A Response to “The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet”INTRODUCTION

This paper is a response to “The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet” (available from http://www.third-way.com/news/THE_PORN_STANDARD.pdf). That report, through a combination of sloppy research and invalid logical connections, attempts to paint America’s online pornography industry as the villain for lax parental oversight and the misleading claims of America’s Internet Service Providers (ISP’s). I do not dispute that serious problems beset America’s children when it comes to Internet usage. However, the pornography industry did not cause these problems, nor can it provide a solution to these problems. In fact, by misunderstanding the cause and nature of the problem, we are left further away from a solution rather than closer to it.

This paper examines the four “Findings” of “The Porn Standard,” discusses the validity of the data underpinning these Findings, and presents alternate conclusions from the valid data. It also examines the underlying, unstated assumptions of the report, in an effort to mitigate the biases that enter into the report from its foundation. Finally, it presents its own conclusions as to how America should proceed in regard to the use of the Internet by America’s children.

FINDING ONE

“FINDING #1: A large and lucrative internet pornography industry is flooding the Web and seeking mainstream acceptance.”

This is the least controversial of the four findings. The report states that online pornography generates $12 billion per year, which is probably close enough.

However, it also seeks to exaggerate the importance and influence of the pornography industry. It says, for example, “Pornographic materials represent a staggering share of overall internet traffic; as much as 60 percent of all sites viewed on the Web today are sexual in nature.” The source cited for this statistic is dated January, 2000. Certainly, the nature of Internet traffic has changed substantially in the past 5 1/2 years. The Report, however, does not acknowledge that this data is old, much less attempt to show how the quoted percent would have changed in that time. Likewise, the Report says, “As a result, the two largest purchasers of bandwidth are companies in the adult entertainment industry.” This statement is based on data from 2002. Again, it seems unlikely that the number is still valid.

What is not in dispute is that online pornography is a large and growing industry. For the industry itself, of course, this is good news. The Report, however, presents this growth in ominous terms, stating, for instance, that the industry has a lobbying group whose activities “are similar to the tobacco lobby, except that their sole purpose is to protect pornography and pornographers.” The Report does not specify how pornography and tobacco are similar, or how they are different from, say, the florists’ lobbying group. Rather, it just leaves the connection between pornography and tobacco hanging in the air.

The Report also makes much of pornography’s mainstream acceptance, and concludes, “Like it or not, the internet pornography industry is now a towering presence on America’s economic, political, and cultural landscape.”

What is underlying these statements is a feeling that pornography is undesirable. Certainly, some people may not find pornography appealing to themselves personally. However, many people, apparently, do find pornography appealing. The industry did not generate revenues of $12 billion by itself. For every dollar the industry takes in, that dollar must have been spent by someone. Whether the industry has 12 customers spending $1 billion earch, or has 120 million customers spending $100 each, the money is coming from somewhere.

The pornography industry is, therefore, providing products and services for which people are willing to pay. That the industry continues to grow leads to the conclusion that more and more people are deciding that it is acceptable to acknowledge that porngraphy is desirable and enjoyable. The United States has always had an undercurrent that pornography, and even sexuality itself, is undesirable and “evil.” While the industry may not share that view, it certainly admits that others may feel that way. “The Porn Standard,” however, would be more honest if it explicitly stated its feelings toward pornography, and sexuality, and provided reasoning for the reader to decide whether or not to share the Report’s feelings.

In sum, the finding that Internet pornography is growing and is finding “mainstream acceptance” is true. I feel that this growth and acceptance signals that more people are accepting and enjoying their own sexuality, which is positive. Apparently, the Report sees it otherwise, but is not willing to say so explicitly.

FINDING TWO

“Finding #2: Because of easy access and inadequate age verification systems, children are among the main viewers of internet pornography.”

This is where the Report starts to run into trouble. The finding says, in part, “children are among the main viewers of internet pornography.”

The text of the Report says, “The largest group of viewers of internet pornography are youth 12-17 years of age.” The Report footnotes this statement with four references. One of the references is from 1999. Internet usage data that is six years old has no relevance today. Another cited source is from 2001, four years ago, and still outdated. The third reference points to http://www.nationalcoaltion.org/. This is the website for the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, whose “Vision” is, “To move the people of God to embrace, live out and defend the biblical truth of sexuality.” The National Coalition devotes a page of its website to various statistics (http://www.nationalcoalition.org/), and among these statistics is, “The largest consumer of Internet pornography is the 12-17 age group.” For its source for this statistic, The National Coalition points to “Internet Pornography Statistics. Internet Filter Review, 2004.” It turns out that this page can be found at http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/.

Internet Filter Review is a subdomain of the domain http://www.toptenreviews.com. Top Ten Reviews is in the business of reviewing computer software. The Internet Filter Review looks at parental filters for Internet traffic. It does, in fact, have a page devoted to statistics about Internet pornography. Unfortunately, Internet Filter Review does not have any source listed for its data. That is, the site asserts a number of facts, but provides no mechanism for anyone else to check the validity of its facts.

Even worse, the site has a (hidden) conflict of interest. Not only does Internet Filter Review rate software, it has links for buying the software. Of the nine available filtering packages, Internet Filter Review has affiliate status for eight of those programs. (The exception is the fifth-rated package.) In other words, Internet Filter Review has a financial stake in people buying the software that it reviews. So, the more people it scares into buying software, the better it is for Internet Filter Review. It does not, by the way, explicitly disclose this policy anywhere that I could see.

Finally, it is worth noting the change in wording. “The Porn Standard” uses the term “viewers.” Internet Filter Review uses the word “consumer.” Perhaps the difference is insignificant, but, to me, consumer implies someone who is actually buying and paying for a product. It is ludicrous to think that 12 to 17 year olds are the largest group of buyers of Internet pornography. Unfortunately, “The Porn Standard” repeatedly quotes statistics that derive, either directly or indirectly, from Internet Filter Review.

The fourth reference in the footnote is an article by Bella English from The Boston Globe. Within the text of the article is the claim, “children between ages 12 and 17 constitute the largest group of viewers of online porn,” although the article does not specifically cite the origin of this fact. At the end of the article are references for a number of facts, one of which is “The largest consumer of Internet porn is kids between the ages 12 and 17.” Sound familiar? The source cited for this statement is “Family Safe Media” (http://www.familysafemedia.com). Family Safe Media has their own page of statistics at http://www.familysafemedia.com/. Among their statistics is “Largest consumer of Internet pornography 12-17 age group.” At the bottom of the page, Family Safe Media states, “Content provided by Internet Filter Review,” with a link to the site.

To sum up, the statement that children are or “are among” the largest viewers (or consumers) of Internet pornography is not substantiated at all.

Undaunted, however, “The Porn Standard” presses on, throwing out statistics that are either invalid (from Internet Filter Review, again), outdated (a Kaiser Family Foundation report from 2001), or irrelevant (a report from the United Kingdom on Internet usage of “9 – 19 year olds,” without noting that in the United States 18 and 19 year olds can quite legitimately view whatever they wish on the Internet).

The Report then presents its concept of the problem, and a proposed solution. The problem, says the Report, is that online pornography sites do not have effective age verification software. The solution is to mandate that all online pornography sites use software that will check the user’s identity against a database of all government issued ID’s to verify that the user is old enough to view pornographic material.

However, this alleged problem and the proposed solution are fundamentally flawed. In all of the statistics that the Report cites, nowhere does anyone ask the question of where it is that children are viewing pornography on the Internet. American commercial online pornography sites are not, by any means, the origin of all pornography on the Internet. Pornography is available from foreign-based commercial sites, from peer-to-peer networks, from Usenet newsgroups, and from individuals who post pictures and videos for free and without any plan for collecting money. Even if American commercial pornography sites used an unbreakable age verification system, children would still be exposed to a flood of pornographic pictures and videos.

“The Porn Standard” keeps hammering that online pornography sites should be subject to the same types of standards that rule “brick and mortar” establishments. To me, this indicates a clear inability to recognize that the Internet is fundamentally different from the “brick and mortar” world. Nowhere does the Report acknowledge the international reach of the Internet. Nowhere within its proposed solution does the Report suggest how American sites could accommodate visitors from foreign countries who do not have American issued identification. Nowhere does the Report admit that hampering American sites will not reduce pornography on the Internet, but instead drive the revenues to other countries.

Instead, the Report suggests a draconian regime in which every visit (not purchase, but just visit) to an American pornography site can be traced by government-issued ID. Clearly, the Report either totally misunderstands the harmful effects of its solution for the online pornography industry, or it understands these effects and is cynically using a call to “protect children” in order to further an other, hidden agenda.

The Report also fails to address the technical feasibility of its proposal. Rather, it confidently asserts, “Anyone interested enough in child protection to conduct a cursory Google search for ‘Online Age Verification Software’ will find links to no less than seven AVS providers.” I performed such a cursory search, asking Google to find the phrase “Online Age Verification Software.” The only result returned was a link to the Report itself. The reader is invited to try this experiment personally.

FINDING THREE

“Finding #3: Elements of the industry directly target children for viewing online pornographny and for performing illegal acts in pornographic videos.”

The third “Finding” raises two issues: First, that the pornography industry targets children as customers; second, that the Internet has facilitated a rise in visual depictions of child sexual abuse.

As evidence of the first issue, the Report cites the case of John Zuccarini, which the Report calls “recent,” even though he was arrested in September, 2003, pled guilty in December, 2003, and was sentenced to federal prison in February, 2004. Zuccarini ran a “typosquatting” scam, registering domain names that were near misspellings of common web sites, and collecting fees from advertisers for sending traffic to their sites. The Report, however, leaves out several crucial details.

Zuccarini registered 5,500 domain names. While many of these were misspellings of popular children’s websites, many were misspellings of non-child sites, such as The Wall Street Journal or Victoria’s Secret. Zuccarini was not targeting children, he was targeting popular web sites, and some children’s web sites were among these.

Second, Zuccarini was arrested under a law that had taken effect in April, 2003, only 5 months before his arrest.

Third, the Report fails to mention that Zuccarini was sending surfers to any sponsor that would pay him for clicks. He was not a part of the American online pornography industry, but was scamming both the industry along and other sponsors.

The Report also fails to mention that the payment model that Zucarrini took advantage of is no longer used, specifically because of fraudulent abuse of the system.

Finally, the Report mentions only Zuccarini in this regard. If this tactic has been used by anyone since 2003, the Report is silent on it. Because the Report is generally aggressive in its tone, it would seem fair to conclude that the Report could not find a similar case since 2003.

The Report then turns to pedophiles using the Internet to distribute visual depictions of child sexual abuse. Despite the libelous implications of the “Finding” statement, the Report does not make a direct link between pedophiles and the online pornography industry (because there is none). However, it also does not state that the industry abhors child sexual abuse and funds the Association of Sites Advancing Child Protection (http://www.asacp.org). ASACP is specifically permitted by the FBI to receive and investigate charges of depictions of child sexual abuse and turn its findings over to the FBI.

The Report also fails to suggest how its proposal of age verification software will have any effect on this problem. Child sexual abuse is illegal. Visual depictions of child sexual abuse are illegal. People involved in child sexual abuse know this. Does the author of the Report think that pedophiles, while running illegal web sites, will put age verification software at the entrance to their sites? Quite the contrary. Anyone attempting to lure children via the Internet will strictly avoid anything that could possibly deter children from their sites. Age verification software, by increasing the false sense of security that the Internet is “safe” only plays into the hands of the criminals who are attempting to attract children.

Even worse, the Report pointedly ignores that child sexual abuse is an international problem. It goes into some detail discussing the case of Thomas Reedy. (Curiously, it again uses the word “recent,” even though Reedy was sentenced in 2000.) The Report accurately states that Reedy was from Texas. However, it fails to disclose that his co-conspirators operated out of Indonesia and Russia. Nor does the Report mention that Reedy had customers in 60 different countries. Finally, the Report quotes an official in the case as saying, “We are now receiving 80-85 new reports per week about pay-per-view child porn websites … I’m absolutely certain that one of the reasons we’re seeing the growth is precisely because, following [Reedy’s] case, criminals from all over the world realize how much money there is to be made in it.” What the Report eliminated by way of the ellipsis is, “nearly all of them housed in eastern Europe, Russia, the Ukraine and in different countries in South-east Asia.” Trying to pretend that this is a strictly American problem, with a strictly American solution, is irresponsible.

FINDING FOUR

“Finding #4: Children are viewing online pornography and being solicited by sexual predators without the knowledge of their parents.”

The Report’s attack against the online pornography industry reaches full force in the fourth, and final, finding. The Report states, “Parents are fighting a losing battle today against online pornographers….” The online pornographers, however, do not see this as a battle. Rather, the industry would prefer that children avoid pornography sites.

The Report continues, “Pornography is now available to children via wireless devices—anywhere, anytime technologies that are difficult if not impossible for parents to monitor, filter or track. Teenagers now have access to wireless internet laptops, BlackBerries, two-way pagers, camera phones, instant messenger, and chat rooms.” Of course, a “wireless internet laptop” is just a computer, and has the same capabilities and restrictions as a computer sitting in the family living room. The Report also fails to provide any idea about the kind of pornography that the industry furnishes over BlackBerries, two-way pagers, instant messenger, and chat rooms. These are text devices. As for cell phones, the Report quotes The Wall Street Journal, “Most parents are not aware the technology exists that allows kids to receive files on cell phones.” And yet, whose fault is that? Does it belong to the parents, who do not know what they are giving their children? Does it belong to the cell phone companies, who are pushing products without explaining the risks? If the online pornography industry issued alerts about the dangers of cell phones, would anyone even listen?

The Report then turns its attention to filtering software. Rather than acknowledging the role that filtering software can play in an overall strategy to keep children safe, it emphasizes the negative. “Consumer Reports recently reviewed eleven popular brands of blocking software, and none were found to be 100% effective. None received an ‘excellent’ rating. Only three of the eleven received a ‘very good’ rating.” This, however, is a distortion of the actual findings of Consumer Reports. What the review actually says is, “All of the products tested were very good or excellent at blocking pornography….The worst performer blocked 88 percent, enough to serve as an obstacle, but not impervious to a persistent teen.” However, Consumer Reports continues, “The filters had a tough time blocking hate sites and those advocating illegal drug use, violence, and weapons-making.”

“The Porn Standard” then goes on to cite an outdated (2001) Kaiser Family Foundation survey, “60% of 15-24 year olds either know how to get around blocking software or know someone else who can show them how to get around it.” But, of course, is the intent to block the Internet for 24 year olds?

And as for the younger children who can get around filters, whose fault is that? The online pornography industry? Or the makers of the filters? Or the parents who don’t spend the time to learn how to properly use filters? Many businesses use filters to great effect. Of course, they have administrators who take the time to understand how to make the filter work.

In Finding One, the Report castigated the industry for supporting the lawsuit that brought about the injunction of the enforcement of COPA in 2004 (Supreme Court case 03-218). Perhaps the supporters of the Report should read the judgment more carefully. Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy addressed the question of filters, “Blocking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive than COPA, and, in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.”

He continues, “First, a filter can prevent minors from seeing all pornography, not just pornography posted to the Web from America. The District Court noted in its fact-findings that one witness estimated that 40% of harmful-to-minors content comes from overseas. Id., at 484. COPA does not prevent minors from having access to those foreign harmful materials. That alone makes it possible that filtering software might be more effective in serving Congress’ goals. Effectiveness is likely to diminish even further if COPA is upheld, because the providers of the materials that would be covered by the statute simply can move their operations overseas. It is not an answer to say that COPA reaches some amount of materials that are harmful to minors; the question is whether it would reach more of them than less restrictive alternatives. In addition, the District Court found that verification systems may be subject to evasion and circumvention, for example by minors who have their own credit cards.”

However, rather than looking for a comprehensive combination of strategies to combat underage viewing of pornography, the Report seems content to focus solely on how to restrict, or even eliminate, the American online pornography industry.

CONCLUSION
The Internet Is Not a Playground

I have been working with computers for 30 years. I have been on the Internet since the late 1980’s—in the days of WAIS, Gopher, and Archie—before the World Wide Web was born. I think that I am pretty savvy about both the power and the pitfalls of computers and of the Web. While I was reading “The Porn Standard” and looking at the various source materials, I began to notice something. Over and over, parents were dismayed that they could not let their children have free rein on the Internet and still have assurance that their children were perfectly safe.

To me, believing that an unsupervised child on the Internet can be safe is naive. The Web is the largest, most comprehensive storehouse of knowledge that the world has ever seen. One of the problems of such a storehouse is that not all of the ideas are good and healthy. The Web is boiling with subversive ideas, revolutionary ideas, disgusting ideas, ideas that can enrage and infuriate, ideas that question authority, ideas that challenge government—any government, ideas that threaten civilization itself. Pornography and sexuality are the least of our worries.

Why is it, then, that so many parents and report writers are stunned at what children are finding on the Web? Why do we even have statements and statistics (be they wrong or right) about children’s use of the Internet after school, while their parents are at work. Clearly, someone has been misinformed. But, by whom? And why?

Then I remembered seeing ads about the wonders of the Internet on television. These ads are put out by the Internet Service Providers (ISP’s). Microsoft ran a whole series of ads for its MSN network featuring people dressed up in a blue butterfly costume. The constant theme of these ads was reassurance. “Come with MSN,” the ads were saying, “we will protect you and your kids.” And then the butterfly would be shepherding the children down the street, covering their eyes and ears, so that they would see no evil and hear no evil.

MSN is not alone. AOL has a page devoted to “parental controls.” On this page, it says, “Opt for AOL Guardian e-mail ‘report cards’ that show your kids’ Web surfing, e-mail and IM activity….Customize when and how much your kids access AOL….Access Parental Controls remotely via AOL.com. You don’t have to be there to monitor your kids’ activity and Internet safety on AOL [emphasis added]….You can even limit them to chat rooms that are 100% monitored, so you know they’re safer even when you can’t be there to keep an eye on them [emphasis added].”

Other ISP’s have similar soothing words. Of course, the ISP’s are trying to sell Internet access. They know that children will use the Internet more than adults, because children are always learning. If a child does not know how to use a computer, she will either figure it out, or consult with a friend. Adults are much more intimidated by technology. They are more afraid to fail, and, especially, to look ignorant in front of their children. It is far better, they reason, to learn the bare minimum to play a game of solitaire, or, perhaps, to avoid the computer altogether, rather than to be challenged, and, possibly, defeated.

So, selling Internet service to adults is a tougher sell. Besides, adults know how much they use it, and can question whether the service is worthwhile. With children, it is different. Look, she’s on the computer! Is she online or not? Well, let’s keep the service, just in case.

The ISP’s must, therefore, sell the safety. Of course, they don’t mention the problems. Certainly, AOL can limit Suzy to certain chat rooms—but only if someone takes the time and effort to set it up that way. And then what happens when all of Suzy’s friends are in a different chat room? Isn’t that why we got Internet? So that she can talk to her friends? Ah, well, just open up the chat rooms.

Parents don’t understand. They don’t understand the dangers, and they don’t understand the work involved to avoid the dangers. And the ISP’s are helping them to their position of non-understanding. Because what parents really don’t understand is that the ISP’s cannot deliver on their promises. The technology is too complex, and it changes too quickly to be able to guarantee any level of “safety” for any amount of time.

The Report makes much of its comparison between online pornography sites and “brick and mortar” sites. But the comparison has no meaning. Certainly, a bar can check an ID before selling a drink to a customer. But, bars are finite, because they are strictly licensed by the government. Online pornography sites are, in a practical sense, infinite. So the government requires Age Verification Software for American sites; foreign sites are still unregulated. It’s as if a child is walking down the street and everyone she meets want to sell her a beer. Will all of those people check her ID?

The Report criticizes online pornography by saying that sites make an attempt at age verification not to protect the child, but to protect themselves. Of course the sites are trying to protect themselves. But bars do not check ID’s to ensure that no one who is underage taints his or her body with alcohol. They do it because they are afraid of losing their liquor license, and their livelihood, if they don’t. Brick and mortar businesses act in their self-interest the same as online businesses.

Online pornography sites are not in business to babysit someone else’s children. We are there because we feel that we can make a living by helping other people to explore and enjoy their sexuality. It is totally unreasonable to expect any online business to act as a babysitter—except, perhaps, for the ISP’s, who make the claim that they will babysit. Don’t blame the pornographers; hold the ISP’s to their promises.

Perhaps I can best explain by way of an analogy. Consider a parent with an active and inquisitive toddler. The parent takes the toddler to the local park and puts her down in the fenced-in “Toddlers’ Playground.” The parent then sits down in the shade of a nearby tree, opens his laptop, and plunges into his work. The toddler slips through a small hole in the fence and wanders off. The parent is still buried in work.

Suppose the toddler wanders over to a baseball field, where two college fraternities are playing softball. What will they do? It’s reasonable to think that they will try to keep her from the field, but will they stop the game to find out where she belongs? If she wanders onto the field just as a foul ball screams down the third-base line, who is to blame if she is hit? Do we blame the batter, who hit the ball? The pitcher who threw the ball? The third-baseman, who just barely missed the ball?

Suppose she wanders over to a group of old men playing chess on a picnic table. Do they have an obligation to stop the game, to find her parent?

Suppose she wanders down a secluded path and finds two young people in the middle of a passionate embrace. What obligation do they have to her?

The point is that if this hard-working parent wishes to put the toddler in the playground while he works, he, at the very least, has an obligation to make sure that she does not leave the playground.

Likewise, if parents wish to set up a computer as a babysitter for their children, they have an obligation to make sure that it is safe for them. The can get age appropriate games for the children to play. But, they should not leave the children with unfiltered access to the Internet. And, if they have filters, they must make the effort to learn how to make the filters work effectively, to close the holes in the fence.

The Internet is not a playground.