Letter: Fight fairly on Internet porn
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is axiomatic that those who publish material on the World Wide Web or in Usenet newsgroups should not be treated more or less harshly by the law than those who use more traditional means.
Much of the SafetyNet proposal ("Industry moves to limit porn on the Internet", 23 September) is obviously intended in this vein. An essential part of the proposal (which is also referred to as R3, for "Rating, Reporting and Responsibility"), is that Internet service providers should require their users to rate their web pages so that those who use the PICS scheme can avoid the most offensive material.
PICS is a self-rating scheme, but in most implementations of it a failure to rate a page causes that page to be treated as most offensive - making it invisible even to those who have set their tolerance threshold at a fairly high level. This is the way it should work, otherwise the innocent might be exposed inadvertently to unrated and unlawful material
The reliance on PICS, rather than a more centralised scheme with clearly announced standards, will inevitably impose huge costs globally on those who are innocent of publishing illegal material, especially when each separate web page must be rated in order to surmount the PICS hurdle. Those who are publishing illegal material and who do not rate their pages will not be inconvenienced, since their pages will be concealed from those who would not wish to see them, whether rated or not.
Unlike traditional forms of publication, then, the burden of responsibility is placed on those who abide by the law rather than those who flout it.
MARK GOULD.
Department of Law
University of Bristol
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments