Child pornography is a disgusting blot on the landscape of the Internet. We all know it exists, even if we have been fortunate enough to have never encountered it. But, is the purging of child porn from the World Wide Web ultimately more important than maintaining civil liberties?

This question has come to light because of a press release by Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued on Friday. In the open letter, the two ask Internet Service Providers in the state to help in the task of “removing child pornography from existing servers and blocking channels” that may help the distribution of such material.

This request is a response to Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, and Sprint coming to an agreement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last month to do exactly that. Obviously sensing a chance for some publicity in being seen to be tackling the online child porn problem, the pair sent a joint letter to the California Internet Service Provider Association.

The letter said:

Protecting the safety of our children must be a top priority, not just for government, but also for businesses with the direct power to reduce the ability to conduct illegal activity.

It is not enough for only a few Internet service providers to join the fight against online predators. Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, and distributing this material is illegal.

This is obviously true, and no-one, expect maybe the paedophiles who view the material, would argue against the ideal of ridding the Internet of child porn. However, the methods used by the ISPs to achieve such an ideal do call in to question whether civil liberties are being put at risk by such a widespread move.

Civil liberty groups are already claiming that by blocking access to the normal methods of child porn distribution such as Usenet newsgroups, the ISPs are going to be limiting free speech for people who aren’t engaged in any illegal behaviour.

Just because Usenet can be used to distribute and disseminate child porn doesn’t mean that millions of people should be refused the right to use the newsgroups for other perfectly innocent discussions and activity.

It all comes down to methods of control, and as Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union told CNET, “That’s taking a sledgehammer to an ant.”

This is just another example of government interference in to what was once a free Internet. While the aims may be purely for good, although many would argue they aren’t, where do we draw the line and say enough is enough?

Related:

Entry was posted on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am under Crime, Internet, Legal, Opinion.

Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!