Let MPs tell us what they really want ISPs to block

I appeared on Newsnight last night to discuss internet filtering, and was quickly thrust into the role of defending ISPs for failing to protect children from pornography.

“Why are ISPs so pathetic at dealing with all of this?” asked Jeremy Paxman. In my view, they’re not. Certainly, the TalkTalk HomeSafe filter we tested last year exhibited appalling, basic failings. Likewise, some of the parental control software we asked teenagers to test a couple of years back. But, as I told Jeremy Paxman last night, I don’t think ISPs should be thrust into the role of internet censors.

It seems the government disagrees. Today, culture secretary Maria Miller is meeting with all of Britain’s leading internet providers, demanding to know why they haven’t done more to tackle child abuse. The truth is they’ve done a lot more than the government, which last year cut funding to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) by 10%. Even the industry-funded Internet Watch Foundation admits on its About Us page that the “content we deal with [which is primarily child abuse images] has been virtually eradicated from UK networks”.

Politicians aren’t stopping at child abuse, of course. Many also want legal “adult content” blocked by default too, although they’re remarkably reluctant to define exactly what they want the ISPs to stop. When we asked the leading proponent of internet censorship, Claire Perry MP, to tell us which of a list ten websites she would like ISPs to block, she told us to “get a grip”.

Claire Perry’s so-called Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection was sponsored by two Christian organisations

The draft Online Safety Bill is even more vague, demanding that ISPs exclude all “adult content” by default, where adult content is defined as “an internet access service that contains harmful and offensive materials from which persons under the age of 18 are protected”.

What would be considered “harmful” or “offensive” under this proposed legislation? Should The Sun’s Page3.com be blocked, even though children can walk into any newsagent in the country and buy the newspaper and its photos of topless models? What about the topless photos of Pixie Geldof that appear on the Daily Mail website, one of the newspapers aggressively campaigning for tighter controls on adult content?

It’s not only pornography that such filters block, either. They extend into other categories such as violence, hate sites and extremism. Would such filters bar access to the BNP website, for example, even though – as despicable as they may be – they’re a legitimate political party and have been invited to appear on shows such as Question Time? What about the English Defence League?

Then it’s worth considering the vested interests. Claire Perry’s so-called Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection was sponsored by two Christian organisations, Premier Christian Media and Safer Media for a Safer Society. The latter claims it’s “committed to campaigning on behalf of all those who are being harmed as a result of the increasingly explicit violence, sex and bad language in media content” and quotes a Bible passage on its Our History page: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Are such organisations happy to let under-18s view webpages on gay marriage, for example, or safe sex? If you think I’m being alarmist, remember that last year the ISP Claranet invited religious leaders to set parental controls for its customers.

MPs and ministers don’t want to get involved in the nitty-gritty of deciding whether Page 3 models, or the BNP website, or sites advocating gay relationships are suitable for eight-year-olds, because it’s a moral minefield. They’d much rather the ISPs did it instead, which is why they’ve been effectively blackmailing providers with the threat of statutory regulation (such as the Online Safety Bill) if they don’t switch on network-level filters themselves.

The ISPs mustn’t cave in. Let the government legislate. Let’s see what they really think we should and shouldn’t be allowed to see. It’s time we had a proper debate.