WASHINGTON, LONDON — The U.S. and the U.K. signed last week a joint agreement to coordinate efforts to regulate internet content — including adult content — in order to “advance stronger protections for children.”
The agreement was announced by an official notice from the U.K. government.
According to the statement, since the U.K. and the U.S. “share fundamental values and a commitment to democracy and human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression,” both countries “plan to establish a joint children’s online safety working group to advance the aims and principles of this statement.”
The goal of the initiative, the statement notes, is to “support children’s online safety.”
To make the internet “safer for children,” the statement continues “we should aim to ensure all users have the skills and resources they need to make safe and informed choices online and advance stronger protections for children. The United States and the United Kingdom intend to work with our national institutions and organizations to support these goals and shared values.”
Although, the U.K. is a constitutional monarchy — with no written constitution, no absolute free-speech legal tradition or anything like First Amendment jurisprudence, and an unelected chamber of aristocrats in their Parliament — the agreement and the U.K. government statement insist that U.S. and U.K. rights and practices can be considered compatible in order to enforce internet regulations of materials either or both governments consider “harmful to children.”
Exporting the Online Safety Act to the U.S.
The U.K. government statement declares that “online platforms, including social media companies, have a moral responsibility to respect human rights and put in place additional protections for children’s safety and privacy. Age-appropriate safeguards, including protections from content and interactions that harm children’s health and safety, are vital to achieve this goal.”
Among the categories that supposedly fall under this “moral responsibility,” the U.K. government lists, without clarification, “sexual exploitation and abuse” and “content that is abusive (including technology-facilitated gender-based violence).”
All adult content would fall into either or both of these categories according to the several anti-porn crusaders consulted by the U.K. government during the drafting of the Online Safety Act and the current Pornography Review led by the Baroness Bertin.
By signing the joint agreement, the U.S. appears to endorse the U.K.’s controversial Online Safety Act, which mandates age verification. The OSA is mentioned by the U.K. government statement on the agreement, specifically noting that “platforms must use ‘highly effective’ privacy preserving age assurance technologies to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content, including pornography (which includes violent pornography) and content which encourages or promotes suicide.”
Age verification of adult content has been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional by U.S. courts and the issue is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case FSC v. Paxton, which has not been decided yet.
The closest U.S. counterpart proposal to the U.K.’s OSA is the Kid’s Online Safety Act, which is currently stuck in Congress, after failing to move forward following several years of debates, because of serious constitutional and privacy concerns.
