Post on 25-Feb-2023
Censoring the Internet: The Effect of theGovernment’s Internet Filtering Strategy on
Anti-Censorship OrganisationsInvestigating the Impact on Arts Communities and the
Film IndustryBy Eleanor Wilkin
With four of the UK’s biggest internet service providers
opting in to David Cameron’s “porn filter” (Penny, 2012) the
question of censorship on the internet has been the subject of
debate. Information circulates on the internet easily and
quickly through file sharing sites like Dropbox, MediaFire and
4Shared which are three of the most used file sharing sites
currently on the web (Ebizmba, 2014) as well as video sharing
sites like YouTube and Vimeo and through the piracy network
fronted largely by Pirate Bay. With approximately 2 billion
world wide users of the internet (Internet World Stats, 2012)
it is no surprise that governing such a space becomes an
impossible task. China, famously created their “Great Firewall
of China” which restricts inhabitants from accessing
information deemed “threatening by the Government” (Open
Democracy, 2013) which includes Google and Facebook. This
control from the Government allows for such a sophisticated
method of censorship to take place, however, “communities
around the world have exhibited enormous creativity in
sidestepping constraints on technology in order to exercise
their freedoms” (Deibert & Rohozinski, 2010) and in the
argument of liberation versus control in terms of the
internet, the vastness of cyber space makes it seemingly
impossible to govern. With “a significant proportion of
social, economic and political activity across the world”
(Margetts, 2012) taking place on the internet, it becomes
increasingly difficult to govern the content being uploaded by
users. Through these current developments of online
censorship we can begin to map the impacts that they are
having on users. The introduction of the “porn filter” creates
a massive impact on internet users who are perhaps searching
for information on sensitive subjects for purely research
purposes, your internet service provider may contact you to
ask whether or not you wish to opt in to view certain online
content. The notion of your personal internet usage being
monitored and scrutinised to the point of creating assumptions
about your personal life will have major social implications.
The owners of specific sites are the ones who ultimately
decide how freely their information can be accessed and they
will have their own policy attached, outlining implications of
use, privacy issues and in some cases providing a warning
asking you to tick a box stating that you are over the age of
18 before going any further, for example some video on demand
services and websites. The intention of the ‘porn’ filter is
to prevent children from accidentally seeing something
pornographic while using the internet, however, David Oswell
discusses how “childhood is figured discursively as a
particular problem for regulation” (Oswell, 1998) where policy
has been made to adhere to a representation of a child, rather
than a “real” child. Therefore, how much responsibility lies
on the parents?
With David Cameron’s filter in place, in order to watch a film
like the extremely controversial and highly explicit A Serbian
Film you would have to opt in and declare to your internet
service provider that you are intending to watch something so
obscene. There are ways and means to watch films on the
internet, regardless of how old you are that are beyond the
controls of the BBFC. Censoring the internet would impact
greatly on file sharing services, on demand services, video
sharing platforms and piracy sites and would ultimately result
in a knock on effect on the industry as people would be put
off from sharing a film if it is deemed sensitive by the
internet service provider and knowing full well that they are
being monitored.
I will be looking at national and international lobbying
bodies opposed to any kind of internet censorship and
analysing the outcomes of their campaigns. Using academic
sources, governmental policy documents and recent news
articles I intend to pull together an idea of how the UK is
tackling the problem of online censorship and who it will
ultimately effect. Also, a survey given to student film makers
in regards to online censorship will allow me to see how
censorship will directly affect those whose work may be
blocked by the governments’ new filter, and what they think
will ultimately happen as a result of this.
NATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AGAINST CENSORSHIP
The Open Rights Group vs. Ofcom
It is no surprise then that in reaction to the new policy
surrounding internet censorship that a multitude of lobby
bodies have arisen declaring their desire for a censorship
free world. One such UK based campaign site is the Open Rights
Group who are helping to “fight censorship in the UK” (Open
Rights Groups, no date). On their home page they outline their
actions as being the “UK’s leading voice defending freedom of
expression” (Open Rights Group, no date) and seek to challenge
current public policy where “your rights are threatened” (Open
Rights Group, no date) by talking to policy holders and
organisations and informing the public through the media. They
pride themselves on being committed to fighting battles
against copyright, privacy policy and censorship on behalf of
those whose intellectual property on the internet is under
threat by government legislations.
In terms of censorship, ORG are tackling the current
governmental developments with David Cameron’s ‘Opt in’
strategy as outlined above, including the banning of
“terrorist” (Gov, 2012) websites in schools and libraries.
They explain that using technology to solve social issues like
pornography, terrorism and copyright violation isn’t going to
solve the issue of censorship, as offending sites are merely
blocked rather than removed rendering them possible to access
elsewhere. The issue of pornography is one that seems to be
subject of most debate in terms of current internet censorship
and, justifiably, the government is trying to do something
about it, it’s easily available and dominates the internet
above anything else. The Internet Watch Foundation is a UK
based organisation who provide a ‘hotline’ for users to report
“criminal content” (Internet Watch Foundation, 2013). Their
mission statement claims that they wish to lead the way in
self-regulation and rid the internet of pornography and
obscene adult content through disrupting the availability of
pornography, protecting young users of the internet from
stumbling across pornography and deleting offensive sites
completely. ORG argue that blocking sites will do nothing for
internet censorship and that ultimately it is down the parents
to configure child protection measures on their computers at
home. At the end of the page there are options to sign the
petition against David Cameron’s internet filter and the
option to contact your MP.
On the ORG blog they promote their website www.blocked.org.uk
which is a forum for people to log the websites which are
being blocked by ISP’s as a result of the governments filter.
This allows internet users opposed to censorship to get
involved and contribute to ORG’s mission. ORG are encouraging
internet users to react to censorship policies in the same way
as they are and on their blog use strategic wording of titles
to ensure the article is about you as the internet user for
example “What is happening to YOUR medical records and how YOU
can opt out” (Open Rights Group, no date) rather than writing
specifically about the subject at hand, they place the reader
in the frame personalising their campaign and encouraging a
response from the reader.
In a recent report from Ofcom, it was suggested that 1 in 8
parents (Gov, 2014) didn’t know that internet filters and
blocking systems existed for their home PC’s. This investigate
came after the Department of Culture commissioned Ofcom to
research into how 5-15 year olds are protected from adult
content online. As ORG have said, the responsibility
ultimately lies with the parents and the government’s focus
should be targeted more towards parental control rather than
National control. The outcome of the internet filters policy
will ultimate be damaging to the UK art scene as the filter
will block out anything from a search containing drugs,
sexuality, sexual content, terrorism and violence, not because
the information on the sites is in anyway threatening but it
could be just information on such subjects, art with a certain
subject matter or even explicit films.
In an essay by Peter Johnson, it is argued that pornography is
in fact valuable to the development of technology due to the
volume of people attracted by it and says that the fear felt
by parents that their children my come across pornography on
their home computer requires the parents to “become computer
literate and learn to use blocking and screening devices”
(Johnson, 1996) and parents can therefore use the blocking as
a method of discussing ‘”sex in a meaningful way to their
children” (Johnson, 1996). Agreeably this response is quite
out there in terms of UK child protection policy and harks
back to a less fearful society that children can be exposed to
such content without it having a dramatic affect on their
future lives, however the point that parents should take an
active role in protecting their own child from such material
is present. Furthermore, Johnson moves on to talk about how
sex on the internet is far less damaging than sex on the
television arguing that the very nature of watching television
is an “anti-social activity” (Johnson, 1996) which prevent
children from engaging in play in more creative ways. It is
also very easier to turn onto a television channel advertising
pornographic content at any time of the day. Many channels are
PIN protected, but the channels on Freeview are definitely
softer in content during the day, but after the watershed
certainly could be considered inappropriate viewing content to
children. The protection of the watershed allows parents to
anticipate the further viewing could contain inappropriate
content but there is nothing stopping the child from flicking
the channel when their parents are out of the room. In an
article by the Guardian, they detail the issue faced by Ofcom
when regulating channels such as Babestation and Smile TV that
the regulation of such channels lies with the television
executives in the Netherlands and the UK would either have to
ban or block the channels entirely as Ofcom have no regulatory
power (Brown, 2012). How then, can inappropriate content on
the internet be subject to nationwide filtering when parents
could put their own restrictions in place, take president over
adult programming freely available in children’s bedrooms?
(Brown, 2012)
The 9pm watershed was designed by Ofcom to help parents
protect their children from viewing unsuitable material on the
television by enforcing that only after 9pm can programmes
with sexual content, violence, bad language and disturbing
themes be shown. These television shows are not regulated by
the BBFC or any other company, but television channels have to
adhere to the rules laid out by Ofcom otherwise they face
legal action. However, in the current digital age there is no
such thing as a watershed, programmes or On Demand services
like Netflix or iPlayer are freely available to view at any
time of the day, it is only in broadcasting terms does that
watershed apply. This is something that Ofcom would need to
revise as increasing numbers of young people are watching
television on the internet, in their bedrooms rather than on a
television with their families. As 9pm rolls around, there is
nothing to say that television viewing from then on will
become more adult, people are expected to understand that
already. However, in a recent report by Ofcom found on their
website, they researched the way in which such content on VOD
platforms is so accessible and how the Department of Culture,
Media and Sport asked Ofcom to address this in their
regulations by asking the question “what are the most
appropriate ways of ensuring that children do not normally
access this material by means of UK-based VOD services”
(Ofcom, 2011). In section 2:19 of the report, Ofcom addresses
the issues surrounding freedom of speech when regulating VOD
platforms, as it is an ‘on demand’ service, the regulatory
rules for broadcasting do not apply. They state that while
they understand the importance of freedom of expression “it is
a right which may be subject to such conditions or
restrictions as are prescribed by law and necessary in a
democratic society.” (Ofcom, 2011). What they mean by law
relates to the legislation surrounding child protection, that
a child cannot be exposed to harmful material if it “might
seriously impair” (Ofcom, 2012) their lives. Ofcom notes that
the revision of their regulatory act will accommodate guidance
for assisting in the regulation of VOD services. However,
their report moves on to address the issue of R18 rated
content shown on such platforms and if it truly is damaging to
young minds who may view it.
In a speech about making the internet a safe place for
children, David Cameron said the following:
“Now, of course, a free and open internet is vital.
But in no other market and with no other industry do
we have such an extraordinarily light touch when it
comes to protecting our children. Children can’t go
into the shops or the cinema and buy things meant
for adults or have adult experiences; we rightly
regulate to protect them. But when it comes to the
internet, in the balance between freedom and
responsibility we’ve neglected our responsibility to
children.” (Gov, 2013)
In an article for the New Statesman by Martin Robbins he
suggests that the coalition’s plans for internet censorship
extend far beyond pornography and that the internet has been
divided into “acceptable and unacceptable categories”
(Robbins, 2013). Websites relating to suicide, alcohol,
smoking, eating disorders and violence will be affected by the
filter, regardless of whether or not their content is
educational or malicious. He also suggests that the impact of
such a filter could stem as far as “denying them (children)
sex education, suppressing their sexual identity and shutting
off access to child protection or mental health charities”
(Robbins, 2013) and acts as a “crutch for inept parents
looking for an easy way to avoid having real conversations
with their kids about sex”. (Robbins, 2013)
The subject of child protection online is a global issue and
many countries have their own system in place. The United
States or America are on a similar line as the UK in that they
are targeting internet service providers to take action by
enforcing blocking and filtering techniques. The result of
which are similar lobbying bodies to the Open Rights Group.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AGAINST CENSORSHIP
National Coalition Against Censorship vs. The FederalCommunications Commission
The National Coalition Against Censorship are an American
based organisation also opposed to internet censorship.
However, they have the First Amendment on their side which is
described as a “blueprint for personal freedom and a hallmark
of an open society” (First Amendment Centre, no date). With
that in mind, their argument is strong and justified. They
outline their objectives as:
Providing educational resources and advocacy support to
individuals and organizations responding to incidents of
censorship
Educating and empowering the public to fight censorship
Documenting and reporting on current censorship issues
Expanding public awareness of the prevalence of
censorship and suppression of information
Working to influence judicial opinions about free
expression and access to information by
submitting amicibriefs.
(www.ncac.org)
As well as participating in their own projects they also head
various other groups such as The Free Expression Policy
Project (FEP) The Arts Advocacy Project and Sex and
Censorship. These all aim to educate people, according to the
first amendment that something like sexually explicit art
should not be censored by the Internet, however, art in a
variety of forms is dominated by sex. Under the heading “Take
Action” there is a subheading titled “Fight Against
Censorship” which is a page listing ways in which you can
fight for the same cause. Similarly to ORG, they suggest
writing letters, sending emails and getting involved with
anti-censorship campaigns. Unlike ORG, the NCAC have a much
broader basis for campaign, while ORG is simply fighting
against internet censorship, the NCAC take this further and
are fighting for art, music and literature to be censorship
free as well as issues against copyright law, privacy and the
latest developments with the NSA harvesting peoples personal
information obtained unlawfully. However, with the NCAC as
the lobbying body for the advocacy of a censorship free
America, there is a lot of focus on the opposing organisation;
the Federal Communications Commission who are a similar
organisation to Ofcom. The FCC however covers all issues
relating to broadband technologies including mobile phone
usage, internet usage and monitoring as well as censorship.
The FCC website outlines what they do and what they stand for:
Promoting competition, innovation and investment in
broadband services and facilities
Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an
appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of
the communications revolution
Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum
domestically and internationally
Revising media regulations so that new technologies
flourish alongside diversity and localism
Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the
nation's communications infrastructure
(FCC.GOV)
So not only do the FCC commit to developing broadband services
but they also seek to revise current regulations to allow for
technological growth.
In a report entitled “The FCC vs. The Fox Television Network”
publicly available on the Supreme Court website the issues
outlined by the FCC are that the Fox Network allowed bad
language on their network at inappropriate hours. However,
the FCC had not made the network aware of changes to their
policy regarding the use of obscene four letter words between
the hours 6am and 10pm. The network challenged the FCC in a
court of law and the Commission was ordered to update its
policy to clearly outline revised protocol regarding nudity
and language on the networks Fox and ABC. However with
networks like HBO and Showtime who are both famed for showing
explicit sex, nudity, violence and bad language cannot be
touched by the FCC because they are cable networks. In a
report entitled ‘Can the FCC Regulate HBO?” by Brendan Koerner
it would appear that the “legal logic” (Koerner, 2004) is a
double standard stating that television antenna will pick up
ABC, Fox and CBS who are all regulated by the FCC, however
more explicit networks, like HBO are only accessible by paying
monthly to a cable subscription. He says that “a sensitive
viewer who doesn’t want to risk peeking at an episode of HBO’s
raunchy Real Sex series can simply decide not to get cable”
(Koerner, 2004). For viewers who wish to have cable for other
purposes such as ESPN are advised by the FCC to ask their
cable provider for a lock box, which is technically a filter,
blocking out channels the household do not wish to have access
to. Thus, a method of protecting children from viewing
unsuitable content.
The US policy on censorship lies mainly within schools and
public libraries where certain websites are blocked to adhere
to their Child Online Protection Act. The COPA Commission
website states in their final report that “Although COPA by
its terms applies strictly to the Web, the Commission examined
use of a technology or method in other Internet-related
contexts, such as email, chat, instant messaging, and
newsgroups.” (COPA Commission, 2000) The report also stresses
the importance of families being educated about dangers on the
Internet as a way of enforcing child protection law. They
discuss filtering and blocking “server side” and “client side”
(COPA Commission, 2000) the former being enforced by internet
service providers and the latter would be parents, schools and
libraries for example. Server side blocking has certain
negative impacts, one such being “Due to rapid growth in
Internet content, server-side filters using URL lists may not
be perfectly effective in blocking” (COPA Commission,2000) and
another being “This technology raises First Amendment concerns
because of its potential to be over-inclusive in blocking
content. Concerns are increased because the extent of blocking
is often unclear and not disclosed, and may not be based on
parental choices” (COPA Commission, 2000). This is the main
issue of concern for organisations such as NCAC where the
First Amendment is challenged by child protection law.
Like ORG, the NCAC have created a website where users can log
blocked or censored content called “Censorpedia” which
contains a huge list of a variety of different sites hosting
art, literature, games, music, films, campaigns, speeches and
other documentation that has been censored in the US.
However, again similarly to ORG the NCAC doesn’t state what
they are doing with this information, they are merely tracking
and logging it on this one site. There doesn’t appear to be
any action to release it and the information can likely be
obtained elsewhere. They write that they “hope Censorpedia
will aid the fight for free expression by providing a living
repository of censorship incidents, information about what
materials are vulnerable to censorship, and a guide to
strategies and tactics that have defeated past censorship
attempts.” (NCAC, 2012)
On the website “American Civil Liberties Union” who are
another lobbying group anti-censorship, they state that in
regards to internet censorship in America the government
“cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that
the government considers suitable for children” (ACLU, 2013).
They have various project, one called the “Don’t filter me
project” which campaigns to remove web filters in schools that
blocks huge amounts of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual
websites which they state is a violation of the First
Amendment.
Analysis of Survey Results
I decided to conduct a survey as part of my investigation into
the impacts of online censorship by targeted student film
makers of a variety of ages. I asked them to discuss their
personal feelings towards censorship as people who are
entering the film industry for the first time and actively use
the internet to watch films, download films and access other
forms of art which may be affected by the Governments new
internet filter.
To start with I asked some general questions about censorship
and found that 53% of participants are in favour of censorship
and 46% are opposed to it and 80% of people do not even take
into consideration the classification of a film when choosing
something to watch. One response was that classification is ‘a
way of indicating content’ and that their decision to watch
something is purely based around what the subject of the film
is, rather than the age is meant for. Interestingly, when
asked whether or not they felt restricted by the idea of
having their work censored the results became much more
imbalanced. Some responses said that no, they did not feel
restricted by censorship saying that ‘a films story should not
have to change for specific certifications’ and that ‘the
creative process is what comes first’. Another response was
that if the theme of the film ‘may be considered for adults’
it would be right by them to censor the film appropriately for
certain ages which would be ‘serving the story justice’. Other
people said that they did feel restricted by censorship
because in order to comply with classification standards it
could ‘result in a shift of the intended vision and
potentially make the project fall apart’ or ‘influence
creative decisions’. Other people have said that yes they do
take it into consideration but they do not feel restricted by
it because there is an element of parental responsibility to
prevent their children from seeing something and there ‘are
many channels open to screening films which sit outside of
censorship’.
When asked whether or not they thought it would be possible to
censor the internet, 14 out of 15 participants said no, one
said that ‘it is already happening at a technical/low level’.
Out of the people that said two mentioned that the size of the
internet makes it impossible to control and it would be too
difficult to differentiate between what is appropriate and
what isn’t.
The question regarding the regulation of content on file
sharing/streaming sites to protect vulnerable users also
resulted in a mixture of responses, with two people saying
that it is up to parents to enforce blocks on their personal
computers and that and the majority of people saying that if
people want to watch explicit content, they will find a way
around. Blocking certain sites is only going to ‘annoy viewers
who are of age’ and that ‘its solely their decision to decide
to continue to watch or not’.
I asked what they thought would happen if the UK was free from
censorship and some people predict a massive change and others
think very little would happen. Some saying that ‘children
would become desensitized to violence’ and that certain
‘content would upset younger/more vulnerable people’ that it
‘would destroy the film industry’ would prompt a ‘rise in
fascism’ and would result in people blaming the media to
‘bring censorship back as there are certain things that
children should not see until they are old enough to
understand what they are viewing’. However, others took a more
liberal stance saying that the result would be ‘artistic
freedom’ and the children of emulate what they see on
television are a ‘rare exception’.
Finally I asked what they thought the moral issues of
censoring someone’s intellectual property were and many people
said that it is basic human rights to have freedom of speech.
However, responses varied from ‘if property is intended purely
for shock value then it should be censored to a level’ and
that for young people ‘it could potentially corrupt them’.
One responses stated that ‘censorship is more about protection
of younger viewers’ and that if ‘someone has a message that
wants to reach everyone it should be modified to reach
everyone’.
In terms of film censorship, the UK filter could have adverse
effects on viewing certain content online. For example,
streaming a film like Lars Von triers Antichrist would tick all
the boxes for your ISP blocking it – real sex, sexual
violence, sexual mutilation, bag language, explicit content.
However the BBFC didn’t consider the intention of the film was
to arouse the viewer so was given a standard 18 certification.
While it is important to protect children online, the film
industry, arts communities and music industry shouldn’t be
made to suffer as a result.
What Does the Future Hold for Online Censorship inthe UK?
From analysing policy documents and investigating liberation
lobbyists like the ORG, it is clear to see that there is
always going to be a division in opinion for and against
online censorship, my survey demonstrates this very clearly.
The United States have taken a similar stance to the UK in
that they are targeting internet service providers to cut off
harmful content before it reaches citizens home computers.
Organisations like the Open Rights Group construct a valid
argument opposed to online censorship, however I don’t think
it would be right to eradicate all forms of censorship. There
are certain things that underage children should not be
exposed to, and in an increasingly digital friendly world,
children are becoming highly computer literate at a very young
age. A complete block on websites slotting into the
Government’s acceptable and unacceptable criteria is going to
dramatically affect the arts and film communities. Films
considered to have obscene content, such as Antichrist, A Serbian Film
or even Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut will be blocked, which
would include trailers, clips and sites where you can access
the whole film. The filter would block any art relating to
sex, violence, homosexuality and terrorism which will be
damaging to artists who favour controversial content. There
isn’t anything wrong with controversy and the only people who
would be affected by it would be those who are looking for it.
If an art student was writing their thesis on homosexuality in
post modern art, for example, almost every source of
information would be blocked by the filter, regardless of
whether or not there were children in the household.
Therefore, ultimately, it is the parents responsibility to
block content on their home computers, and public services to
block content in libraries and schools. The majority shouldn’t
be forced to opt in if they have no one to protect. Child
protection is a critically important thing to consider in a
digital age, but the parent should be the one taking
responsibility. If parents were educated in how to apply
filters and blocks to home computers, and if these filters
were designed to be more sophisticated and adaptable, children
would be able to use the internet safely. However, if a
teenager wants to access information on sex or sexuality, for
their own personal reasons, why should they be denied that?
We live in a ‘moral panics’ society, where the internet, video
games and films are blamed for extreme teenage behaviour but
by restricting use of these things and supressing adolescence,
we would end up doing more bad than good. David Cameron’s
internet filter will cause an uproar in the LGBT and arts
communities as their work and beliefs are blocked by
governmental censorship. A system such as this needs to be
sophisticated enough to not block out important educational
materials, but to simply block what is offensive which largely
is pornography. Despite it being freely available on
television sets country wide, it’s the internet that is
problem. What’s easier, searching for something on Google, or
turning on a television?
Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union (2012) Internet Censorship Availableat: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/internet-censorship(Accessed 28th January 2014)
Bloomberg Law (2010) FCC V Fox Television Stations Inc. Available at:http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/FCC_v_Fox_Television_Stations_Inc_No_101293_2012_BL_153978_US_Jun(Accessed 28th January 2014)
Brown, M (2012) Freeview Porn Sparks Ofcom Action Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/07/freeview-porn-ofcom-action (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Censorpedia (2012) Censorpedia Available at:http://wiki.ncac.org/Main_Page (Accessed 28th January 2014)
COPA Commissions (2000) Final Report of the COPA Commission Presented toCongress Available at:http://www.copacommission.org/report/technologiesmethods.shtml(Accessed 28th January 2014)
The e-Business Knowledge Database (2014) The Top 15 Most Popular FileSharing Websites Available at:http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/file-sharing-websites(Accessed 28th January 2014)
First Amendment Centre (2010) About the First Amendment Availableat: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment (Accessed 28th January 2014)
Government (2014) Parents Unaware of Internet Filters, Says ReportAvailable at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/parents-unaware-of-internet-filters-says-report (Accessed 28th January2014)
Government (2013) Protecting the UK Against Terrorism Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-the-uk-against-terrorism (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Internet Watch Foundation (No Date) Available at:https://www.iwf.org.uk/ (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Internet World Statistics (2012) World Internet Usage and populationStatistics Available at:http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (Accessed 29thJanuary 2014)
Johnson, P (1996) ‘Pornography Drives Technology: Why Not toCensor the Internet’ 49 Federal Communications Law Journal 217Available at: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fedcom49&div=15&id=&page (Accessed 29th
January 2014)
Koerner, B (2004) Can the FCC Regulate HBO? Available at:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Margetts, H (2009) ‘The Internet and Public Policy’, Policy andInternet, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp.1-21 DOI. 10.2202/1944-2866.1029
National Coalition Against Censorship (2012) NCAC LaunchesCensorship Wiki Available at: http://www.ncac.org/NCAC-launches-censorship-wiki (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Ofcom (2011) Sexually Explicit Material and Video On Demand ServicesAvailable at:http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/explicit-material-vod.pdf (Accessed 29th January 2014)
Open Democracy (2013) The Great Firewall of China Available at:http://www.opendemocracy.net/china-correspondent/great-firewall-of-china (Accessed 28th January 2014)
Oswell, D (1998) ‘The Place of Childhood in Internet ContentRegulation’ The International Journal of Cultural Studies Vol.1 Issue 2pp.271-291 DOI 10.1177/13678779980010020101
Penny, L (2014) David Cameron’s Internet Porn Filter is the Start of aCensorship Creep Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep (Accessed 28thJanuary 2014)
Robbins, M (2013) Cameron’s Internet Filter Goes Far Beyond Porn and thatwas Always the Plan Availableat:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/camerons-internet-filter-goes-far-beyond-porn-and-was-always-plan(Accessed 29th January 2014)
Rohozinski R & Deibert, R (2010) ‘Liberation Vs Control inCyberspace’, The Journal of Democracy Vol. 1 Issue 4, pp. 43-57Available at:http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/gratis/Rohozinski-21-4.pdf (Accessed 28th January 2014)
Supreme Court (2010) Federal Communications Commission V. Fox TelevisionStations Available at:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1293f3e5.pdf(Accessed 29th January 2014)
Wheeler, T (2013) NET Effects: The Past Present and Future Impact of ourNetworks Available at: http://www.fcc.gov/page/net-effects-past-present-and-future-impact-our-networks (Accessed 28th January2014)
Appendix
Survey Results