|
|
| Offensive materials on the internet. Ruth Dixon, assistant chief executive of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) (1), wants to make clear that she is no old-fashioned Mary Whitehouse, with a mission to protect the nation from the corrupting influence of sex, guns and offensive language. 'We don't make judgements on what people should look at on the net', she says, 'except those judgements already laid down in law, which apply to all of society'. |
| She is however keen to talk up the positive sides to surfing the web, particularly for children - marking her out from hotheaded censors of yesteryear who saw all modern forms of communication as wicked, particularly for children. The IWF is an 'independent organisation' with 'no statutory powers', which aims to 'hinder the use of the internet to transmit illegal material, especially child pornography'. But what about the backing it receives from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and the police? What about the fact that of the 40 000 'items' reported to the IWF from 1996 to 1999, it 'advised' internet service providers to remove 23 292 (which they duly did) with no recourse to a court of law? (2) For an organisation not in the 'business of censorship', the IWF seems to have powers that Mary Whitehouse would have murdered for. |
| 'The thing is, we don't go on to the web and take material off', says Dixon. 'We don't have the statutory powers to do that. We simply advise internet service providers (ISPs) about problematic material on the sites that they host and suggest they remove it.' This may sound like a straightforward 'advisory' relationship, but ISPs consistently comply with the IWF's removal instructions. Ninety-six percent of material removed from the net never makes it to court to be judged on its legality or otherwise: it is simply removed by the ISP concerned on the advice of the IWF. Who needs powers when a friendly email to an ISP can get websites removed at the touch of a button? |
| But Dixon is adamant that she is 'not interested in censorship' and is 'for free speech'. She quotes the IWF's industry paper R-3 Safety Net : 'The issue addressed has nothing to do with censorship of legal material. The issue is how to deal with material or activity which society, through democratic process, has deemed to be unacceptable .We support the internet's traditions of diversity and free speech.' (3) Leaving aside the fact that removing material because it is deemed unacceptable by law is still censorship, it sounds like the lady protests too much. It is surely only in the world of the internet, where nonsense so often masquerades as expertise, that a body responsible for removing thousands of web pages every year could pose as a supporter of free speech. |
| The truth is that the regulation of the internet in Britain began with the establishment of the IWF in September 1996. Founded by the former chairman of Pipex Internet, the IWF aimed to combat the availability of child pornography by setting up a reporting hotline that concerned surfers could contact, and through content filtering, where net-users could install software that would filter out offensive material. From the outset the IWF depicted the net as a potentially dangerous place in need of regulation - yes, the web is good and educational for children, so long as they don't stumble across 'One woman and her dog'; yes, the web is open and diverse, except for all those nasty Nazi sites telling us to hate immigrants. The image was of a new, groundbreaking method of communication - but where danger was potentially just a hyperlink away. |
| Rather than challenging this depiction of the net, internet service providers backed up the idea that their medium was a collection of gratuitous and offensive material. Before long the IWF, with the backing of the government and the police, had set up an informal network of 'concerned' members of the industry, keen to clean up the web and make it a safer place for children, families and those who want to use it for educational purposes - a network which is all the more effective for not having to bother with 'statutory powers' or the tiresome job of having an open debate or taking people to court. Dixon is right - this is not old-fashioned censorship. It is a new etiquette, where the aim is to protect individuals from offence (rather than protecting morals from corruption) and where the emphasis is on quickly and efficiently removing material. The result is arguably a far more effective form of censorship than anything that went before. |
| Dixon sticks with the argument that the IWF's focus is on 'illegal material that society deems unacceptable', asking 'why should the net be treated differently?'. But even this is disingenuous - later in our conversation she says that 'of course the IWF is interested in more than child pornography', listing other types of pornography and the possibility that the IWF will cover the removal of 'hate speech and gratuitous violence'. It seems the IWF has got a taste for free speech. |
If you are suspicious about pornography being downloaded and kept on your computer hard drives by other members of your family, then the time has arrived for you to investigate. Media Detective is just the right tool to help you find out what you need to know. Files that then appear to have the characteristics of a pornographic image or movie are shown for user review, so that unwanted items can be cleaned from your disk. Not just a cookie eraser, Media Detective cleans out offensive material that cookie cleaners completely ignore. There are many tracks eraser programs available which purport to remove pornography. But they only try to remove evidence of activity, and do actually investigate media files to determine if they contain nudity, and allow for their deletion. To actually remove porn the software must do some kind of porn scan and then invoke a porn remover pass to delete files. The porn eraser functions of Media Detective are required to do a proper PC cleanup; cookie cleaners will not leave your pc cleaner of media files than before. Internet eraser and internet cleanup tools only serve to leave internet history cleaner. Various other hard drive clean up tools only really delete cache entries etc. leaving actual pornography on the computer. And most hard drive cleanup tools leave the difficult task of effectively scanning for real porn files to software like Media Detective. It is guaranteed to leave your hard drive cleaner, to erase pornography and give the most effective disk cleanup available. No other disk cleaner software can delete pornography and delete porn as effectively. Cookie eraser tools again only address a part of the problem. Cookie cleaner software will not clean up pornography in the true sense of the word, just signs that it has at some time been viewed. Therefore a computer clean up can only be done effectively by a computer cleaner like media detective. You can use it to safely clean up porn references, clean pornography directories and clean porn files. This will leave you with a clean hard drive and a clean computer. CLICK HERE for more information, and the free downloadable demo! |
Panel on Broadcasting, Culture and Sport (Papers) 3 Oct 97 ... of obscene and indecent material transmitted through the Internet . ... on the Internet and a separate count of possessing obscene articles for the ... Internet Laws Protecting your child from Internet pornography and sexual predators online. ... users access to sexually explicit material considered obscene for minors. ... Homosexuality Removed from Classification of Harmful and Obscene ... ... the classification of homosexuality as harmful and obscene from the 1997 Youth ... the blockage of all homosexual content on internet sites in Korea, ... |
 |
If
you would like to make suggestions about this FAQ please contact us at this email address:  |
 |
||
 |
|
|