Research commissioned by the BBFC, involving professionals dealing with disturbed children, found that neglected or abused children are more likely to see pornography and be harmed by it. Thirty eight leading psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, active in the field of diagnosing and helping disturbed children, however, acknowledged that case load evidence of actual harm from pornography was rare.
The BBFC commissioned the research in response to the Video Appeals Committee’s ruling that the Board had failed to provide sufficient evidence of harm to children from viewing pornography in an appeal by two porn distributors in 1999. The research was focused on finding out whether pornography by itself harmed children, whether or not they were also being significantly harmed by other features of their upbringing. The children of most interest were accordingly those who were not being neglected or abused, but who might have seen pornography ‘accidentally’ or on their own initiative.
The majority of those interviewed believed that viewing pornography would be harmful to any child, and that they should be protected from it. They were, however, able to quote very little in the way of evidence to support this belief, either from their own case loads or those of their colleagues. Some felt that viewing pornography depicting consensual sex would not be harmful to children who were well cared for and not being harmed in other ways. Determining the harm pornography does is not easy because it is difficult to disentangle it from other features of a child’s situation, especially as the majority of children who are exposed to pornography are usually being harmed in other ways.
Several of the experts argued that pornography was less regulated and more readily available in Europe and the USA. Yet they were not aware of any evidence that a higher proportion of children in those countries needed professional help because seeing pornography had upset them. Nor were related outcomes like teenage pregnancies or marital breakdowns higher in countries where pornography circulated more freely. It was suggested that pornography might have particular potential to harm or shock children in the UK because of a less open attitude to sexual matters generally.
Robin Duval, Director of the BBFC said:
“It is impossible to carry out research which involves children watching pornography, for obvious reasons. It is necessary to rely upon the case load evidence of the child harm specialists. While no one is suggesting that watching pornography is good for children, this research shows that there is in fact little clear evidence to support the natural view that such ‘accidental’ viewing will have seriously harmful effects. It is reasonable to assume that a sample of 38 leading professionals would have been able to cite more anecdotal evidence from their caseloads if harm to children, outside abusive or negligent situations, were significant or common.
“Nevertheless, the Board does feel that is important to protect children from viewing pornography. That is why we suggested, in our response to the Home Office consultation paper on the regulation of ‘R18’ videos, that there should be a statutory requirement that ‘R18’ videos should be clearly and prominently labelled with an appropriate warning, referring to the dangers of exposing children to the contents of the video. Suppliers would be required to apply a permanent label to that effect both to the video cassette itself, and to the sleeve within which it is displayed in the shop.
“The outcomes of this research will not lead to any reduction in the Board’s general concern to protect children; but it has been a valuable and interesting exercise which has given us a better perspective on the issue of harm to children from pornography.”