net filtering
5 Jun 2009
'Net Nanny' Advocate Does Back Flip
Sociologist Michael Flood was one of the original supporters of ISP-based filtering and his work is often used to justify Labor's clean feed proposal. Now he says it's a bad idea
Another hinge on the case for the Government’s proposed internet filter just fell off.
For a while now, when supporters of mandatory ISP-based filtering feel the need for back-up, they have often invoked a particular research paper co-written by Clive Hamilton and Michael Flood in 2003.
They have to, because it’s pretty much the only Australian study ever to look into the relationship between young people and the possible harm they can come to through exposure to pornography on the internet. It has helped their case that Flood is a major figure in Australian social research who has the respect of policy-makers around the country.
But unfortunately for Conroy and co, they won’t be able to count Flood as a supporter any more.
At the recent "Tangled Web" forum in Melbourne, hosted by newmatilda.com, Flood spoke at length about research progress in this area and about his serious doubts that a system of mandatory ISP-based filtering would actually address the dangers he believes exposure to internet pornography presents for young people.
By his own admission, the research Flood and Hamilton did was limited. They based their findings and recommendations on results from a Newspoll telephone survey of just 200 youths aged between 16 and 17. Flood says it was "small research", and that it caused an "absolute media firestorm". It went on to be used as a key reference-point of the pro-filter policy adopted by the ALP before the 2007 election and of the federal Government’s current (and significantly more far-reaching) proposal.
Their research, Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects, asked young people about "their unwanted and their deliberate exposure to X-rated videos and to porn sites online". What they found, in summary, was that in Australia it is increasingly common for young people to be exposed either accidentally or deliberately to sexually explicit material online and that there is evidence of social harms resulting from that exposure.
Subsequent to Hamilton and Flood’s February 2003 discussion paper, the authors published a series of recommendations on regulating youth access to pornography. These recommendations are well known to anyone who has followed debates about internet filtering over the past decade. After the research was released Flood argued strongly in favor of internet filtering in public debates about pornography.
Now, Flood says, he has seen enough evidence to feel differently. "I am now far less convinced than I used to be of the value of ISP-based filtering as a strategy," he said at the forum. "I am much more convinced of its technological problems and I am much more convinced of its political dangers."
It was a significant statement. Aware as he is that within cyber-libertarian discussions on filtering he has for a long time been considered "a baddie", he added, "if you want to use those words and quote me, feel free: that one of the early advocates of ISP-based filtering is now backing away from this. Clive Hamilton on the other hand — my then co-author — is still a firm advocate, I believe, but he and I have gone in separate directions."
Flood is still thoroughly opposed to harmful pornography being available to minors online and is keen to underline the risk of children being accidentally exposed to it. At the outset he identifies this issue as a crucial sticking point within the debate. "I do think there is a myth that circulates among some cyber-libertarians if you like, or some freedom of speech advocates, that porn doesn’t cause harm," he said. "There’s a kind of casual or confident claim that there is no evidence that porn is related to sexual violence against women or sexual violence against children. It seems to me that’s bluntly naive, and bluntly inaccurate. I think there is enough evidence to say that exposure to porn is harmful for children. It doesn’t mean we should censor it — I think that is a different debate. But I do think it’s hard to argue against the evidence of negative effect."
Flood reminded the forum that it’s important to understand that there are different sorts of harm. "For example, the effects that have been documented are that particularly the youngest children, children who are eight or nine or 10 may be shocked or disturbed or upset by unwanted or premature encounters with pictures of people having sex or other kinds of sexually explicit material." He admits that there is a proportion of those children who aren’t upset — who will "simply close down the site or tell their parents, or look at something else. But some children are upset and report being disturbed and that is something to be aware of." Secondly, some children are being disturbed by some of the types of sexual depictions among the sheer range that are available.
He cites examples from extensive US and Dutch studies that find that increasing numbers of young people experience "unwanted exposure to porn that they found disturbing" in accidental and deliberate contexts.
However, he also noted that there are some effects of exposure to porn that may not be considered harmful at all. For example, according to Flood, this kind of exposure can have what he sees as a beneficial liberalising effect. "It’s well-documented that children and young people, who are exposed to sexual content, in advertising and other mainstream media and in porn, develop more liberal attitudes. They are more likely to think that other people are having sex. They are more likely to think that pre-marital and non-marital sex is OK, they are more likely to think that homosexuality is OK (I think that’s a good thing) and so on."
But the effect he is most concerned about is "sexual aggressiveness, a growing tolerance of sexual aggression and a growing willingness to participate in sexual aggression". He reiterates that "there is consistent and reliable evidence that the consumption of porn, particularly violent porn as you might expect, is related to sexual aggression, it’s related to more sexually aggressive attitudes — that is, thinking it’s OK to force a girl into sex or that violence against women is sexy."
Unusually in this debate, Flood’s argument goes beyond explaining the precise dangers to children of exposure to pornographic material. He describes the Government’s current approach as "fundamentally misguided" but warns that "those who argue against these Government strategies need to have good alternative strategies for how we address them."
In that context he is keen to focus on making recommendations other than ISP-based filtering because he sees a continuing need for solutions. And among the solutions Flood sees are more sophistocated education, better research and — interestingly — better porn.
In case there is any confusion, Flood clarifies that he is pro-choice when it comes to porn. "In the report that Clive Hamilton and I authored in 2003," he pointed out, "we said that adults should continue to have access to porn, in X-rated videos and DVDs and we wanted to transfer the system of classification to the net [so that] materials … would pass the Office of Film and Literature classifications standards — so not violence, not child porn."
His discussion of pornography is complex and enlightening and leads us through to the kinds of debate the Federal Government and civil society should be aiming to have: debates that could look simultaneously and intelligently at both harm reduction and access for adults to sexual material online.
Flood believes there are social benefits resulting from increasingly diverse representation of sexualities, body types and consenting activities in contemporary pornography. But he also says we need more content coming out of the porn industry that "abandons the kind of routinely callous depictions of women and sex that are its bread and butter at the moment". Further, he suggests that "we need a much more responsible adult online industry with stronger age verification systems, with less free tours, with a kind of a brown-paper wrapping of its front pages so it’s simply less possible for people — particularly minors — to see porn in the ways that are possible now."
Flood is keen to remind people that his 2003 research also called for social and educational strategies in relation to young people and their understanding of pornography, not just an ISP-based filter. "We argued for porn education. We said that we should be going into schools and teaching children how to respond more critically to the material that they see online whether deliberately or accidentally, so that they become more critical media consumers."
Flood goes so far as to question why no-one is arguing that people under 18 should be able to access porn, given that "we say that 16 and 17 year olds can have consenting sex, why can’t they look at pictures of other people having consenting sex?" He concedes this is not the debate for now but it’s certainly another interesting consideration if the debate were to be opened up.
Incredibly, as the debate for and against a filter marches on (as presumably the real-world trials chug along somewhere in Australia), there has been little advance in the sociological research about teenagers and porn in Australia. As far as Flood is aware, his is still the only research in the country that is "focussed on children’s and young people’s consumption of or exposure to porn". A common criticism of the filter proposal is that it’s justification — combating cyber crime and protecting children online — is based on too little research, or research that has been done outside of Australia. Critics such as Colin Jacobs, from Electronic Frontiers Australia, have argued that the Government has made a poor effort in presenting any evidence to justify what is a very expensive and complex policy. Michael Flood suspects the research he co-authored with Clive Hamilton is "probably still being influential in contemporary government and other agendas on this issue".
That may be set to change. The Government has commissioned a university study into cyber-safety issues, due to report in July next year. Currently, Flood is a member of the reference group for a pilot project based in Warrnambool in western Victoria. The project is developing an educational resource kit for distribution in schools, aimed at equipping young people to think critically and constructively about the harmful effects of pornography consumption on their perceptions of men, women and sexuality.
The Australian Christian Lobby’s official pro-filter website urges us to "make pollies to sit up and listen". Ironically they share that message with civil libertarians and critics of the filter. Members of the ACL may like to join Conroy in revisiting Flood’s research too, and listen a little more carefully to the author of the research that they have touted so enthusiastically.
Michael Flood is a research fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, at La Trobe University in Melbourne.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
What porn I have seen in Videos, especially American ones, is utterly revolting. It all has that hard edged, total contempt for women that is so prevalent in American films, and this must have a very bad effect on young minds. It does!
I have watched some Swedish porn, and it was much gentler, more respecting of both parties, and totally lacked that hard-edged feel. I felt good about sex after watching it. I did not feel violent about women.
But concentration on sexual porn is not the whole story. Our media is full of violence, mostly out of America (and Japan, a very nasty, cruel attitude is often seen) and I do think that this is one reason why we have such problems with violence in our youth. You have only to look at the youth of Britain in the streets, and their copying of the US Street cultures, to see it at it’s worst. We are also getting this in Australia.
America is one of the most violent places on Earth, and seems proud of the fact, as Hollywood spreads American ‘culture’ all around the world.
As for Conroy and Rudd and the other religious nutters who want to turn us into a nanny State, I agree that they should go back to the drawing boards, and leave the net alone. If we actually had proper sex education of our children in schools from a young age, instead of the present hypocritical attitude, this would not be necessary. And it is not, anyway.
How about it, Conroy and Rudd and you other ‘god botherers’,
put some money into good sex education, leave your religion out of Government, and no one, let alone children, is going to go looking for the garbage that passes as porn on the net or anywhere else. No market, no sales. No more hard, nasty, dirty porn. Dazza.
I spend a lot of my life working with Indigenous Australians.
Many Blackfellas where I live have a different take on porn. It’s assigned wholly too much value, to the point where a significant number of Indigenous people (male and female) are not prepared to let their partner go to a workplace because they feel their is no barrier to sex at work. The “I have come to clean ze pool” thing has more significant meaning.
So it’s not only kids who have problems with porn.
Having said that, Conroy is being a dick and education is the answer. Not some filter. I only brought this up as my life mission of raising indigenous issues to people outside of the NT
I support the proposed ISP filtering and i am of the view that children and teenagers need be protected from the crude and vile pornographic material that is so easily accessible on the internet. Liberalism really has gone mad, bring back censorship in the interets of young children who should never be exposed, inadvertently, to such horrible images.
It is of concern that boys are accessing pornographic material that has the potential to shape their views about sex and what sex will be like in a relationship. Most pornography degrades women and young boys are not mature enough to understand this concept.
Sarah Jane
Interesting, hjalprek. I know that one of the things banned by the Intervention in the NT is porn, and could never make that one out.
I certainly did not realise that the women see it as so much of a threat to their relationships with the men.
I can see that some indigenous men on the Communities, as with all under-educated men, would see porn, soft or hard, as quite interesting, as it involves almost entirely WHITE men and women, with the occasional black American male thrown in, with perhaps some Asians.
This is not unique to Aboriginal Australian males. Just for curiosity value, if nothing else. We all wonder how other people ‘do it’, and what they look like under the coverings. Nothing new there.
And with the women in the indigenous Communities seeming to have all power these days, having the ear of female Ministers both Federally and NT, and the female Intervention advisers, and placing men further and further from the loop of power and consultation, perhaps men are sinking back to a state of stupor, where they have been to some extent since whites took control of all their activities, and totally devalued the work of men as providers for their families.
The Howard Government (Brough) and now Rudd’s (Macklin) have worked assiduously to cement this position, becoming totally paternalistic, removing all control of their own lives from the Aboriginal peoples, and especially the males, as they are seen as the perpetrators of all evil by these female Minsters and advisors, with no chance of redemption. They have been cast to the wolves!
Must do tremendous harm, long term, short term, to the dignity and pride of the men involved, and if anyone had had their dignity and pride removed, no self-respect left to them, they resort to somewhat nasty activities. The sort of thing we see on our TV sets night after night. This applies to whites as well as Indigenous, in big and small cities as well as in Indigenous Communities.
Perhaps you could advise further on this?
A bit more than off subject, but nevertheless relevant. Dazza.
@Sarah Jane, In some ways I agree with you there needs to be some control but please Sarah get a Clue you can’t be this stupid. The filter is NOT GOING TO WORK AT ISP LEVEL did you even read this artical? The best way to stop kids looking at porn is to MONITOR then while they are on the net, Or use a Netnanny software. ISP Filtering is FAR EASIER to get around, Programs like Netnanny are a lot harder. You and can use a proxy or VPN’s for ISP filters and most Hardcore stuff is on Torrents which will not be included in the ISP filters. What will be included is anything the current Gov dose not want us looking at from a website ONLY. It is not the Gov’s job to protect your kids it’s yours!!
Not sure why my earlier comment in this thread was disallowed. Perhaps it went missing?
Anyhow, I’d like to congratulate Michael Flood for his refreshing willingness to keep an open mind and change his mind in the light of new information and arguments. The temptation to ride with government policy on this must be strong for academics working in grant-hungry universities. Nice to see someone with integrity in academia.
This is in stark contrast to the behaviour in this debate of Dr Flood’s former addociate Clive Hamilton. Dr Hamilton is yet to offer a serious intellectual response to concerns raised by myself - and others - about the likelihood that compulsory Internet censorship, in the long-term, will be used for political censorship. He has dismissed this with a one liner, calling it a “red herring’.
An honest “public intellectual” would offer a more substantial response to a serious concern.
See Clive Hamilton & I: Getting Personal about Sex, Lies, Hate & Censorship
at
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/26/clive-hamilton-me-sex-lies-hate-ce…
It seems so easy. Parents should monitor and control their children; I quite agree that it is not the Government’s job. Adults should be allowed to choose what they want to see and read. Full stop. Putting this kind of technology in place for a country is inherently dangerous because sooner or later it will be abused by the people controlling it.
It is pornography that is the red herring here. Censorship for political ends is the real danger we face. An Internet filter is a threat to Australian democracy, whatever its ostensible purpose.
Blogging at Waving Not Drowning.