Everyone Wants To Ban Certain Content Online. No One Wants To Talk Enforcement.
Proposed internet bans open a can of worms about how to punish those involved in creating and consuming controversial content.
Last weekend's deplatforming of Kiwi Farms, an internet forum known for encouraging the doxxing and harassment of disfavored figures, has brought the eternal question of online content regulation once again to the fore. In this case, the deplatforming was a private business decision by Cloudflare, a web services provider, following a pressure campaign led by trans activists. But a government takedown of the site would have had fans, too. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), who was swatted by a Kiwi Farms user, argued that it is a "failure of our government and failure of our law enforcement to not take down a website like that," "all of these types of groups need to be completely eradicated," and "they should not be allowed to exist."
Greene's remarks were brief and primarily concerned with attacking Democrats. But even if she'd spoken longer, my guess is she would have omitted a topic almost always ignored by proponents of banning objectionable content online: Enforcement.
That would be an issue with any plan for government content regulation, especially in forum-style sites like Kiwi Farms with a large base of users creating content, but this glaring absence is most obvious in proposals for banning pornography. I've read a lot of these proposals, researching the idea for a chapter I contributed to a forthcoming book on the digital public square. Almost universally, they don't discuss enforcement.
Senate candidate J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), for example, has endorsed the idea of a complete porn ban, but to my knowledge, he hasn't elaborated on enforcement at all. Former First Things senior editor Matthew Schmitz's 2016 case in The Washington Post for banning porn likened it to "bans" on murder and rape, which raises the specter of prison time, but he lets the implication slip away without explicit comment.
A 2019 First Things suggestion of digital "zoning"—say, by limiting all porn to regulated .xxx domains—says "all pornography and indecent material that showed up outside the zone (for example, on a website with a .com or .org domain) could be deemed illegal and referred to the DOJ for prosecution." But it doesn't say who's doing those referrals and what consequences the prosecution should bring. Likewise, a contemporary argument from The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh for "much heavier regulation" or an outright ban of online porn is long on rationale but silent on enforcement.
A 2021 piece at National Review seeks to ban only free online porn and delves into constitutionality in a way the Schmitz article does not. But it too is silent on enforcement mechanisms. And an article published this past June at Fox News contends "it is time to tear down the virtual porn theaters" but devotes no space to explaining how this would be done or what punishment violators should face.
In other proposals, it's all more of the same. The only porn regulation proposal which reliably comes with any discussion of enforcement is increased prosecution of obscenity laws already on the books, as advocated most prominently in a 2019 letter to the Justice Department from several members of Congress. Obscenity, in constitutional jurisprudence, is a far narrower category than the average non-lawyer would suppose. Yet even if this plan had a wider application, it's still not clear how reviving the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, as the lawmakers seem to want, would work in practice—and that brings us to the crux of the enforcement question.
In its original incarnation, from 2005 to 2011, the task force prosecuted producers and distributors of obscenity. I suspect this distinction, borrowed from the drug war, is what many would-be prohibitionists of online pornography and other objectionable content have in mind: Go after the dealers, not the users.
But that division is not so neatly drawn when it comes to online content (and drugs, but that's another point for another day). You can take down the big targets, the Pornhubs and Kiwi Farms of the world, easily enough. Maybe you toss their owners in jail or hit them with big fines.
But when their erstwhile users make a new site, or a thousand new sites—and they will—will they all get taken down too? Will you get everyone who uploads a video or leaves a comment? Everyone whose internet history shows they've visited these sites? What about emailing the banned content to download for offline viewing—is that illegal too? What kind of mass surveillance apparatus are you willing to build to catch everyone who bypasses the ban?
And if you catch them, what then? Would the government fine people? Garnish their wages? Put them on a sex offender registry? Take away their children?
Would we imprison people over pornography? For how long? (Remember, we're talking about a ban on all porn or other objectionable but currently legal content, not already and rightly illegal things like child pornography, nonconsensual pornography, or the swatting to which Greene was subjected.) Is a family better off if the dad gets three strikes and goes to prison for a year and can't find a job when he gets out? Will putting a young man addicted to pornography in the criminogenic environment of prison make him more or less likely to get his life on track?
None of this is to suggest porn is a good thing or that I'm sorry to see Kiwi Farms go. I believe pornography is evil, and from what I know of Kiwi Farms, good riddance. But as Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter observed in 2014, "making an offense criminal" doesn't simply show "how much we care about it." Ultimately, every ban creates the possibility "that the police will go armed to enforce it."
Don't get squeamish, prohibitionists. Tell us what stick you have in mind. Content ban plans can't be taken seriously until you explain what, exactly, you want the state to do to people who break your rules.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No One Wants To Talk Enforcement
The current regime doesn’t need to talk enforcement.
But a government takedown of the site would have had fans, too. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), who was swatted by a Kiwi Farms user, argued that it is a “failure of our government and failure of our law enforcement to not take down a website like that,” “all of these types of groups need to be completely eradicated,” and “they should not be allowed to exist.”
You know, I didn’t get a chance to point this out. We have been repeatedly assured by careful journalistic descriptions in every media outlet which did careful research, that Kiwi Farms was a far right troll site, attacking well-meaning people on the left. And yet, MTG was a high profile victim of the forum members.
Journalists need to regain some integrity. If you report “far right troll site” then you need to define how you justify that moniker in your reporting, and you need to be prepared to defend it.
Someone described it thus: “If you have ten people sitting at a table with a Nazi, you have eleven Nazis sitting at a table.”
That’s completely wrong obviously, but that is, apparently, how some people see it. Some posters on Kiwi Farms bullied some
lefty peoplepeople of a group the left has claimed to own who later committed suicide. Ergo, the entire site and everyone who posts on it is a far right troll.The media might be right, it might be largely a far-right troll site. But it’s just said without reflection or clear evidence. Journalism needs to refrain from declaring stuff “really cool” and “really awful” which masquerade as established fact.
Should also be pointed out moderation for crimes is different than moderation for censorship of ideas.
Don’t get squeamish, prohibitionists. Tell us what stick you have in mind. Content ban plans can’t be taken seriously until you explain what, exactly, you want the state to do to people who break your rules.
I’ll just leave this here as my response to this question.
The Role of U.S. Technology Companies as Enforcers of Europe’s New Internet hate Speech Ban
Senate candidate J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), for example, has endorsed the idea of a complete porn ban
The GOP might get behind this with this hokey “originalist” SCOTUS.
I can see it now “Where in the Constitution does it give a person the right to porn? In those exact words? Nowhere!”
I’m actually cool with the current ban on Shrike’s porn of choice.
Where in the Constitution does it give a person the right to porn? In those exact words? Nowhere!
I hope that’s [sarc] The Constitution doesn’t “give” people any rights. It restricts the government from taking people’s rights away.
“”Journalists need to regain some integrity.””
What journalists? That profession was phased out years ago.
>>Everyone
not I.
“Everyone Wants To Ban Certain Content Online.”
I don’t want any content banned on-line.
That was pretty much my thought.
If you don’t like it, don’t access it. If you don’t like that others might access it, mind your own business.
Any I mean everything. It starts with “kiddie porn” and “how to make a bomb”, then goes to “young adult porn” and “how to make a slingshot” and gets even sillier after that. Got a problem with snuff video? – hunt down the murderer and hang him. Got a problem with kiddie porn? – find the diddler or “coach” (for want of a better word) and give them a 20 year sentence (that will become a death sentence in all likelihood once he is locked up). We outlaw acts against another person, not talk or depictions of them.
Last weekend’s deplatforming of Kiwi Farms, an internet forum known for encouraging the doxxing and harassment of disfavored figures,
I never once visited Kiwifarms, but my understanding was that harassment, being criminal, was the opposite of encouraged, it was bannable. Doxxing was just an exercise of free speech.
But perhaps I’m completely wrong about what the site was based on hearing limited references to it.
Enforcement looks the same as it always does: A guy holding a gun telling you to do it or else.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/there-oughta-be-a-law
When the government passes laws, (or more recently, edicts and executive orders) they must also decide what to do with the people who won’t follow along. And here we discover the crux of the problem: When it comes down to it, government only has one tool at its disposal, and it looks like this:
(Police with guns)
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
These words might or might not have been penned by fiery-headed George Washington, but they are true regardless. The proper role of government is to suggest and inform but not coerce or force.
Let’s take the most powerful example of this in the modern era:
“People shouldn’t do drugs.”
Generally, this is solid advice. Drugs screw up lives and often keep you from being the person you could be. I fully support government running informative campaigns to keep people off drugs and even opening treatment centers for people struggling with drug addiction.
But notice what happens when we change one simple word:
“People can’t do drugs.”
If people CAN’T do drugs, that means punishment for those who ignore the law and continue to do drugs. What does that look like? Well, because government only has that giant sledgehammer in its bag, it looks like a trillion dollars fighting the drug war. A boom of the incarcerated, focused mostly on minorities and the poor. And it doesn’t stop when the sentence is over. If you can’t get a job or assistance after you get out because of your conviction, where do you turn to get by?
“People shouldn’t do drugs.”
“People can’t do drugs.”
Many (most?) people don’t see the difference. They can’t image doing drugs, so they can’t image why anyone would.
If something is a good idea, then making that something mandatory for everyone is a great idea.
And here we are.
There Oughta be a Law…..Against people saying “There Oughta be a Law…”.
I will now go turn myself in.
Nope, at the end of the line, the ultimate fallback is always a gun pointed at your head (or the head of someone you hold dear). Government is only involved in economics because it can force someone to not plant his field (Wickard) – at the point of a gun. It might shut off your access to banking, but you could still trade in silver or gold with others willing to accept it, but it will be the state breaking into the transaction, with a gun, to haul one of you off to prison for breaking some foolish law about not owning gold (FDR). It’s always about a gun. Government is not essential, it has become the ultimate valve to control the flow of resources and value – none of which are authorized under the Constitution, in spite of what many claim about the Commerce Clause.
Enforcement should look like everything the fascists do.
If you look at anything not approved, your internet, electricity, water, heat, credit cards, debit cards, and driving privileges will be permanently revoked.
If you refuse to starve to death within three weeks, you will be relocated to one of the camps.
Where are the free speech absolutists who don’t want to ban certain speech?
Oh, right, they’re the ones who are already being banned from the internet because the system needs to shut them up first.
First they came for the “extremists.” I didn’t say anything (they were extremists!). Then they came for those who defended the “extremists.” I didn’t say anything (they were defending extremists!). When they came for me, there wasn’t anyone left to say anything.
Then there’s the whole “It’s ‘www.’ because it’s a ‘World Wide Web’.” thing. Sites can set up servers anywhere on or off the planet.
Companies can be forced to block that, and people who circumvent those blocks can be held accountable. Make it something scary: “sexual predator” if you look at porn via a VPN etc. You know, like in China. It’s not perfect, but it greatly reduces access to materials the government deems undesirable, in particular from people with something to lose.
What makes it evil? Is it the sex, or the voyeurism?
If you’re “sex positive” it’s the eyeballs looking at it.
Is it the sex, or the voyeurism?
The overwhelming dread that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
re: “I believe pornography is evil …”
Yeah, that line jumped off the page to me, too. It is unsubstantiated opinion. I had hoped that she would provide her underlying reasoning in the linked article but nope. You have to get halfway through that article before she addresses it at all – and it’s the same unsubstantiated “it’s bad because I don’t like it”. No empathy, understanding or tolerance of other views.
Still, she is asking the right question – even if I dislike something, is the social cost of banning it worse than the social cost of tolerating it?
It’s envy, really.
I want porn to be banned on the internet, but only so I can auction off my old DVDs and VHS tapes for a higher profit.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (aof-09) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (res-08) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://workofferweb24.netlify.app/