sadomasochism, urination, defecation, and sex acts with a barnyard full of animals”). Anti-censorship activists often argue that censoring the net “makes no difference” because “obscene” material is available from any old corner shop. These newer “types” of pornography may actually render this argument obsolete. Children are certainly exposed to material that even the most adventurous of them would not have normally come across. Section 2 Most societies like to think of themselves as at least doing something to limit the development of “problems” such as pornography on the Internet. Governments of the United Kingdom and United States have both taken legislative steps towards this effect. It has not been easy in either case and the outcomes have arguably been altogether unsatisfactory. United Kingdom legislation includes several statutes that are of particular interest. Section 1(1) of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act provides the following test for obscenity: “For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.” This definition of “obscene” stems from the opinion of Lord Cockburn concerning the case Regina v. Hicklin (1868), enunciated the first important guide in determining what material was obscene. It is open to serious criticism. The fundamental problem with this definition is that it can condemn material that may legitimately dealt with sex. Section 43 of the Telecommunications 1984 Act makes it an offence to send ‘by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent,...
