The Westeros Wing

Last July, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new, controversial plan to restrict internet pornography in Britain. The plan has been criticized as being both misguided and difficult to enact, but mostly it has been derided as an attack on the freedom of everyday Britons. At what point did unfettered access to internet pornography become a fundamental right?

The new law has two basic facets. First, pornography filters on computers, phones and other devices that were previously “opt out” are now “opt in”. In other words, before the new legislation, individuals had to contact their internet providers if they wished to block access to internet pornography. Now, they must contact their providers if they want to unblock pornography, and they must be 18 to do so. Essentially, the change in default settings is aimed at preventing children and young teens from accessing sexually explicit material. If this is a violation of their rights, it is one with a long and accepted history. Prior to the new law, children were forbidden from viewing pornography on and offline, but the internet operated on what was largely an honour system. It is fairly widely accepted that children are not provided the same rights and freedoms as adults. But an attack on “opt in” for adults is just as misguided. Modern rights frequently require individuals to “opt in”. Health care, the right to firearms, and the right to vote all require some form of registration in most countries. If you fail to register to vote, you cannot reasonably show up at the polls on election day and protest that your rights have been violated.

It is more likely that accusations of restricting freedom are aimed at the second major restriction of the law: a complete ban on violent pornography. The freedom to create and view violent pornography can be read into the freedom of expression, but that freedom itself is not without limits. You cannot express yourself by threatening someone, by damaging private property, or by walking naked down the street. All of these restrictions on freedom have been put in place to prevent harm to others, and porn is not a victimless business. A 1995 meta-analysis found that exposure to violent pornography “increased both attitudes supporting sexual aggression…and behavioral aggression” and a 2004 study found 58% of abusers confessed that pornography influenced their abuse.

As strange as it sounds, prior to the internet, pornography was held to a certain standard. It had to be fit to publish and sell, and as a result tended towards what would probably be considered “soft” today. In contrast, the internet has led to a saturation of free pornography, much of it depicting scenes of severe violence against women. Combined with growing amount of men seeking treatment for addiction to pornography, its should be surprising that Britain’s new law has inspired so much outrage.

But the focus of feminists (traditional opponents of pornography) on “choice” rather than “liberation” has depleted potential supporters of the law. While the conservative right stands their ground, liberals and libertarians–increasingly suspicious of any monitoring or restriction of the internet–have rallied a strong base to stand against them. The rhetoric of rights has coalesced around the right to access pornography, rather than the right of women to be free from violence. Cameron’s law may pass, but it faces strong opposition from the majority of the public. The cause celebre of internet freedom has led supporters to attack any perceived infringement on their rights, even at the expense of vulnerable groups.