The United Kingdom has a quiet relaxed approach to the internet and censorship compared with other countries.

The main area of censorship within the United Kingdom related to images of child abuse. This clearly is something that the general public do not want to see and so there are not a lot of problems with this side of censorship. If a site has been blocked for containing these images, rather than a warning sign being displayed, there will just simply be a sign saying “error”.

So how does UK Internet Censorship Work?

The United Kingdom is censored through a filter called “cleanfeed” which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to ensure that any banned sites are inaccessible.

The Internet Watch Foundation is a nongovernmental charitable body which offers an online service for the general public.

The role of the Internet Watch Foundation is to report any materials found on the net that are offensive. The group work in conjunction with the police to ensure that the filter and the people responsible for such violations are stopped.

The Internet Watch Foundation was originally set up to focus on the organisations that produce and post child pornography. Recently they have had their remit expanded to cover any posts on the internet that were deemed racist or criminally obscene.

The Internet Watch Foundation are run independently and mostly by volunteers. This is to reduce the possibility of corruption. The Internet Watch Foundation collates all websites that have any material that fall into the aforementioned areas and put them on a blacklist, preventing them from being viewed in the United Kingdom.

In recent years there have been some incidents of UK Internet censorship that have had implications upon the Internet.

One of which being the murder case of Baby Peter, a 17 month old baby. In 2008 and 2009, the media was barred from publishing the names of the people involved in the case, both those accused of his murder and those who should have spotted the neglect. The explanation behind this was to protect the case and the witnesses as fears of reprisals from the general public who were outraged to learn of the murder.

Any websites found to be publishing the names of defendants and the child was subjected to a police investigation for trying to initiate a hate campaign.

This made some of the media, and general public, question just how free speech is in the United Kingdom, and whether the true reason was to protect the case or to protect those who were neglectful of their duty of care towards the child. The presumption is that the UK is a fairly liberal society but maybe UK Internet Censorship is not as relaxed as we imagine.