Internet Pornography by the Numbers; a Significant …

Largest consumer of Internet pornography: 12 - 17 year-old age group (various sources, as of 2007).
Photo provided by Flickr

Internet pornography - Wikipedia

Perhaps there are principled, pragmatic reasons for singling outpornography (i.e., the sexually explicit subset of the material thatconditions people to view women as willing sex objects) for censorshipor regulation, even if we were to agree that non-sexually explicit mayalso condition consumers to this view of women. For it might be thatcensorship of pornography would alleviate a considerable amount of thisharm, without incurring the same costs as censoring some or all of thenon-sexually explicit material that contributes to the harm. But thisis controversial.

1 in 7 children who use the internet have been sexually solicated - 2005. ()
Photo provided by Pexels

Legal status of Internet pornography - Wikipedia

Although traditional defenders of a right to pornography have beenliberals, it is important to note that not all contemporary liberalsdefend such a right. Indeed, the question of whether there might begood liberal grounds for prohibiting or otherwise regulating thevoluntary private consumption of (some) pornography has become thesubject of increasing and lively debate. Inspired by more recentfeminist arguments against pornography, some scholars argue that theliberal commitment to protecting individual autonomy, equality,freedom of expression and other important liberal values may in factsupport a policy that prohibits certain kinds of pornography, ratherthan the permissive stance that liberals have traditionallyfavoured. (See e.g., Dyzenhaus 1992, Easton 1994: 42–51, Langton 1990,Okin 1987, West 2003.) These theorists do not normally reject the harmprinciple, broadly understood: They generally agree that the crucialquestion in determining whether censorship of pornography is justifiedis whether there is reliable evidence to show that the publication orviewing of pornography by consenting adults causes sufficiently greatharm to significant interests of others. Rather, they are open to thelegitimacy of censorship because they think that the production andconsumption of certain sorts of sexually explicit material—inparticular, violent pornography and non-violent but degradingpornography—may in fact cause sufficiently significant harm toothers, particularly women.

Carr, J. (2004). Child Abuse, Child Pornography and the Internet. London: NCH.
Photo provided by Flickr

Like the right to freedom of speech, the liberal commitment toprivacy is not absolute. It can be overridden if the private activitiesof individuals are such as to cause significant harm to others. Thus,if there is reliable evidence to suggest that the voluntary privateconsumption of pornography causes sufficiently great harm to othersthen- providing this harm is sufficiently great and that stateprohibitions are the only effective way of preventing it-the statewould have a legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

Three locked up in the US Orchid Club indictmentsinvolving child pornography
Photo provided by Flickr


Internet Pornography – Really Make Money Online | …

This section concentrates mainly on those aspects of UK lawrelating to obscenity which have particular reference to theInternet. UK obscenity legislation has recently been amended bythe Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA1994’) to deal with the specific problem of Internetpornography.(13) The following will show,however, that there are difficulties with the application ofexisting national laws to a medium such as the global Internetwhich does not have any borders.

Fighting Internet Child Pornography | HuffPost

A number of nonprofit organizations have been established to raise public awareness about the issue of Internet child pornography and to act as political lobby groups. These groups include Wired Safety, Safeguarding Our Children – United Mothers (SOC-UM), and End Child Prostitution, ChildPornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT). Citizens’ groups will usually work in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, and local police can provide active support for their activities, which include:

Treating Pornography Addiction: The Essential Tools for Recovery [Dr

Under Section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act(‘OPA’), it is an offence to publish an obscene articleor to have an obscene article for publication for gain. Section1(3) of the 1959 Act makes it clear that the ‘articles’contemplated were such items as computer disks; however most ofthe pornography on the Internet is now transferred electronicallyfrom one computer to another using telephone lines and modemsrather than via any tangible medium such as discs. This left apossible lacuna in section 1(3), OPA 1959, but this has now beenplugged by CJPOA 1994 ,which amended the meaning of"publication" in that section, so that electronictransmission of pornographic material is now clearly covered bythe 1994 Act. When A sends B pornographic pictures attached to ane-mail, this electronic transmission will be a publicationcovered by the Act.(15)

Internet Child Pornography: Who Is at the Keyboard? | HuffPost

In the strategies discussed so far the police role has largely involved working in cooperation with other groups or acting as educators. A number of strategies are the primary responsibility of police. As a rule, local police will not carry out major operations. Most major operations require specialized expertise and inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional cooperation. (See for a summary of major coordinated law enforcement operations in recent years.) However, local police will almost certainly encounter cases of Internet child pornography in the course of their daily policing activities. Law enforcement responses include: