Speech for Oxford Union 01 Nov 2001

"Mr President, it is often said that the law is an ass. Well if that is so, perhaps this motion is a zebra. Some will look at it and see only the white stripes, and believe it proposes a harmless maybe even pleasurable pursuit. Others like myself, see the black stripes, and realize that this motion is dangerous and has to be opposed.
And then there are some members of the opposition, who have obviously spent so many long and lonely nights in front of a computer screen, that their vision has been completely dulled.

So let me explain further.

I spent four years as a Councillor on one of the major local authorities in London. A much older and wiser Councillor took me aside on one occasion when I was getting very worked up about some issue. She pointed out that the wording of the motion we were debating meant that my arguments were of little value. It was a salutary lesson. Always focus on the wording of the motion.

This motion does not say what many opposite may think it says. It is not a motion about the general right to look at pornography – it is focused on the Internet with the implication that the Internet is somehow different. Nor is it a motion about erotica, or so called "soft core" pornography, or indeed "adult material". It is a motion about pornography in general.

Thus in the wording of this motion there are two fundamental issues that we need to address – the nature of the Internet, and of rights on the Internet; and the nature of pornography, and of rights to view it. On these two grounds alone there are ample reasons for rejecting this motion. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if you really want to defend the core of human rights, you have to reject this motion.
First I want to address the issue of the nature of the Internet and of rights on the Internet.

Childnet, the organization of which I am the Chief Executive, lives and breathes on the Internet. People who come to our office marvel at how quiet it is. That is because virtually all the communication out of the office is electronic – mainly via e-mail. We exist to help make the Internet a great place for children. There is no doubt that the opportunities on the Net for children are fantastic.
Children can learn and discover new information. They can connect and link up with other children in the next street or on the other side of the world. They can themselves become contributors to the Net and publish their own work whether that be art, writing, photography, film or music.

Yesterday was the closing date for Childnet’s annual awards programme which rewards innovation and participation by children and those working with them on the Internet. In previous years we have had winners who have used the Internet for remarkable purposes: linking together children who are deaf; putting children who are from indigenous "First People" groups like aborigines and American Indians in touch with each each other; allowing children to work together to research the environment, issues of war and peace, health and disability.

I am labouring this point because I want us to be absolutely clear that this debate is not about the value of the Internet as a medium. I for one am totally convinced about that. But what this debate is about is how that medium is used and whether there are any special rights on the Internet.

That means we have to deal with the idea that the Internet is somehow a separate or different place from the real world. Many of those who started using the Internet in the very early days, before even we had a World Wide Web, do seem to subscribe to this view. They paint a picture of the Net as being like another galaxy – away from this world – where normal rules and regulations do not apply. Another image popular in the USA is that of the Net as a wild west, where you can do what you like, and it won’t matter.

But these images are false. The Internet may seem like it is somewhere out there in the ether, but it is not – it is simply a network of networks of computers. It relies on many millions of servers and miles of cable, and mega bytes of software. All of these resources are very much planted on terra firma. And just as we are all citizens of individual countries, so the computers we access reside in particular jurisdictions.

So the Internet is not out there… the content published on the Net does not exist in some inter-galactic soup beyond the reach of law.

There is a principle to which most countries adhere that we might call the offline/online principle. This principle states "that which is illegal offline should be illegal online".

We all benefit from that. If someone uses e-mail and the web to try and extort money from you – that is illegal. If someone uses the Net to promote a scam or organize a terrorist attach – that is illegal. E-mail’s can be binding contracts in the way that letters are – that is why so many firms have disclaimers at the bottom of e-mail communications.

Thus we have to conclude that the three words at the end of this motion "on the Internet" are superfluous for the purpose of the discussion of rights. I do not believe that there are particular "Internet rights" separate from normal rights. Rather we have to apply existing fundamental human rights to all media including the Internet.

Of course, I fully accept that this is not always an easy or straightforward task. I also recognize that the Internet poses particular challenges for society and government in trying to respond to activities that concern them. For example, the international, apparently anonymous, nature of the Net does create huge challenges for law enforcement. But that does not affect fundamental rights. The Human Rights act applies to the Internet in principle in the same way that it applies offline.

What then of pornography on the Internet? As it happens, the Internet has become THE medium to obtain pornography. Many of the developments of graphics interfaces, storage devices, video compression have been developed by and for the pornography industry.
Maybe it’s no coincidence that the world’s most powerful computer is called "Deep Blue".

But simply because there is a lot of pornography online, and for some it has become a hugely successful business, does not affect the issue of rights. So just as I believe there is no absolute right to view pornography offline, so there is no absolute right to view it online.
A second fundamental problem in this motion lies with the choice of the term "pornography" with no qualification whatsoever. The proposers of this motion tonight are relying on the idea that pornography is somehow a harmless, victimless, and even positive, liberating concept.

That may be a view held by some people about so called soft pornography but it that is not what this motion is exclusively about. If it were so, then the drafters of the motion should have said so. As it is, we are left with the much more general term "pornography".
Pornography literally covers a multitude of sins, from necrophilia to copraphilia and every philia in between - some of which even the members of this esteemed audience here tonight may not have heard of. I want to take just two examples to illustrate what pornography can include, and why there is no absolute right to watch it.

First, pornography includes material showing bestiality, or sex with animals. That is illegal in most countries in the world, and certainly in this country. The Dutch take an interesting approach towards it – pornography displaying bestiality is illegal in Holland, not because of any concern about fetishes but because it is caught under their "prevention of cruelty to animals" legislation.

There is an abundance of bestiality material on the Internet, starting with well known sites like the one which involves sex with farm animals and moving through ever animal you can imagine.
I can see that the members of the opposition have their notebooks poised as I’m speaking. I’m not sure whether this is to prepare for rebuttal or just to jot down web site addresses...
But I’m afraid I won’t be giving out any such addresses....and please don’t waste your time typing the words "farm" and "sex" into your search engines.

You’ll just end up on the offical website for the "Emmerdale" TV show.
But do you have an absolute right to see bestiality and other such material? No – if it is illegal offline then it should be illegal online. If you want to argue as some may, that such material should be legal to produce, then you cannot make a special case for the Internet. You would have to argue that it should be legal whatever the medium.
If you support animal rights then you need to accept that there is a conflict between those rights and the right to view bestiality pornography.

And while there are many websites for humans beings interested in sex with animals, I can’t recall a single one for animals wanting to have relations with human beings.

Unless you count the Wolfson College Online Dating Service.
My second example is no laughing matter. That is the issue of paedophilia or child pornography.

The very name child pornography makes it clear that this is a particular sub set of the general class of material known as pornography. But we are not talking here about pouting 19 year olds in gym slips pretending to be much younger. We are dealing with the visual representation of actual child abuse. Each child pornography picture records some instance when a child was sexually assaulted against their will.
Imagine for a moment that you suffered abuse as a child – it happens to far more people than we think, and by the law of averages a number of people in this audience tonight will have gone through that horror. Then imagine that your abuser or an accomplice took pictures of you as you were being abused. It is likely that those pictures will find their way on to the Internet.

How would you feel if you had been abused and then discovered that your picture was available online. Your abuse had become public property. It is a devastating experience.

I recently heard a senior police officer share about an incident where he was meeting with a Victims group and showing them a number of images of child pornography posted on the Internet where the police were concerned to try and identify the victim. A lady in the meeting left the room in some distress. Why? Because she saw herself in one of the images.

Once child pornography is posted to the Internet it is impossible to do the equivalent of a product recall. It will have quickly been sent around the world and downloaded by many individuals – copied and reposted with ease. Digital technology has brought us the incredible reality of perfect copies every time.

Now I would be interested to know if anyone here supported the production of such material – if you do, you are supporting child abuse. But what about viewing such material.. is that harmless.

No it is not. Most pictures are created for distribution and exchange. It can become like a compulsive hobby. Those who view child pornography fuel the demand for its creation. The Internet has actually exacerbated this, because it is such a convenient medium for exchange and distribution between people with a specialized interest who did not previously know one another.

Commercial child pornography had virtually died out by the 1980s after law enforcement had clamped down on it. What we have seen in the last few years is a resurgence of child pornography that is available for sale.

In a recent case in the United States a gateway web site for commercial child pornography, which took the orders and processed the payments, fed off the actual video streamed content which was hosted on servers in Indonesia and Russia. The Internet has facilitated that kind of international cooperation.

There is a web site hosted in Russia, that invites people to state what precise kind of child pornography they want. If what you want is not available in the online collection, then it will be produced for you. Child abuse on demand for payment.

There is no right to view child pornography. In many countries including the UK and USA the actual possession is illegal.
But even going beyond the legalities – how can it be an absolute right to view another person’s trauma and abuse.

If you support this motion tonight then you are supporting the right to view all kinds of pornography including child pornography. The motion has no qualifications and the proposers cannot introduce them for their own justification.

I would urge the House tonight to reject this notion on the two key grounds I have set out. There are no special Internet rights which make pornography online any more acceptable than offline. And there is no absolute right to look at pornography offline or online as it includes material that degrades the very essence of our humanity and perpetuates child abuse.

I oppose the motion."