At a meeting held at the Houses of Parliament on 20 June 2011, the UK government indicated that it intended to legislate if necessary to block harmful content from being made available to children. The meeting, hosted by the trade body, the Internet Service Providers Association, and by Conservative MP Claire Perry, included short presentations from a number of interested parties including Ed Vaizey, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Justine Roberts of Mumsnet, as well as Mike Galvin of BT and Dido Harding of TalkTalk and academic experts.

Parts of the debate were conducted at the extremes. Some strong opponents of any form of blanket filtering flew the freedom of speech flag, arguing that such restrictions would have banned Lady Chatterley's Lover in the 1960s. On the other hand, there were as many voices loudly warning of psychological damage done to children who were exposed to extreme pornography. There was a middle ground of sorts. This was occupied by those representing the voices of concerned parents (led by Claire Perry) who she said felt powerless to control content even though somewhat IT savvy, as well as the ISPs who were taking some steps to bring in filtering mechanisms.

Although the debate swung emotively between anti-porn and freedom of speech lobbies, it was clear that the government had concluded that parents could not by themselves control the content their children were exposed to on the web and that therefore "something needed to be done". Exactly what was less clear. The government hoped that the ISPs would sort the issue out through some form of filtering and that a self-regulatory regime would arise. Failing that, the government would legislate to try to make it happen.

How quickly this all had to happen was also unclear. There were loud voices calling for changes to be made sooner rather than later and avoid "paralysis by analysis". They pointed to the increasing availability of the web via TV and the ongoing convergence of web and TV content as cause for urgency. There is apparently also high level support, with the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg backing Claire Perry.

The debate helped to identify three main questions still to be resolved.

1. Exactly what content are we talking about? Is it material parents would not want their toddler to see, or a primary school age child, or a teenager? Or just material which would normally have an 18 age rating applied to it?
   
2. How would the filtering work? Should it be applied by default so any users could then switch it off if they wanted access to particular content or is it enough for the functionality simply to be there for parents to use if they wish?
   
3. Could the government really legislate to force ISPs to introduce filtering, and if so would they need first to change EU law? Ed Vaizey was at pains to stress that he would much prefer a self-regulatory approach and when asked about whether that meant that the UK would be proposing a change to the E-commerce Directive he refused to be drawn into specifics.

Where are we likely to go from here? It seems likely that more ISPs will be encouraged to adopt similar measures to those being trialled by TalkTalk and BT, which may avoid the need for attempts to change the law to filter some content. The Bailey Review which reported earlier this month and which demanded that the advertising industry do more to help parents limit what their children are exposed to has proposed that a further analysis of what industry has this autumn. It is likely that any such review will also look at what the ISPs are doing. These issues may then be dealt with in the forthcoming Communications Bill.