SEC PARL Encourages Response to Social Media Consultation for Under-16s

The current Common-Law and State Law intended to regulate obscene related materials exposed to children online, continue to come under spotlight.  Perhaps like me, you will have seen or heard in the news media that the Government was facing a tidal wave of demands, that parts of social media be banned for the under 16’s.  The House of Lords have welcomed it.  However, the Government launched, on 2 March, a National Consultation Call for Evidence for the public to respond and closes at 11:59pm on 26 May 2026.

The main purpose of the presentation is to respectfully implore the public, but mainly the Seventh-day Adventist Church community to take part in the consultation.  I would kindly request the organisation, Presidents, Secretaries, Directors, Co-ordinators, Pastors, Elders and members to each respond to it.  We all owe a moral spiritual duty to our children in our schools and church setting. 

Case Studies have shown that social media has both positive and negative impacts on children and adolescents.  However, the government is consulting on taking “… potential age restrictions on social media and other services such as gaming sites and AI chatbots, restrictions on addictive design features and risky functionalities, and better support for parents and families.”[1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLHlUDFa1A8

I invite you to first access the ‘National Consultation’ link above followed by ‘Growing up in the online world’ link below in order that you familiarise yourself with the Government overall position.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation

1. Adolescence Brain and Mental Effect Of ‘Explicit Content’ On Social Media
   

   

   
   The brain development of a child is critical factor to seriously consider when assessing the risk for harm.  Children and adolescents ages 10 – 20 will be going a highly sensitive period of vulnerability in processing information with explicit content. It may be the reason then that the Government has included 10 – 21-year-olds to take part in its Consultation and that social media warrants additional scrutiny. I therefore urge parents, carers and all adults who work with children to assist them fill the third consultation section entitled “Survey for children and young people (aged 10 to 21)”    
   
   In March 2024, the Government DfE published Guidance for Schools entitled ‘Online Safety: Children Exposed to Abuse Through Digital Media’ Do access this link below:
   
   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people/sharing-nudes-and-semi-nudes-advice-for-education-settings-working-with-children-and-young-people
   
   I suppose two years on; a revisit through government consultation is apt on this timely issue to safeguard the children and adolescents.

2. Effect of Obscenity:  Deprave and Corrupt and/or Shock and Disgust
   
   In UK, there are mainly two legal schools of thought on obscenity law namely the “Hicklin Test” and “Aversion Test”. Which one of these two will resonate with you? Suffice to state that when the Obscene Publications Act 1959, was amended (not necessarily repealed) it provided for the defence for the first time that publication can in the “public good” be recognised on the ground that it is in the interests of “science, literature, art or learning or of the other general concern.” Section 4(1A). This has led to calls for a legal reform to address the implications and ramifications of it.  However, prior to 1959, it was an offence at common law.
   
   Legal Definition of Obscenity Hicklin Test:
   
   As Having Tendency to DEPRAVE and CORRUPT:
   
   “The test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences… it is quite certain that it would suggest to the minds of the young of either sex...”[2]
   

   

   By: Right Honourable, Sir Alexander Cockburn (Chief Justice)
   
   Legal Definition of Obscenity Aversion Test:
   
   As Having Effect Only of SHOCK and DISGUST:
   
   Why has the legislation misfired? I regret to say that it is in the wording of the statute and in the way the courts have applied it. In the first place, the test of obscenity is too restricted, or it has been interpreted too narrowly. It is defined as the tendency "to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely …to read,” it [see section 1(1) of the Act of 1959] That test can be used skilfully to obtain an acquittal by this piece of sophistry: if the likely readers are those who are already depraved and corrupt, this item will not make them more so: but if the likely readers are just ordinary sort of folk, they will be so revolted that they will be turned away from it. This argument is called in the cases the "aversion argument."[3]
   

   

   
   By The Right Honourable Lord Denning: Master of the Rolls, OMPC DL KC

3. The Way Forward for Children Online

   1. You may need to acknowledge areas you ascertain on social media that have proven positive for children rather than merely restrict them access without providing alternative and encouraging solutions. 

   2. The children and adolescents be intentionally encouraged to read books and not exchange the traditional reading of the printed page to be glued solely on digital media and its trappings (AI) included.

   3. 

   4. Above all, the children should be instilled with Biblical principles and values that with God’s help as Job testified “I MADE a covenant with mine eyes,” Job 31:1(KJV) that they too can be made to overcome seductive images online. Note the counsel from the pen of inspiration below:

I would like to express my thanks in advance to each of you for your participation in this crucial government consultation, and God bless you All.

Brighton G Kavaloh

SEC Public Affairs & Religious Liberty Director

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation

[2] Regina v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)

[3] Court of Appeal, Regina v. Commissioner of Police of Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn and Another (No.3) 1972 Nov 16, 17; 27