There's an excruciating (and very funny) scene in the 1969 film written by Denis Norden, The Best House in London. It involves a young girl, singing a song at a school that is about to be turned into a high-class brothel for the political classes.
The reason for the venture is to facilitate the rescue of "fallen women" from the streets, without endangering their availability to the rich and powerful. One character declares: "Nobody wants to abolish prostitution. We just want to get the ladies off the streets. They're interfering with trade." Another rejoins: "They fulfil functions to which a gentleman would otherwise have to submit his wife!"
These are the moral fathers of the city, earnestly declaring their responsibility to defend the public morals, and debating how they can best go about their duty without unduly inconveniencing themselves. The film skewers their pious hypocrisy, time and again. The most gruesome example occurs during a scene at the school, in which a young girl, sweet and pure and innocent, sings for the assembled parents, patrons and teachers: "I love my pussy, my pretty little pussy..."
Of course, she is singing about her cat. What were you thinking? The same as the slavering and squirming headmaster in the scene? Besides being very funny, the scene makes its point by provoking horror and revulsion. The moral rectitude of the ruling class cannot survive it.
The film is typically over-the-top, and since it references a wealth of sometimes obscure British literary treasure, its appeal may go over the heads of an audience not familiar with this tradition. Yet at its core it has a serious message, told through scathing satirical humour. It demolishes the hypocrisy of the Edwardian morality of early 20th century England, and at the same time subverts the sanctimoniousness of women's liberation and Emmeline Pankhurst's crusades. It was relevant commentary on contemporary culture in 1969, and is no less relevant in the sanitised atmosphere of today.
British humour - from the Victorian authors such as Oscar Wilde, to the Goons, Monty Python and Spitting Image - has a proud heritage of lampooning in crude fashion the holy cows of the politically correct, the morally superior and the religiously pious. Throughout the ages, libertines such as Denis Diderot, John Wilmot (Earl of Rochester), Arthur Rimbaud and Lord Byron, have led the intellectual revolt to the despotism of church and state alike. We call their age "the Enlightenment".
It is also puzzling why politicians think censorship measures will work.
Ivo Vegter, ITWeb contributor
It is from this perspective that we should consider the Bill drafted by the misleadingly named Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA). It describes itself as "a coalition of corporations, individuals and churches committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards in South African society", and prefaces its annual reports with a Bible quotation: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."
Blessed they might be, but our Constitution frowns on religious discrimination, and separates church and state for this reason. It's not as if South Africa doesn't have terrible experience of church-led morality, which justified Apartheid and, of course, banned pornography alongside a raft of other expression deemed to be offensive to the state.
To achieve their desired moral standards, JASA proposes to ask government to write laws that pre-emptively ban anything on the Internet that might be objectionable to children. ISPs would carry the cost of imposing this censorship, and content-filtering companies would earn millions as a result. The cost of Internet access would rise commensurately, ensuring it will remain restricted to the wealthy elite.
The sweeping nature of the proposed law is where the real problem lies. Few people dispute that children should not be exposed to scenes of graphic sex, violence and hatred, although some would argue that overprotecting children turns them into neurotic adults with under-developed moral compasses.
Whatever your view, it is hard to argue that one's right as an adult to view pornography is a right worth protecting. When I mentioned the proposed title for this column to a friend whose opinion I value extremely highly, she was horrified and told me not to do it.
Those who advocate censorship know full well the rhetorical weakness of their opposition. It is hard to justify that scene in the film, although it clearly was a vicious stroke of the pen, which one could never achieve with a weapon as crude as a sword.
If you believe the politicians and religious morality groups that lobby alongside them, it is hardly possible to be online without running across the most filthy and degrading pornography.
According to the Christian Action Network, another supporter of the Bill: "Pornographic sites are often parked deliberately next door to educational sites." This view reveals a fundamental na"ivet'e about how the Internet works. Although it is true that common misspellings of popular Web site addresses are used for pornography, describing them as "next door" is false. There is no easy way to reach them from the correct address. You aren't just invited to wander over and have a look-see. There is no sequence to Internet sites.
It is no less ironic that the speakers at a recent symposium discussing the Internet porn Bill were from ISPs such as Watchdog Safe Internet, in New Zealand, and VirtueNet, in South Africa. Both provide filtered Internet access services for individuals, schools and companies.
One wonders, if the people of South Africa want their Internet content to be filtered, and cannot be bothered to install their own filtering software, why they do not simply sign up for VirtueNet accounts. One does not, however, wonder why Mark Khoury, the CEO of VirtueNet, provided JASA with "valuable assistance" in drafting the legislation. His company stands to pocket a fortune, if his service was declared to be a legal requirement.
It is also puzzling why politicians think censorship measures will work. In an age when even authoritarian regimes such as China and Iran cannot adequately censor the Internet, and only North Korea succeeds by not permitting the Internet at all, how do they think they can achieve their stated goals? Privacy, secrecy and control over information are tumbling in the face of the ever-greater openness and transparency the Internet permits. As with Gutenberg's printing press, that this openness creates problems is indisputable, but there is no doubt that the trend is irreversible.
Do they really think today's kids, who were born into an age of computers and cellphones and never knew a world before the Internet, are incapable, should they so choose, of setting up and using the proxy servers required to bypass content-filtering? Or that they cannot procure and set up the systems required to connect to underground networks? Or will stop sexting each other because the government has banned porn?
If the government wants to protect children, there are many constructive and effective things it can do. Granted, they may involve blaming someone other than the faceless masses who enjoy pornography. They may be costly, and difficult, and require specific interventions. They may even require finding and prosecuting the criminal few who actually harm children. But the government is not without options if it wishes to advance the admirable aim of shielding children from harm.
By contrast, here are the actual benefits of a law banning Internet porn and requiring filtering:
It creates a powerful tool for government control over information.
It will enrich content-filtering software vendors, at the cost of all Internet users.
It will favour ISPs such as VirtueNet that already provide filtered services.
It will win votes from the many religious people who believe their morality is the only morality and should be imposed on others by the force of the state.
It will mollify those who instinctively mumble their outrage (real or feigned) whenever they hear the phrase "child porn", and unthinkingly support any measure if it is claimed that it will "protect our children".
Are these the aims we wish to promote, in the vain hope of achieving a very different, though noble, objective?
In every age, there have been attempts to censor information and ban activities that the ruling classes considered morally questionable. They ranged across the spectrum of political dissent, religious heresy, jazz, rock 'n roll, satirical comedy, provocative art, prostitution, drugs, and pornography. In every age, dissenters paid a heavy price to win their freedom to think and speak their consciences. In every age, subsequent generations have celebrated their achievements. In every age, we have looked back at the pious censors and shook our heads at the absurdity of it all. In every age, we say, "never again".
And yet, here we are. Faced with dangerous folly once again.
Share