A smorgasbord of smut

British idea of opt-out Internet filter would protect kids

Once upon a time, not very long ago, it was considerably easier than it is now to control children’s activities on the Internet. The home computer could be set up in plain view of the adults so they could see what websites their children visited, and they could enhance parental oversight with the installation of any one of a number of filters, such as Net Nanny or Cyber Patrol. With the advent of wireless, hand-held devices, that era is no more.

Once upon yet another time, this one a few decades ago, children seeking to satisfy their curiosity about sex would sneak looks at Playboy or Penthouse, whose airbrushed photos now seem relatively innocuous compared to what’s available online these days. The pornography on display in those magazines was about sex between consenting adults. Nowadays, what’s on offer online is, frankly, no holds barred and involves all kinds of obscenity that children shouldn’t be looking at, including rape, child pornography and bestiality. The ubiquitousness of hand-held devices means parents cannot monitor or control their children’s access to this garbage.

If we care deeply about protecting our children’s innocence, and if we want them to mature into adults with a healthy concept of sexuality, then British Prime Minister David Cameron’s idea about creating an overarching Internet filter, is worth examining. Cameron is proposing that Internet service providers be required to block porn sites — this would be a default position for them and any customers who don’t want their access blocked would contact their providers to opt out of it. Cameron’s idea is that the filter would also prevent “horrific” search words from showing up on Google for those who do not opt out.

At first blush, this sounds like a major affront to freedom of expression. On closer inspection, however, it is not. Nobody’s freedoms are being infringed upon — the porn sites can go on churning out their lubricious content, and people who want to be free to view it can ask to opt out of the ISP’s filter.

However, society cannot afford to pretend that this unprecedented smorgasbord of smut spread before our children online will have no long-term effects on their highly impressionable psyches. They can now watch as much rape or other sexual violence as they want on their hand-held devices; a click or two will open a parade of perversity for them so that they can be voyeurs to a variety of sick and twisted sexual practices.

Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and other such magazines are kept behind the store counter away from children’s inquisitive eyes. So, too, should the Internet’s wide variety of pornographic wares be kept behind a cyber counter. If we care about children growing into healthy, well-adjusted adults, then we must ensure they don’t imbibe the idea that, for example, rape and the violent objectification of women are sexual norms.

It is well worth debating Cameron’s idea in Canada. Those who denounce it as censorship are misguided. It is no more censorship than the act of keeping a porn mag out of a child’s reach. Rather, we should look at it like this: If, instead of pornography, this were food, common sense would tell us to stop children from gorging themselves on it.