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