Parental Controls on the Internet and the "Cults"

Parental Controls on the Internet and the “Cults”

An article by the CICNS (August 2008)

In his book “Internet et religion”, Infolio, Jean-François Mayer studies the influence of the Internet on the functioning of religious groups: “online religion is no longer reserved solely for computing enthusiasts: with the popularisation of the Internet, it reaches publics of every kind, of every age, of every background, at any rate in the countries where computing tools have come within the reach of almost everyone. ‘It is now truly a mirror of society as a whole. It offers a new forum to people on a spiritual quest’, observes the Danish researcher Morten Hojsgaard”. ”(…) disappointed former disciples and other adversaries also have access to the Internet and its resources. Even before certain religious movements began to take an interest in the Web, opponents had already become aware of the new field of action the technology was opening up to them: a particularly seductive field for those who opposed not isolated gurus or prophets but relatively large organisations, and who therefore did not find themselves on an equal footing, unless they managed to mobilise the media or the authorities. ‘The Internet is the best thing that has happened for fighting cults (…)’, rejoiced Steve Hassan, a well-known figure in the world of the opponents of cults.”

The fear that freely accessible content might be harmful to children has led to parental-control tools being put on the market. A certain number are now available. These programs are supposed to carry out “the filtering of sites advocating anorexia or suicide or praising cults, as well as sites of a pornographic nature and gambling sites”. This filtering “has become extremely effective, reaching up to 90% according to the providers” (Le Figaro). A French ranking has even been drawn up: “Thus Numéricable, Orange and SFR, tied with Télé 2, occupy the three top steps of the podium” (L’informaticien).

Let us take Orange’s software as an example. The settings page offers a certain number of categories of sites to block: anorexia, pornography, sexuality, violence, cults, etc. These categories represent generic themes, except for the cults, the only groups explicitly named as such. The software’s designers could have introduced the theme “dérives sectaires”, but, probably under the ambient media drumbeat, they had no use for the subtleties of language employed by the MIVILUDES to make its action more presentable. The information section specifies: “Cults: websites of dangerous cults, such as the one named ‘devil worshippers’, universally considered to be cults. Organisations which, because of the differing laws between different countries, are considered cults by some and legitimate religious associations by others are not included in this category”.

The database of prohibited sites is not readable as such, so it is not possible simply to extract the list of cults according to Orange, but it is clear that this file constitutes a proscription list of the same nature as those drawn up by the parliamentary reports of 1996 and 1999. We ran tests to reconstruct a few of its entries. Some sites of movements listed in the parliamentary reports are blocked, others not. Sites which ought no longer to be barred from access, if one takes account of the latest assessments by the MIVILUDES, are filtered. The precautions invoked by the operator in its information section are not respected. Questions then come naturally to mind: how does Orange make sure that a cult really is universally considered dangerous, supposing that assertion even has a meaning? On what precise criteria is its file constituted? What authority or body supplies the names, and with what competence? (see our letter to Orange)

The ISPs (Internet Service Providers) manage millions of customers and thus implicitly make this type of list official. Mention of the sources used to draw them up ought to be compulsory. The label of cult is today synonymous with “delinquent group”. Knowledge of the sources would at the very least make it possible to ask embarrassing questions about the legitimacy of the filtering carried out. For what reason should a site of the Catholic Church be accessible when the site of a spiritual minority classified as a cult without justification is not? Are the “outlet” sites which claim to invite anti-cult dialogue legitimate?

Admittedly, Orange gives parents the possibility of drawing up whitelists that cancel the provider’s choices. The fact remains that these choices constitute an a priori discrimination which will not be questioned in the majority of cases. The censorship of information, even with good intentions, leads most of the time to indefensible and arbitrary positions. It is probably more instructive, and more respectful, to let the diversity of opinions express itself, thereby allowing the adolescent Internet user to build his own opinion, even if it means accompanying him in that process; it is also to give his intelligence some credit.

The situation described above once again highlights the deficit of reliable, validated information on spiritual minorities, and calls for the creation of an independent Observatory which would be responsible for establishing an official and recognised knowledge base on these minorities, accessible to all and in particular to the ISPs.