Members of the ISP-Tech list say that software is available to protect children from harmful Internet content, but that the new law exacerbates the pornography problem by purporting to solve it.

[April 11, 2002]

On the ISP-Tech list in March, PJ asked,

"For those of you in Pennsylvania, what impact will the new law requiring you to block access to child porn have?"

A number of respondents suggested that the law will have no impact whatsoever:

[JL offered] "Like so many similar shell games, this is politically-motivated hype which its creators know full well will never stand legal challenge, and which is obviously singularly intended to buy votes from right-wing extremists. It's a perfect example of politics at its most transparent."

[KW agreed] "This is just one more unenforceable law on the books."

Others contended that blocking child pornography is a worthwhile effort:

[DS observed] "Child porn is a crime. And unlike the adult material which is often referred to as a 'victimless crime,' child porn is always a crime. It is always wrong and never right, no matter how much money you can make off of allowing it."

[PF agreed] "It's patently wrong to allow this stuff at all."

GG warned that the passage of the law could inspire similar actions in other states:

"This sets a precedent that will be used by well-meaning state officials in other states to write their laws. We could all be in the content filtering business soon if this is upheld in court."

Others felt that this is the wrong way to handle a difficult issue:

[GD noted] "It seems to me that this would be in violation of first amendment rights. I do believe that children should be shielded from this, but I also believe that it is the responsibility of the child's parents to use proper software to filter this stuff."

[JL added] "For any of our subscribers who are interested, we offer a list of 'child-protection' software available at any software store: our responsibility ends there. Should you care to post a similar list for your own subscribers, here it is: Cyber Patrol, CYBERsitter, Net Nanny, SafeSurf, and PC-Timer."

[JL noted] "The one and only effective way to combat commercial crime of any sort is not to try to prevent potential customers from buying the product, but to prosecute the purveyor. Forcing ISPs to block access to porn of any kind is equivalent to prosecuting telephone companies for providing connectivity to phone sex. It doesn't attack the root cause of the problem: it merely provides a politically attractive way for politicians to look like they're doing something productive."

[HM concluded] "Nobody is saying that child porn is okay. But this law makes the ISP responsible for someone else's criminal behavior. We're nothing more than a conduit to the Internet. I provide you access, and what you do with that access is entirely up to you. Politicians see a problem and want to fix it, but they're just shifting the responsibility onto someone else so they can say they did something about child porn. This law does nothing to protect children from porn: it only masks the problem."

— End