to use such technology or are unwilling to do so. While it may come as a surprise to some government officials, including some U.S. Supreme Court Justices, many parents are:

• Unable to afford technology
   
• Technologically challenged
   
• Unable to read the printed instructions
   
• Physically or mentally disabled
   
• Overburdened and exhausted
   
• Concerned about filters blocking legitimate websites
   
• Fearful of being too strict or of upsetting their children
   
• Indifferent, neglectful or abusive

Furthermore, even if either the U.S. or British government could finally figure out how to motivate many more parents to use filtering technology on computers under their control, children today increasingly have access to the Internet from devices that are not under parental control. And no filtering technology blocks all pornography; nor is it foolproof.

Interestingly, one of the arguments against the British plan is that "it's technically not possible to completely block this stuff" (BBC News report, 12/20/10). But if use of filters by ISPs would be ineffective, why should we think use of filters by parents will be sufficiently effective?

If the British government is serious about protecting children from Internet pornography, it must be concerned about children accessing pornography both inside and outside the home and must impose obligations not only on ISPs but also on Internet distributors of pornography.

Like the U.S. government, the British government should also begin vigorously enforcing its obscenity laws against Internet distributors of obscene materials. Encouraging all responsible nations to do the same will go long way towards protecting not only children but also society.