Far Beyond Filtering: Is The GOP Looking To Shut Down Porn Producers?
from the if-we're-going-to-have-any-morality-around-here,-we've-got-to-ditch-a-fe dept
We recently discussed the GOP's decision to sabotage its new "internet freedom" platform by including some unfortunate anti-porn provisions. Romney declared that, if elected president, every new computer would have an anti-porn filter installed. At the very least, this filtering would be redundant. As Mike pointed out, porn filters already exist and are easily available. If this is being done "for the children," perhaps the application of a porn filter should be left to the parents, rather than made mandatory via legislation.That handles the user end of the experience. I would imagine that additional filtering might be suggested (or required) at the ISP level, aligning it with efforts in the UK. Whether or not an opt-in Known Perverts option will be available is still open to speculation. Most likely, once the rhetoric clears, it will simply be a matter of computer manufacturers offering filtering software right out of the box. This will fulfill the requirement without needing much more than some cursory compliance checks, and everyone involved will feel proud to have "done something" to keep porn out of kids' eyeballs. This will also be a boon for developers of filtering software, who will be jockeying for lucrative OEM contracts.
Romney hasn't really specified what he means by "computer," meaning that the spread of pre-installed filterware could envelop any device that connects with the internet, including tablets and smartphones. There is also no information on how "mandatory" these filters will be or what issues computer/device manufacturers will face should they fail to comply.
It's a vague concept that hardly anyone will argue against for fear of appearing to be siding with pornographers, or worse, child pornographers (thanks to always-handy conflation). Perhaps more unsettling than the feel-good, do-nothing "filtering" promise is another sentence lurking in the platform: "Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced." Eugene Volokh tackles the troubling implications of this phrase, putting together a set of tactics the government could implement in an effort to enforce standing obscenity laws.
First off, Volokh tries to determine the endgame? Is the intent to shut down as many US pornographers as possible? If so, supply from other sources will fill the demand:
[E]ven if every single U.S. producer is shut down, wouldn't foreign sites happily take up the slack? It's not like Americans have some great irreproducible national skills in smut-making, or like it takes a $100 million Hollywood budget to make a porn movie. Foreign porn will doubtless be quite an adequate substitute for the U.S. market. Plus the foreign distributors might even be able to make and distribute copies of the existing U.S.-produced stock — I doubt that the imprisoned American copyright owners will be suing them for infringement (unless the U.S. government seizes the copyrights, becomes the world's #1 pornography owner, starts trying to enforce the copyrights against overseas distributors, and gets foreign courts to honor those copyrights, which is far from certain and likely far from cheap).This is an interesting conjecture. Removing the producers from the equation opens up the possibility that foreign producers would simply do the math and up their profits by reselling product they didn't create. Having the US government eliminate their competition is an added bonus. It seems unlikely that the government would act on the behalf of porn companies it's legislated or prosecuted out of existence. But would it tolerate abuse of American IP, no matter how abhorrent the subject? Probably. The porn industry isn't known for its lobbying efforts.
Moving on, Volokh speculates on three possible outcomes of enforcing existing laws on pornography and obscenity.
The U.S. spends who knows how many prosecutorial and technical resources going after U.S. pornographers. A bunch of them get imprisoned. U.S. consumers keep using the same amount of porn as before.This tactic sounds like it would work as well as current IP enforcement measures. As it stands now, ICE is better known for its RIAA/MPAA lapdog status than for producing credible results. Sites get taken down, sat on and returned to their owners with no charges brought or apologies offered. Drawing a bead on targets like porn producers makes for some rah-rah press but will have little effect on the amount of porn available.
As ineffective as these actions would be, the greater issue is that increased enforcement will do absolutely nothing to change people's perception of porn:
Nor do I think that the crackdown will somehow subtly affect consumers’ attitudes about the morality of porn — it seems highly unlikely that potential porn consumers will decide to stop getting it because they hear that some porn producers are being prosecuted.This falls right in line with the perception of file sharing as a "moral" issue. It's all well and good to claim the high road in the fight against infringement, but if the general public doesn't share your beliefs then the battle is not winnable. Legislation and prosecution aren't going to change anyone's mindset. It just makes the punishment seem ridiculous or unduly harsh.
There are more echoes of the ongoing anti-piracy efforts. Volokh's next scenario involves going after foreign producers:
The government gets understandably outraged by the “foreign smut loophole.” “Given all the millions that we’ve invested in going after the domestic porn industry, how can we tolerate all our work being undone by foreign filth-peddlers?,” pornography prosecutors and their political allies would ask. So they unveil the solution, in fact pretty much the only solution that will work: Nationwide filtering.This goes far beyond simply requiring pre-installed filtering software. Instituting any sort of a blacklist combines the futility of whack-a-mole with the "we don't have time to follow procedures/respect rights" urgency of "doing something" to make the internet a "safer" place. As these actions prove futile, enforcement will move to cutting off the money supply, targeting credit card transactions, pressuring foreign governments to play by the US''s rules, etc.
It’s true: Going after cyberporn isn’t really that tough — if you require every service provider in the nation to block access to all sites that are on a constantly updated government-run “Forbidden Off-Shore Site” list. Of course, there couldn’t be any trials applying community standards and the like before a site is added to the list; that would take far too long. The government would have to be able to just order a site instantly blocked, without any hearing with an opportunity for the other side to respond, since even a quick response would take up too much time, and would let the porn sites just move from location to location every several weeks.
The third option, and probably the least palatable to politicians? Going after end users:
Finally, the government can go after the users: Set up “honeypot” sites (seriously, that would be the technically correct name for them) that would look like normal offshore pornography sites. Draw people in to buy the stuff. Figure out who the buyers are. To do that, you'd also have to ban any anonymizer Web sites that might be used to hide such transactions, by setting up some sort of mandatory filtering such as what I described in option (2).Politicians may state that they think porn should be outlawed or controlled, and some are even willing to trample on some rights to put that in motion. But it's hard for most to jump from taking down the supply side to attacking the demand. If your aim is to make the internet "safer," it's fairly easy to see that removing users has no effect on "safety." But while this logic leap is hard, it is by no means impossible. The War on Drugs has locked up thousands of users by making possession a crime. "Possession with the intent to distribute" is simply a matter of going above an arbitrary quantity. Possession laws assume the only reason a person would be carrying [x] amount of drugs is because they're selling to others. Would a person with more than [x] megabytes of porn on their hard drive be considered a distributor, thus opening up the possibility of additional charges? I don't see why not, given the attitude surrounding the issues.
Then arrest the pornography downloaders and prosecute them for receiving obscene material over the Internet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462; see, e.g.,United States v. Whorley (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that such enforcement is constitutional, and quite plausibly so holding, given the United States v. Orito Supreme Court case).
There's plenty of food for thought in Volokh's post, especially considering the faint echoes of SOPA/PIPA present in the discussion of enforcing morality. Both parties claim to be working towards a more open internet, but seem willing to scuttle that openness in reaction to hot-button issues or overly-friendly nudges from lobbyists. Ultimately, the question isn't about whether or not porn is "bad" for citizens, but rather, how can these laws possibly be enforced without descending quickly into "draconian measures"?
How can the government's policy possibly achieve its stated goals, without creating an unprecedentedly intrusive censorship machinery, one that's far, far beyond what any mainstream political figures are talking about right now?The answer is: it can't. But these concerns aren't being considered, at least not during an election run. Post-election, if anyone gets around to fighting this unwinnable battle, the concerns likely won't be considered at that point, either. It's usually not until the public gets noisy enough to jeopardize politicians' careers that any sort of consideration is given to the rights of the people affected. Even more disturbing is the fact that pursuing this end effects both sides of the creative effort: the producers and the consumers. Considering the resemblance these actions have to past overreaching legislative efforts crafted to "protect" certain industries, it's rather disconcerting to see the possibility of these same actions being used to destroy a creative industry simply because certain people don't care for the product.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gop, mitt romney, platform, porn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Question I Have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Question I Have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Question I Have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And What About the Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And What About the Bill
Inflation is the only thing holding up the US stock market. The investors have figured out that USA is heading for economic disaster, but they are hanging in there until things get obvious. Then there will be a reckoning. It will not be pretty. If you thought US politics is nasty and stupid now, you ain't seen nothing, yet. The 99% will cop it with low wages and unemployment. The 1% will be laughing all the way to the bank, as per usual.
Neither the Rs or the Ds have the faintest idea how to fix it. Come on, you US voters, do your duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> deregulation unless it's to do with sex,
> marriage or religion.
And it's just the opposite with Democrats. They're all about the government keeping out of people's lives when it comes to sex, marriage, and religion, but then turn around and want the federal government to micromanage absolutely everything else, to include determining how much of your own money you actually need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I've never understood how people who scream "Bogeyman!" at the federal government will happily give the same powers, and more, to the state & city governments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, want to continue with that over generalisation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War on drugs
War on piracy
Now war on porn
People love to throw money away, don't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
����War on drugs
����War on piracy
����Now war on porn
����People love to throw money away, don't they?
Don't forget the war on terror. That one's not cheap.
I've always loved the idea of declaring war on an abstract noun ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
War on nonexistent WMD. Or to put it another way, "War for OIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got to be kidding me
Republicans, working as hard as they can to take us back to the 1950's, except without worker's rights.
Vote independent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Highlighting
This falls right in line with the perception of file sharing as a "moral" issue. It's all well and good to claim the high road in the fight against infringement, but if the general public doesn't share your beliefs then the battle is not winnable. Legislation and prosecution aren't going to change anyone's mindset. It just makes the punishment seem ridiculous or unduly harsh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Who pays for porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
> on sandboxed web browsers in a virtual
> machine, using a VPN, just to be safe.
Safe from whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And there's LOTS of small porn producers in the US, especially free ones, so there would be lots of arrests if it got outlawed. Also an issue, if you outlaw porn what if a case happens like a girl friend gives a boy friend naked pictures of herself, but then they break up and the boy friend publishes them on the Internet, who's committed a crime by spreading porn to minors?
It makes just as absurd a situation with prostitution being illegal, but selling porn being illegal. It's illegal to pay for sex, but it's legal to pay for someone (or two someones) to have sex in front of a camera so you can sell the video on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: legal porn production
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to do some civil disobedience. Be back in about half an hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2012 republicans: 'We may really hate Obama, but damn if we won't do our best to get him elected.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave my porn alone!!!
And every new computer will have that filter bypassed...Legally or not, and once again inconveniencing the lawful citizen. Last I checked, pornography is not illegal.
He already lost the African-American, Hispanic, and Women votes. Now he's going after porn producers??? He keeps this up, no one is going to be left to vote for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can take my pr0n when . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They can take my pr0n when . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Porn?
- Dr. Cox
Scrubs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You imagine?
Tim if there's a factual reason that you imagine this, you say so, otherwise this sentence makes it sound like one of two things:
1. You're a no-good louse just trying to muck up someone's reputation (horrible though it may already be) by associating your unfounding imaginings to them. (This one doesn't have my vote. Your posts may have a less formal feel than others here, but you always seem like a well thought out and decent guy.)
2. You were in a hurry and trying to squeeze in another techdirt link, which is relevant, but not just because you imagine it is.
So, maybe reword or add support for that sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You imagine?
*s/b unfounded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You imagine?
But, I don't think there's so much a "factual" basis for my very hedged claim as much as there is a very slim distance separating requiring filtering software in every computer (which the purchaser may decide not to install -- which puts us right back to "filtering software exists IF someone wants it") to requiring the filtering be done at the ISPs to make it a little less "optional."
If things were to go this far, I can see how pre-installed filtering software that can be activated or deactivated by the end user won't be enough to protect children from porn, etc.
Volokh's second scenario pretty much comes to the same conclusion, so I'm not alone in besmirching the GOP and UK ISPs:
So they unveil the solution, in fact pretty much the only solution that will work: Nationwide filtering.
It�s true: Going after cyberporn isn�t really that tough � if you require every service provider in the nation to block access to all sites that are on a constantly updated government-run �Forbidden Off-Shore Site� list.
That's in the post above. It deals with foreign porn sites but you really don't have to worry about them until you've already filtered out the stateside offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how it wasn't and hasn't been a national emergency in non election years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child pornography...
Count me in for child pornography...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography...
I understand argument 1 and while I agree the current laws are more about hiding the problem then doing something about it, I don't think people will get in trouble for turning in child molesters.
I completely agree with argument 2. In fact, that argument has been brought up here.
I do not agree with argument three. There are plenty of things that we do not allow and do not violate the first amendment. If banning child pornography is a way to start censoring anything, then so is arresting people for planning a crime (conspiracy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Child pornography...
I think the point is even if there are plenty of things you could start with, not many of them actually carry the moral battering ram power to hide general censorship. Personally, I agree with that. Just mentioning child porn makes most people's critical thinking shut down on the spot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Child pornography...
The system will be abused unless we keep a strict eye on it. This is not a good reason to legalize anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple - do the same thing that's been done since 9/11. Change the public's perception of what's "draconian".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is going to be anyone shoving something up people's asses, it'll be us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something about this process sounds vaguely familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you protest it, you are labeled a pornogropher, or worse a child-pedophile or worse. (What could be worse? A terrorist commie treasonous child pedophile congress critter?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing they forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lobbyists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V Chip for the new century
It'll be no different.
If the Reps want to do something for the children,they can start by getting rid of irresponsible parents and keeping their noses outta people's bedrooms.
I have had lots of experience with Mormons and a more hypocritical and secretive bunch of wackos do not exist anywhere.(except for maybe Scientology)
Also from experience...they do love their porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every new computer?
What about servers?
What about smartphones, aren't they computers?
mp3 players?
Game consoles?
Maybe this is intended as a large government "instant off" switch for some purpose beyond pr0n?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If porn is outlawed, only outlaws will have porn.
And why do they say that government is the problem, then when elected, go and prove it with their stupid ideas??
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If porn is outlawed, only outlaws will have porn.
Seriously, stop with the terrible pun-based euphemisms. It just makes you look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If porn is outlawed, only outlaws will have porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That about sums it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"hot-button issues"...
"nudges"...
Jesus, man, do you kiss your mom with that mouth?
On a more serious note: sure, everybody gets pleasure from porn on the internet, but let me ask you something - does any one of you ever think of pleasuring the internet? Do you buy it flowers once in a while? Do you ever just cuddle with the internet? Do you have the decency to at least use a RIBBED VPN?
I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since when (other than Cheney)did any VP do anything other than play golf and collect Campaign brib...errr "contributions".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the platform
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/28/us/politics/20120812-gop-platform.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is the platform
Freer as in we're not free enough?
Freer than whom?
Is this the home of the brave and land of the freer?
Either you're free or not free.
If you're free you don't need to be freer!
I don't understand...Freer? What an odd word.
Just one more reason I'm not a republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Volokh's missing the point
Under the current laws, most internet pornography is not illegal. More than that, the current laws against obscenity already tend to be enforced pretty vigorously -- mostly because any porn that actually crosses the line into illegality is nasty enough to horrify almost everybody.
What the Republicans are talking about here is not, in fact, anything to do with enforcement. What they're talking about is redefining obscenity to include a lot of things that were previously classed as protected speech. And that is scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government should stay out of our bedrooms and off our computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me...
Put it together....
V-P-N! V-P-N!
Goooo..... VPN!
(And I thought my cheering would never come in handy!)
Seriously... while I'm not a porn-a-holic... what scares me is how some people will be put in charge of deciding what is and what is not appropriate...
Reminds me of... hm.... let me think... the Iranian Morality Police maybe.... Chinese Firewall...
How long until the U.S. government has us goosestepping...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And By God, we're going to spend the next 200 years running a repressive totalitarian regime to prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yes after they ram thru their Porn BS they will next ram thru some IP BS for all those Big Donor Copyright Maximalists.
Both Parties would love to be able to control the Internet and both will do what they can to accomplish this goal.
I truly hate this Current Government and give them a nearly ZERO Approval.
Stupid Corrupt GOP & Dems I will not be sorry to see the lot of you Tarred & Feathered as in the days of old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(/sarc, for those have broken detectors)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn Traffic
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/123929-just-how-big-are-porn-sites/2
if Romney and his crowd want to take on that many users (many of them their own)...good luck.
I don't think it's possible to stop it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who votes for them deserves what they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilbert
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-01-23
Note the date...
Nothing new under the sun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And who determines if it's "smut"?
So much for smaller government.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess he thinks that he can make sure Linux boxes have that filter? Or just ban Linux?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
Can't believe anything you read on the Internet any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jealousy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sideshow distraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would imagine any nationwide smut-filter might also use a DNS level filter like what OpenDNS uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocking TPB
Sounds suspiciously like hollywood is willing to weaken IP laws if it takes down BitTorrent. After all, the vast majority of trackers also have a porn category and thus almost all of them would end up under such a filter.
Personally, I am a single athiest. I am also an American citizen. Last but not least, I am a fucking nerd. Take away my porn and you might as well take away citizenship.
On second thought, scratch that. I've been meaning to become Canadian for a while now. After all, 14 cents per CD-R is a small price to pay for healthcare and unfiltered internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]