A little over a year ago Rishi Sunak's government commissioned a review to consider the censorship of online pornography in the UK. The review goes way beyond simply requiring age verification to keep out the under 18s as implemented via the Online
'Safety' Act. It considers all aspects of the censorship of online porn available in the UK. The review is authored by Gabby Bertin, a conservative peer, promoted by David Cameron. Her relevant background is from campaigning in the sphere of domestic
abuse.
Inevitably the majority of 'evidence' invited for the review was from anti-porn campaigners and those that would advantage from the set up of an internet censorship process for adult websites. Much of the language of the report directly
uses feminist tropes such as twisting the word 'violent' to mean non violent content that offends feminist axioms.
The author of course introduces her report: "I'm not a prude ...BUT... She writes:
I want to be clear that I do not approach this subject from a prudish or disapproving position. I am a liberal Conservative and a proponent of free speech. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't
harm anyone -- and that includes safely consuming adult content that has been made by consenting adults. ...BUT... we need to strike the right balance between protecting those principles and protecting society, particularly the most
vulnerable, from potential risks. And the time has now come to take a stand on this and call out what is really happening and the damage it is doing.
Of course she then goes on to outline a few Trojan horses that would inevitably lead
to the banning of blocking of most adult websites available in the UK.
Here is a summary of the chapters of the report most relevant to censorship.
Recommendation 1: 'legal but harmful' content to be banned
from publication
Bertin has gotten a bit tied up in contradictory language for this section. Some material is cut by the BBFC because it is illegal in the UK, eg as defined as Extreme Pornography (eg bestiality and real injury). Other material is
cut by the BBFC under it's own BBFC guidelines. Initially Bertin defines such content as 'legal but harmful' and then goes to call for the publication of such material to be made illegal to publish.
The BBFC details 'legal but harmful' content as
follows:
material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity, which may include adults role-playing as non-adults
the portrayal of sexual activity which involves real or
apparent lack of consent and any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent
the infliction of pain or acts which are likely to cause serious physical harm, whether real or
(in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for non-abusive, consensual activity
penetration by any object likely to cause physical harm
sexual threats, humiliation, or abuse which
do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game
And Bertin adds her own additions to the list:
content that shows racism or could encourage racist attitudes
content where a performer or creator has withdrawn their consent to being in a film
stolen content that
has been shared without the performer’s knowledge or consent
Bertin goes on to suggest two options for implementing the above censorship:
- Let Ofcom define a 'Safe Pornography Code of Practice' that defines content to banned and also the process to be implemented to censor such content.
- Implement the ban via the government creating a criminal publication offence to ban such
material with detailed censorship rules written by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Bertin also suggests two extra censorship ideas under this section:
- keyword matching on website searches would mean that terms including girl, young, rape, drunk etc. would result in a warning message.
- paid-for porn services would require daily, weekly, or monthly spend limits on content, much like
gambling services.
Recommendation 2 & 25: Content to be made illegal to possess, distribute, and publish (by adding to the definition of already banned extreme porn)
So-called choking content, where there is external pressure on the neck, is rife on platforms that host pornography and is a very popular category of content. People acting it out in their sex lives may face devastating
consequences. Evidence shows that even a small amount of pressure to the neck can harm the brain, and there is no safe way to strangle a person.
Pornographic content that depicts incest should be made illegal. While it is
currently a criminal offence to have penetrative sexual activity with a family member (both blood-related and adopted), it is not illegal to act out depictions of incest in pornography. It should be noted that that this would not include
pornography that depicts sex between step-relations -- this is not illegal activity in the real world, however this content is rife on mainstream platforms.
Recommendation 3: The non-consensual taking and making of intimate images - whether real or deepfake - should be made an offence.
Whilst it is uncontroversial to ban real non-consensual images it
seems a little unjust to bundle this up with deep fakes. It should be noted that there are large amounts of celebrity material that is already commonplace on adult websites and AI tools are already available offline that can be used to create ones own
porn without any keyword restrictions as may be imposed by the gatekeepers of online services such as Gemini and ChatGPT
Recommendation 9 & 10. A separate body should conduct content audits
This body will ensure platforms hosting pornographic content are tackling illegal and prohibited content effectively.
To this end, government could appoint a body, such as the BBFC, who have
experience in moderating content, to audit content from platforms hosting pornography to ensure they are tackling prohibited and illegal content. This body could expedite reports to Ofcom where there is evidence of lack of compliance (Ofcom could then
deploy enforcement measures if there was non-compliance. Government would need to look to additional funding for training and/or additional resource for this body.
Companies that pass the audit could receive an accreditation of
good practice. This would signal to the public, government, and ancillary services that this company is well-regulated, acting as an incentive to platforms themselves to raise their own standards.
This would also serve a public
awareness angle. I have found that there is currently little public awareness about what good pornographic content looks like, or what a good platform is. This accreditation would be a way for the public to clearly know if the service they are viewing
pornography on meets the accreditation or not, allowing for more informed choices.
Of course the accreditation could also serve to warn discerning porn users that the website only serves highly censored porn and may be best avoided.
Recommendation 11. Restricted porn content that is made harder to find, so that it is only available to users if they intentionally seek it out.
This type of content should not be served up on a homepage to a first-time user. Industry should collaborate on a watch-list of types of content in this space, restricting and down-ranking this content so that it is not
available on homepages to first-time users. Government could decide to regulate this content or conduct further research on harms if there is later proof of harm or inaction in this space.
Recommendation 12. Increased, effective, and quick business disruption measures across the ecosystem of pornography.
Including ancillary services that support the platforms -- should be in place to ensure swift removal of illegal and legal but harmful pornographic content. A clear and enforceable sanctions framework, under the Online
Safety Act, should also be established.
Recommendation 14. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) should review its approach to advertising on online pornography sites.
As detailed in Chapter 1, there is limited regulatory oversight of advertisements appearing on pornography sites. I recommend that the ASA critically reviews its approach to regulating the content of advertising on online pornography
sites in the UK. This could lead to further oversight to ensure platforms are fully abiding by the code and not featuring advertisements that promote any content that would be captured under the prohibited list in Recommendation 1.
Should a platform not abide by the code, or push harmful content to viewers, strict enforcement measures should be more consistently applied.
Recommendation 21. Performer consent
and age verification
Companies that host pornographic content should have consistent safety protocols, processes and safeguards in place to ensure that all performers/creators are consenting adults, are of age (18+),
and have not been exploited or coerced into creating content.
Recommendation 22. Performers to be able to get their videos taken down regardless of contractual obligations
There should be clear and standardised processes across the sector to enable performers and creators to withdraw consent and to have content they appear in removed from sites. Even if a performer or creator has provided consent for
the initial recording and sharing of pornographic content, they should have every right to withdraw consent at a later point (whatever the reason may be) and have that content removed.
Withdrawing consent, and therefore the
content in which one appears, is not a decision that performers take lightly. There are costs associated with the creation of content, and its removal may mean that content no longer generates income, which could result in cutting off a segment of income
to a performer, their co-star(s), producer or director. In some cases, if a user has purchased the content and may retain it offline, or subscribed to receive the performer’s work, this makes it more difficult for a performer’s content to be deleted
completely. I acknowledge that there are obstacles to overcome due to contract law and cost recovery of film production. Nonetheless, I believe consent must supersede any other consideration. If a performer or ex-performer wants a video removed, I
believe their request should be granted.
Recommendation 23. Stolen content
Platforms that host pornographic content should have robust protocols and
processes to prevent and respond to stolen content. This should include easy reporting and removal of content stolen from performers.
Recommendation 29. Nudification or nudify apps should be banned.
The government should strongly consider banning apps that have been developed for users to nudify themselves or others. Alternatively, government could explore banning these apps at a device level so that users in the
UK are unable to download them on their smartphone, laptops, and other devices.
I don't suppose that there are many porn websites that would survive an audit against the above rules. But of courser Bertin never thinks to
ask about the practical consequences of such an industry wide ban as suggested above.
I guess that there is enough porn already in circulation that could as a last resort be passed around on memory stick to keep everyone satisfied for the next 100
years. If not, then I am sure there will be a few websites around the world that will keep going. And if all else fails then perhaps the county lines can branch out into selling contraband porn.
I think porn is now simply too commonplace and too
widely accepted by society to effectively ban.
The UK Government's Department for Science, Innovation, Technology and Censorship has called for evidence to inform the final recommendations of its 'Independent' Pornography Review. The government writes: 
Gov 
Gov 
