There are reports of the Indian government instructing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to around 800 websites, most of which are said to offer a variety of pornographic content including extremely toxic and illegal shades. While there are many who consider this move to be an assault on personal liberty, I would like to explain why I welcome the Government’s ban on porn and think that it is a step in the right direction.

 

To start with, I fully support the cause of personal liberty. I firmly believe that people should have the right to do what they want with their lives as long as it is not in conflict with a similar right of others. Government’s role in a democracy, in my view, should be limited to safeguarding this right, which comes down to maintaining law and order. This is why I had earlier written about how government has no right to criminalize suicide or to enforce helmets or seat-belts, because neither of these are law and order problems and so best left to individual choice. Of course, it would be commendable for the government to educate citizens on safe practices, but mandating or enforcing these would amount to overstepping the government’s authority.

While I should have the right to drive without seat-belt, I should not have a right to drive in an inebriated state because by doing so I would be putting other lives also at risk, thus infringing on their right to drive or walk safely on the road. Thus it becomes a responsibility of the government to enforce a ban on drunken driving.  Ban on alcohol, drugs, and porn – in my opinion – fall into the same category.

My argument for blocking access to pornography has essentially two parts – first, that government has the right and responsibility to take preemptive action to reduce crime; second, that exposure to pornography (or some variants of it) can lead to an increase in aggressive and criminal tendencies. These individual points, when read together, imply that by restricting or removing access to pornography, the government is only carrying out its responsibility for bringing down crime – specifically, those targeted against women and children.

The first argument – that the government has a responsibility to guarantee the citizens’ right to safety and dignity – is a matter of opinion. For example, there could be people with the view that governments do not need to do that and that, instead, individuals should be left to fend for themselves. There are some on the other side of spectrum who think that governments should do everything for their citizens, like provide free food, healthcare, recreational facilities, etc. This depends on what kind of government we have, and what expectations we have of it. In India, right to live with dignity is enshrined in the constitution, and thus a government that is formed based on this constitution has a responsibility to guarantee this right. So the first argument is irrefutable in the Indian context.

While the second argument has more universal applicability, it is much harder to establish in a way that is agreeable to all. In the numerous studies that have been conducted to establish whether or not there exists a causal relationship between exposure to porn and perpetration of (or tendency to perpetrate) crime, the results have been mixed. From studies that report a clear link between all forms of porn and sexual crimes, to those which link only violent or degrading forms of porn to increased violence, to those which assert that there is absolutely no relation between the two, to those which claim that there is negative correlation between access to porn and reported crime, it is possible to find a study to support any opinion that one may have on this matter!

A part of the difficulty in proving or disproving this causal relationship through controlled studies is in setting up experiments and environments that closely mimic real-world  scenarios or situations. While this difficulty exists, to some extent in proving effect of alcohol or drugs on crime as well, there are some differences which make it much more difficult in the case of porn. Firstly, while the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of a crime can be established independently of the perpetrator’s testimony (through medical examination, for example), this is not usually the case for identifying exposure to porn or measuring its level. Further, while alcohol and drugs have immediate effect (in addition to possible long term effects), the effects of exposure to porn are more long term. These same arguments are used by either camp (those asserting that there is a link and those that refute it) to discredit the findings of the other through controlled studies. Another approach is to draw a correlation through the analysis of real-life cases and statistics. Here again, the results vary considerably from study to study – again, partly depending on the motivation for the study and what it originally set out to prove. Pornography being a multi-billion dollar industry, it is not difficult to explain the funding for researches which aim at clearing its name.

Even if we do concede that the existing evidence is not sufficient to statistically establish a link between pornography and crime to the level that is acceptable in physical sciences, there are two elements of this connection that are undeniable:

1. There is a clear causal relation between some forms of pornography (usually the more extreme ones) and crime, as concluded through several studies including this one (and the others referenced therein).
2. Going by the testimony of many sex offenders in prison (including those from recent cases in India), pornography has had a major role in desensitizing them towards the crime that they committed, and clouding their judgement on what is acceptable (or legal) and what is not.

Considering these two points are sufficient to conclude that eliminating this influence to the extent possible is in the interest of a better law and order situation and increased safety of citizens. This is exactly what the Government of India has done by instructing ISPs to block access to a list of websites that provide pornographic content which fall into the more extreme category. Even if some of the content on these websites are milder and cause no further harm than depravity of consumers (which is, of course, subjective), taking  into account the difficulty in selectively restricting content from a site, blocking them off is the best option available.

One common argument against the ban, as against other similar moves, is that it is not 100% foolproof, and that people would still find a way around it. For example, it is not possible for authorities to compile a comprehensive list of websites that offer such content. So what? Is it still not better to save a vast majority of people from this curse, and to make it more difficult for the others to access it, than do nothing at all about it? We can always start with what is possible and then make it more efficient as we go. Those who oppose the ban on this count are clearly making best an enemy of the better.

Even more ridiculous is the claim of some vocal supporters of pornography is that this is the only source for sex education available in the country. These are probably the ones who learn driving from Need for Speed (NFS) and cause havoc on roads. Even if we ignore all non-internet based modes of education that are available (the human race has survived many generations before the internet, not to mention other animals that have successfully propagated their species for even longer periods without relying on any educational aids), the internet itself has many more genuine, reliable sources of sex education that are probably obscured to some extent by the dominance of porn sites. The ban will actually help in making it easier for people to reach these right sources, and prevent genuine seekers of sex education from landing up on pornographic sites that can at best give them a perverted picture (literally as well as figuratively).

Of the many points raised to counter the government action, one reasonable argument is that when a person consumes porn and corrupts his mind within the four walls of his room, it is his and only his problem. It is only the crime that he might commit in this state that the state has a responsibility to prevent. This does make sense in theory, but is extremely difficult (if not impossible in a nation of over a billion) to implement. With the police to public ratio in India being less than 140 per hundred thousand, it is much more realistic to prevent people from acquiring criminal tendencies than attempt to stop them from committing a crime later. The wisdom from the adage that prevention is better than cure is worth applying in this case.

(If there are any other arguments against the ban which I have not considered, or if there are holes in my reasoning, I’d love to read and discuss on them in the comments section)

Update (7-Aug-15):  Government has since withdrawn the blanket ban on these sites and instead passed the buck to ISPs to feel free to unblock any of these sites if they can guarantee that they do not offer child pornography. Clearly, that is beyond the technical capability of any ISP, and so I hope the ban will remain in effect for all practical purposes