The great censorship debate

Quite a title, isn`t it? I`m staring at the topic for this column - not unlike other columnists who have discussed this topic over the years - with some trepidation. This is a difficult topic to sink one`s teeth into, as it`s a topic that concerns the whole South African Internet community, whatever the future may hold on the economic and straight telecommunications regulatory front.

Technically, censorship is typically thought of as part of the regulatory framework under which Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Internet Content Providers (ICPs) operate. There is a general assumption that even though right now, Internet content isn`t the topic foremost on the public`s mind, someday it will be.

In the print and broadcast media, this country has a sad and often sordid history of censorship.

As the Internet continues its abnormally fast growth into an all-emcompassing environment for the trade of goods, services and ideas; and as more and more people start using it, protecting the innocent from certain types of content will - as in print media - move to the forefront of everyone`s thought horizon.

In the print and broadcast media, this country has a sad and often sordid history of censorship. Censorship not only of sexually explicit material, but also of content deemed politically unfit or undesirable for the public`s eyes and ears. The political changes that have swept (and continue to sweep) the country have caused a complete about-face in our country`s censorship politics: while previously, we censored everything, now we censor nothing.

This is evidenced, for instance, by films passing through the Censorship Board practically unnoticed, and by the increased freedom the press and broadcasters have enjoyed in the past four years. And, in another development typical of sudden freedom, at first there was an `over-reaction` (witness the many niche pornographic publications during 1995 and 1996) and then a rapid `normalisation` as the public lost interest (witness their demise). Much like drug legalisation in the Netherlands, this is exactly what freedom of expression experts had been telling us for years: given them what they want, and they won`t want very much of it.

Now that the Internet has effectively removed our political controls, however, things might well become different once again. While I don`t want to be the prophet of doom, there are indications that Internet content is entering into an era where it has just enough critical mass to be interesting to censors and law-makers alike, while not being ubquitous enough (yet) to have become a top-of-mind issue. But this is changing.

While nobody seems to be discussing newsgroups like alt.sex much (featuring, as they do, heterosexual and homosexual materials), there is an increasing focus on child pornography. While I`m not prepared to use this forum as a soap box on the relative merits and political rights of those making such material available on the Internet, I`m interested in and concerned about the rights and obligations of Internet access providers (IAPs) and Internet content providers vis-a-vis child pornography.

Let`s re-cap for a minute: Internet Service Providers are woefully ill-equipped for monitoring the network traffic that flows through their networks - be it Internet voice telephony (something that Telkom SA Ltd. believes shouldn`t be allowed on independent ISPs` networks) or child pornography. To require ISPs to monitor and effectively self-police such traffic is unrealistic.

Most respectable ISPs in South Africa have, much like their international counterparts, shown a remarkable willingness to act on complaints received in the past. Typically, user Web sites aren`t scanned for `undesirable` content but actions - based on well-formulated acceptable use policiess - are taken when complaints are received. Contrary to popular belief, people who work at ISPs are typically upstanding citizens whose primary interest is ensuring the effective self-organisation of the Internet community, and they are willing to ensure that questionable material is removed from their servers when a sufficient number of complaints has been received.

However, it has to be ensured - in law and popular understanding - that IAPs don`t own or necessarily condone material stored on or transmitted by their networks. An IAPs is, in many ways, like a telephone company. If you receive threats by phone, the phone company will help you change your number and the police might help you investigate, but you won`t hold the telephone company responsible for the fact that you are receiving crank calls. The idea of a public network is just that - a network for public use, guaranteeing a level of privacy and independence while using a common carrier infrastructure.

In a recent US Supreme Court case, the willingness of ISPs to self-regulate on complaints was tested, as AOL had been sued by someone for defamatory materials posted in its forums about that user. Because AOL had previously demonstrated a willingness to take down materials of a defamatory nature, the litigant induced that the online provider had to be liable for not removing materials as well. The court ruled in AOL`s favour, effectively placing online providers in the same category as carrier networks.

In South Africa, legislation is in the process of being passed for the protection of children, and contained in it are clauses against child pornography. Apparently, and I don`t have confirmation on this, the Internet as a purveyor of such content is singled out, while some of the legislators involved apparently are counting on ISPs` co-operation in enforcing this legislation. Now, I`m not entirely sure how much of this is true, but if it were, it`d be alarming. Alarming because - to my knowledge - no ISP nor ISP association was asked to give input into this legislative process; and alarming because of the sheer impossibility of enforcing such legislation.

If this were true (and I`m sure that some readers might be able to shed more light on this matter) I for one would be worried about what such legislation would do to the Internet`s growth in South Africa. ISPs would have to stop focusing on running and expanding their networks, and instead employ armies of censors. But, as one of the pioneers of the Internet once said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Much like a redundant IP network continues to work even if one of its links fails, Internet users will find the same material using a different vantage point.

Censorship, then, is a self-perpetuating proposition: the more you censor, the more people you need to be censors. This probably also means that censorship is eventually a self-effacing proposition: eventually, everyone will be an employee of the Censorship Board, and that means that everyone will be afforded the choice to read or not read whatever they please. I for one vote for a simpler way of dealing with the problem. Let`s protect our children by teaching them what to do and what not to do; what to read and what not to read.