A new citizen petition on the White House website asks the Obama administration to “require porn to be an ‘opt in’ feature with Internet Service Providers rather than a standard feature.” In an effort to collect enough signatures, proponents of this request are heavily promoting it on email lists and social media. Their efforts are misguided and in fact dangerous.

As a person whose livelihood requires using the internet on a regular basis, I have, like many others, encountered content I find objectionable without my actively looking for it. This is the basis of the petition’s request: people who want pornography should be allowed to opt in and get it, but the rest of us—and especially our children—should not have to stumble upon it accidentally, subjecting ourselves to images that cannot be forgotten, and whose effect can be psychologically and spiritually detrimental.

As a parent, I can sympathize with this desire. I, too, want to protect my children. I, too, want to shield them from illicit images and degrading content. I want the same results that the petition’s proponents want, and yet cannot in any way support their methods of pursuing those results. Let’s look at a few reasons why.

The Absence of Authority

Petitioners have embarked upon their quest in the wake of a similar movement in the UK, led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Rather than seeking legislative change through Congress, they are making their pitch to the president—in other words, asking him to issue an executive decree, violating the Constitution by circumventing Congress and imposing a unilateral mandate upon businesses. Do the petitioners really want to establish more precedent and centralize more power that, while in this case may be useful to their goals, could very well result in other presidential decrees to which they strenuously object?

But let’s imagine that the petition solicited congressional support. Congress can only constitutionally enact laws based upon authority they have been delegated. Where in the Constitution is any power delegated that would justify mandating businesses to alter their services and restrict the access of their customers to select content? The general welfare clause doesn’t offer support and the commerce clause’s delegation of power “to regulate” does not mean Congress can “regulate” in the sense that it’s understood today.

I don’t think concerned parents supporting this proposal are too worried with questions of authority—though they should be. Many of them are simply desperate that something be done. They don’t want their 8-year-old son, for example, being exposed to a hyper-sexualized image of a nude woman, causing feelings he’s not prepared to handle, eliciting questions he’s not ready to know the answers to, and sparking curiosity for more (and more obscene) imagery. In short, parents want to simply protect their kids, and if Obama can snap his fingers and make it happen, why not ask him to do so?

Scope Creep Censorship—Sometimes

Why not indeed? Well, let’s look again to the UK anti-porn plan, where the list of censored material is far greater than mere porn. Establishing a censorship standard—even if justified with a “think of the children!” argument—means that political pressure will combine to influence that standard in one direction or another. Should sexual education content be blocked? What about artistic websites with semi-nude or nude models? What about lingerie ecommerce sites? How about Sports Illustrated?

Anybody who understands the nature of government knows that it is inherently unable to restrict itself to a core, stated purpose. While pornography is the censorship proposal in this instance, if the system is put in place how can anybody guarantee that other type of content—deemed objectionable by whichever politicians or bureaucrats are in control—will not be added? China, which has long engaged in pornography censorship, has likewise banned all sorts of other allegedly objectionable content—including historical information the state would rather its subjects not have.

Despite its pornography censorship moving forward, PM Cameron has had to backpedal and acknowledge that it won’t be able to—or simply won’t—censor everything considered by some to be pornographic. Images of topless women, for example, are expected to remain accessible. In short, any attempt to require country-wide censorship can and will be abused.

Technical Hurdles Galore

While the decision to allow certain images and ban others can at some level be considered a question of where one draws the censorship line, there are substantial technical obstacles in place to achieving pervasive censorship of any kind of content. Consider how China’s censorship system (its firewall) works: Internet Service Providers in China are licensed by the government and must comply with strict regulations regarding their technical systems. These ISPs connect to a series of routers that funnel into a single node—funneling all internet traffic into China through a single point of access. This intentional bottleneck enables Chinese censors to better control what passes through.

The internet is a network—or, in the infamous words of Senator Stevens, a “series of tubes.” This decentralized set of systems has allowed the free expression of ideas, the innovation of new technologies, and the proliferation of and easy access to content. Much of this content is beneficial, uplifting, and educational. Much of it is degrading, filthy, and mind-numbing. This mine-pocked landscape has required parents to employ filters, restrict access, and deal with the uncomfortable encounters that accidentally may occur.

But the patchwork and competition of various filters and technologies is exactly what we want and need. Empowering the state to employ a single standard and system means it will not be the best, will be prone to abuse, and will be politically controlled. Further, the cost and controls necessary to get such a system off the ground, let alone to maintain and continually enhance it, are themselves quite obscene. We all love to hate the TSA and its parent department DHS for their heavy-handed tactics, stupid processes, and infringement upon liberty. Imagine duplicating this department for the (supposedly) sole purpose of blocking objectionable content online. The federal government is inept and inefficient—do we really think they’ll be better at this?

False Positives

One of the technical problems involved in this proposal is that of false positives—content being banned that shouldn’t be banned. With the filter I use, this is not an uncommon thing. A website I wish to access might have been flagged by another set of users as containing content that violates one of my criteria, such as pornography, violence, drugs, etc. Or, perhaps, an automatic analysis of the website’s keywords and images flagged the filter without any human intervention. Using my filter, if I really need or want to view the website, I can “whitelist” it and within three minutes the website is accessible. Conversely, if I encounter a website that should have been filtered but wasn’t, I can “blacklist” it and add it—preventing myself or others on my network from accessing it on our network in the future.

False positives are going to be given when one wishes to censor the entire internet. So how should they be handled? Should parents and individuals be able to immediately customize their own preferences, or do we really desire a centralized authority that determines and manages the standards? Do we want to have to contact our ISP every time we want a change, hoping they agree with our request and unblock a certain website, or worse, do we want to have to lobby a bureaucratic panel of appointees whose permission is needed to allow access to a website?

The reply of proponents will suggest that none of this is necessary. If I want access, I can just “opt in” and have full access. But what if I don’t want full access to everything? What if I don’t want to be on the government’s “opt in” list—branding myself as somebody who has indicated I desire to view pornography, which in the case of my false positive would not be true? Such a list can be leaked, hacked, or used internally by government agents to apply pressure on political enemies (lest the information be leaked to an unsuspecting spouse, for example).

Personal and Parental Responsibility is the Key

As a tech-savvy, curious child, I was able to circumvent the filters and password restrictions my parents put in place. No censor—including China’s—is perfect. Those who want access to certain material may find a way.

Consider the so-called “war on drugs,” in which trillions of dollars are spent, thousands are incarcerated, and the legal system is bogged down with drug offenders. Despite all this effort, drug addiction hasn’t changed much. Kids can get drugs from friends. Adults can find it on the streets. All the money and law enforcement officers thrown at the problem haven’t abated it. Those who want it, get it.

The same will be true of any pornography censorship system, whether “opt in” or, like China’s, mandatory. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Thus, while good parents will make an attempt to shield their children from this material with filters and family standards of internet use, a censorship system is not, and should not be considered, a solution. As parents, we must help our children understand that the world is filled with land mines, and they need to learn to recognize and avoid them.

While pornography is the easy land mine to target and shout about, there are many other damaging things that could, but shouldn’t, be censored. Total censorship will produce a generation of weak children; strength comes through resistance. I do not want the state to impose itself upon my family and assume the duties that are mine alone. It would do so at too high a cost.

Conclusion

Pornography is corrosive and addictive. Like many people, I have been exposed to things that I wish I did not see. It would be great to make it all go away with the push of a button. But knowing a thing or two about the nature and tendencies of the state, especially when it is given additional, centralized power, I know that the proposal in this petition is ultimately harmful to society.

I share the petitioners’ goal, but would like to see more people focus on fighting the demand of this content, rather than trying to restrict its supply.