Speak Up Project

I’ve learned a few important things when blogging about Internet governance, regulation of porn and malicious content, and anything else I write about. For lack of a better word, the response I’ve had has been interesting as well. I want to put this information out there and show you all what I’m dealing with, and what my feelings are about it.

Lessons I’ve Learned

1. The term ‘Internet Governance’ is not well understood - People don’t really know what this means. Maybe this is due to the fact that we’re not even sure how to categorize the growth patterns and effects of the Internet. Every day, new debates turn up about these issues.
2. The term ‘Internet Governance’ directs people’s minds to the U.S. government as a regulatory body - For some reason people immediately think that we imply some kind of federal body as a regulatory force for the whole world. The truth is that there already is a regulatory body that controls the technical aspects of the Internet not within the U.S. government. This group is ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and is a non-profit corporation located in California.
3. People think that ‘Internet Governance’ is only achieved by restricting access to information at the will of a governing body, and not the will of the people - This is also interesting to me, as we all know very well by now that the Internet is a user run entity and will always be that way. Any kind of governance, organization, or restriction has to begin there. Not with a group that comes in and starts issuing new rules.
4.  There is an overwhelming population of people who are dissatisfied with the state of the Internet regarding pornography, security, and other Internet deregulation spawned issues, but they don’t know where to start - Unfortunately this is a problem that’s not easily solved. It takes education, action, and a lot of persuasion. The data of the harms of these things is very apparrent.
5. Most people don’t want to tackle the issue of harmful internet content because they don’t want to take the heat - I can’t blame em too much. The internet is worldwide, and you have the eyes of millions on you when you seek to make a difference in this arena.
6. In regards to pornography, the United States is the largest problem - We pulled a stat the other day, stating that 89% of the online pornography is generated in the United States. If pornography was such a widely accepted form of communication, and it was generally a good thing, why isn’t the rest of the world so gung ho about it? Just curious.
7. The most outspoken people over internet governance don’t even nearly represent the majority. They are a tiny minority - This is mostly due to the fact that the outspoken are the early adopters of the internet. They understand jargony terms like “net netrality” or “IP address”. They are outspoken because they’re on the Internet all the time. Sometimes that group fails to realize that the Internet isn’t a way of life for everyone, and that most people want the benefits of the Internet without all the negative aspects of it in the way. They want access and a voice without having to be concerned about it all the time.

Allow me to be bold here. You can say what you want, think what you want, and argue your way into any technophile circle about free speech and the Internet. You can show with all the zeal in the world that total and complete deregulation of the Internet is good.

What you can never do is convince me that any child who browses the Internet to find sports information, video game tips, homework information, or cartoon clips will go on his search without stumbling upon some porn. You will never convince me that if he or she does, that it won’t hurt them in some way or another. You will NEVER convince me that all this is worth getting porn when and how you want it. You will never convince me that porn addiction has absolutely zero effect on marital problems. You will absolutely never ever ever convince me that just because someone enjoys porn, it’s okay for the millions of people who find it disgusting and degrading to have their email in-boxes incessantly spammed with maliciously deceptive advertisements to get them hooked.

You may find it okay to look at porn yourself. That is your freedom and your right. You have that and that should not be taken away. Whether that has a good or a bad effect on you is not my businesses. What is my business? My business is to speak up and find a better way to make the internet work.

There are ways, we’re just all afraid to make people have to change.  There are solutions to give those who want porn the freedom of access they need while offering those who want better options to block it those very solutions. It’s a matter of making a change and standing by it.

/endrant

I was surfing the list of blogs that I read today to find out more about what’s going on in the blogosphere. I don’t always look at stuff pertinent to the subject matter of Speak Up, but often find things relative. Sometimes in places I never knew were opinionated about our subject.

Good Magazine put out a video that’s highly provocative about Internet porn. It’s basically a girl who’s written porn stats all over her body. As the camera pans around in suggestive ways, you find stats revealing the reality of Internet porn. Let’s get more of these out there.

12% of all websites are pornographic

25% of all search engine requests are pornographic

35% of all Internet downloads are pornographic in nature

Every second, 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography

Every second, 89$ is being spend on Internet porn

Every day, 266 new pornographic websites appear on the Internet

“Sex” is the most searched word on the Internet

U.S. revenue from porn in 2006: $2.84 billion

72% of Internet porn users are men, 28% are women.

70% of all Internet porn traffic occurs during the 9-5 workday.

There are an estimated 372 million porn web pages, 3% produced by the U.K., 4% produced by Germany, 89% produced by the U.S.

Shocking, no? Well not really because everyone sees it. It’s really in your face. Wonder what the stats are on how parents view these stats? I’d like to see those myself.

Here’s the video… drives a point home. No nudity, but it’s close.

You think you have a hold on your kids access to porn, but you probably don’t. You think that the problem isn’t that big, but it is. Read the stats.

Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography - 11 years.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

Largest Consumer of Internet Pornography - 12-17 years.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

15-17 year-olds having multiple hardcore exposures - 80%.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

8-16 year-olds having viewed porn online - 90% (most while doing homework).
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

7-17 year-olds who would freely give out home address - 29%.
Internet Pornography Statistics. Internet Filter Review, 2004.

7-17 year-olds who would freely give out email address - 14%
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

“82 percent of adult Americans surveyed in March 2004 said that the Federal laws against Internet obscenity should be vigorously enforced.”
Americans STILL want federal obscenity laws enforced!  The Morality in Media Newsletter, June, 2004.

In 2004, there were 372 million pornographic Web pages, 2.5 billion emails (8% of total emails), 100 thousand Web sites offering illegal child pornography, and 72 million annual worldwide visitors to pornographic websites
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

One in 17 children ages 10-17 were threatened or harassed over the Internet in 2000
Report Statistical Highlights.  National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Crimes Against Children, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000.

Child pornography generates $3 billion annually
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

“More pointedly, according to a poll conducted by UK-based charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), over 50 percent of the 2,053 polled children engaged in active Internet surfing revealed they had suffered an “unwanted experience” such as exposure to violent or pornographic material, cyber-bullying, and even sexual grooming.”
Survey Reveals Internet Dangers for Children. Monsters and Critics, 2007

There’s more if you need it.

The other day I got into a deep discussion about CP80 with a close friend. He had a number of opinions about Speak Up Project and CP80. He wasn’t fond of our ultimate approach, although he saw value in the principles. He claimed that responsibility should rest in the hands of the people to filter out  bad content. My argument was that in a perfect world, everyone would be naive enough to do that but filters were weak and the youth are ever more tech savvy than we know. We debated for about an hour and finally our resistances to one another’s points were lowered a bit. Such is the world of debate.

He did bring up a number of good points about CP80, their proposals, and why he didn’t think they would work. The concerns ranged from the economic soundness to the technological viability of the project. He did make a few good points about Internet filters and the .xxx domain name. Unfortunately only one of those is even an option at this time. I did a bit of research on the matter to find out the pulse of the people over Internet filters. I found some interesting points.

First and foremost is the technical abilities of filters. If you don’t know, a filter works based on simple premises. Filters can have a black list of sites it will auto-block as well as a white list of sites it will always accept. Filters also function by having certain keywords blocked if they show up in a web page. Some filters even analyze pictures to block out a lot of flesh-toned images that could end up being considered pornographic. Needless to say, they are keen and catching a lot of content.

The problem with filters is that they aren’t smart enough to know when they’re differentiating between porn and what is not pornographic content. For example, this blog here mentions porn frequently, although it’s clear we are fighting a battle against pornography. We, however, get blocked from some of these filters. The Internet is too dynamic to be monitored by filters.

So, by blocking positive content, filters gain a reputation for being a moderately effective solution to the problem. In an article released in the Cybercast News Service today, libraries in Illinois decided to take a stand. After a resolution was passed to install filters in the community library computers a protest was set up in opposition. The arguments were that filters were ineffective and “filters end up blocking a lot of things that are perfectly legitimate and valuable”, according to adminstrative librarian Jane Schulten. 

As in many cases around this subject matter there are a valid points. Are filters a good enough resolution for this issue? Are the negative effects of either argument more serious than the other?

Here’s a story that you might not have heard about. A Connecticut substitute teacher was “convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor for having exposed her middle school class to pornography in October 2004.” Convicted of FOUR counts of risk of injury. The conviction is up to 40 years in jail. The teacher made claims that she was getting uncontrollable pop-ups on the computer in the classroom. However, despite better judgment she allowed to leave the screen on to expose her students to the filthy material. The article I read basically called out the teacher to learn how to control her computer, and if not then to shut it off.

Now, I can picture in my mind the image of a classroom full of uncomfortable and confused children being exposed to this stuff. Well, maybe some of them weren’t confused and had bumped into pornography before. We all know it’s not uncommon.  What gets me is that this image is offensive enough to the legal boundaries of the harms of pornography, that it warrants a serious prison sentence. The question is this: Why are we so up in arms about children being exposed to pornography publicly, but are not willing to take more serious measures to restrict its exposure at the source a bit more?

The two major cases we face in this instance are that one side believes that restricting, not eliminating, pornography on the web is an infraction on freedom of information and speech. By placing any limits on the Internet, we effectually deny certain individuals the right to get what we want, when they want it. Surely, there is a case here, and people should be able to at least be given options. I would never argue against these rights.

However, there’s a small crack in the foundation, and I’ll ask a few questions to try to illustrate it.

Thinking about the story of the Substitute teacher, should it have been okay for those kids to have seen porn? Is it wrong for them to be exposed publicly to lewd material? Is it harmful? Would you want your kids to see it in their classroom?

When not even considering the issues of free speech, or access to information, or even Internet restriction most people find that situation plain wrong. So, then is it okay for the safety of children to be compromised at the hand of this essential freedom?

I leave this one open. I am in no way a legal scholar, but I am an individual with a voice. I’m a person who has to make more effort to simply avoid pornography than those who enjoy it have to make to access it. For whatever reason, we’re ready to deliver explicit pornographic material on a silver platter to those who want it, but we’re not willing to give those who despise it more tools to avoid it. I can’t find the logic.

What if studies said that pornography would ruin your life? Would you believe them? Role play with me for a second.

What if there was a study that said using pornography would drive a wedge into your relationship and ruined it? Would you still get involved? Is it that important to you? What if studies proved that it made you susceptible to multiple psychological and social problems? What if studies proved that pornography was not only harmful to the individual, but to the society as well? Would you choose pornography over love if it had to be that way?

So knowing that it could ruin your relationships, hurt your family, and harm you socially, would you still do it? Would it be that good and that worth it?

Well, studies have proven this…

CALGARY, March 12, 2002 (LSN.ca) - A new study has found that viewing pornography is harmful to the viewer and society. In a meta-analysis (a statistical integration of all existing scientific data), researchers have found that using pornographic materials leads to several behavioral, psychological and social problems.

One of the most common psychological problems is a deviant attitude towards intimate relationships such as perceptions of sexual dominance, submissiveness, sex role stereotyping or viewing persons as sexual objects. Behavioral problems include fetishes and excessive or ritualistic masturbation. Sexual aggressiveness, sexually hostile and violent behaviours are social problems as well as individual problems that are linked to pornography.

“Our findings are very alarming”, said Dr. Claudio Violato one of the co-authors of the study. Dr. Violato, Director of Research at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education (NFFRE) and a professor at the University of Calgary, said “This is a very serious social problem since pornography is so widespread nowadays and easily accessible on the internet, television, videos and print materials”.

Studies have shown that almost all men and most women have been exposed to pornography. An increasing number of children are also being exposed to explicitly sexual materials through mass media. The rise in sexual crimes, sexual dysfunction and family breakdown may be linked to the increased availability and use of pornography. The rape myth (belief that women cause and enjoy rape, and that rapists are normal) is very widespread in habitual male users of pornography according to the study.

“There has been some debate among researchers about the degree of negative consequences of habitual use of pornography, but we feel confident in our findings that pornography is harmful”, Violato noted. “Our study involved more than 12,000 participants and very rigorous analyses. I can think of no beneficial effects of pornography whatsoever. As a society we need to move towards eradicating it”.

The authors of the study concluded that exposure to pornography puts viewers at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies, committing sexual offences, experiencing difficulties in intimate relationships, and accepting of the rape myth. Dr. Elizabeth Oddone-Paolucci and Dr. Mark Genuis, researchers at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education, are co-authors of the study that was published in the scientific journal Mind, Medicine and Adolescence.

Article quoted from here.