I was interested to read on Tuesday about a plan among several major Internet service providers to block content which contains child pornography, in yet another attempt to cope with the flowering of child pornography here on the wilds of the Intertubes. This is not a proposal I support, for an assortment of reasons, and I think that a fair number of Internet users are probably with me on this one (including, of course, and unfortunately, child pornographers and their customers).

Before I spell out my reasons for being opposed to this, I feel that I should say, for the record, that I am categorically opposed to child pornography and the exploitation of children. I think that porn which features children is foul, and disgusting, and that we most certainly should be taking regulatory steps to make it harder to access to to penalize the people who produce it. I would hope that this is a given, but I thought I should throw it out there.

In the first place, this proposal sets a very dangerous precedent, and I could see it getting bound up in the more general discussion about net neutrality. The proposal to block “objectionable” content could balloon; while I think we can all agree that child porn is not ok, what about porn in general? Directions for making bombs? Racist websites? Where do we draw the line, and who decides how that line gets drawn?

I am also curious to see how they plan to filter content. It’s been pretty clearly proved that the vast majority of content filters are not terribly smart, and I can see the potential for a lot of perfectly acceptable websites being swept up in the ban, which is no good. And, if it’s going to be done purely on the basis of user reports, could people start getting vindictive or try to shut down competition by crying “child porn”?

Furthermore, how effective would such a ban really be? People are pretty adroit at circumventing all manner of measures on the Internet, and I’m willing to bet that innovative and determined kiddie porn lovers and those who supply them will find a way to step around the boundaries of the ban, like simply switching to another ISP, for example. While the Times clearly enjoyed taking a potshot at Usenet, what about email services? File sharing applications? Instant messaging? Is there a serious proposal to block these services as well? Because that could be really, really ugly.

In the wording of the article, it sounds like all Usenet access could be shut off, which would be a major bummer for people with legitimate uses of Usenet. Now, I’ve read several poorly researched and badly worded articles in the Times lately, so I’m hoping that was just poor editing, but one never knows where the insanity will stop. The things that make Usenet so very handy for the distribution of child porn are also useful for political dissidents trying to exchange information, for students to communicate quickly and effectively for people all over the world, and for people to generally exchange ideas and information without excessive scrutiny. Should we sacrifice all that for a tactic which may not be all that effective in ending child porn?

I also note that the “agreement” was the result of sneaky and coercive tactics on the part of the office of the New York State Attorney General, which doesn’t bode well, in my book. I’m with Internet service providers on this one; the Internet is a big place, and by using it, you run the risk of seeing some things you don’t like. To suggest that ISPs are responsible for the abundance of child porn is just fallacious.

What it really boils down to, for me, is the question of whether or not this tactic will prevent the exploitation of children in pornography. I don’t think it will. It might drive child porn underground, and cause ISPs that go along with it a lot of customers in the meanwhile, but it won’t address the root problem, which is the very existence of child porn. Going after the people who make such content may not be working as well as we’d like, because where one pornographer falls, 10 will rise, but it’s better than penalizing the rest of the Internet.

Blocking sites which offer child pornography is like covering your eyes in a nuclear explosion. You might not be able to see it, and that might make you feel better, but…guess what? It’s still happening.