Informal Censorship: The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)

13th March 2019 / United Kingdom
Informal Censorship: The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)

By Jim Killock – Open Rights Group: The IWF, as a de facto Internet censor, has been popular with some people and organisations and controversial with others. The IWF deals with deeply disturbing material, which is relatively easily identified and usually uncontroversial to remove or block. This is relatively unique for content regulation.


Nevertheless, their partners’ systems for blocking have in the past created visible disruption to Internet users, including in 2008 to Wikipedia across the UK.[1] Companies employing IWF lists have often blocked material with no explanation or notice to people accessing a URL, causing additional problems.


Some of its individual decisions have also been found wanting. Additional concerns have been created by apparent mission creep, as the IWF has sought or been asked to take on new duties.


Its decisions are not subject to prior independent review, and it is unclear that ISP-imposed restrictions are compatible with EU law, in particular the EU Open Internet regulations, which indicate that a legal process should be in place to authorise any blocking.[2] Ideally, this would be resolved by the government providing a simple but independent authorisation process that the IWF could access.

The IWF has made some good and useful steps to resolve some of these issues.

It has chosen to keep its remit narrow and restricted to child abuse images published on websites. This allows it to reduce the risk that its approach creates over-reach. The IWF model is not appropriate where decisions are likely to be controversial.

It has an independent organisational external review, albeit this is not well-publicised, which could be a good avenue for people to give specific and confidential feedback.

The IWF has an appeals process, and an independent legal expert to review its decisions on appeal. The decisions it makes have the potential for widespread public effect on free expression, so could be subject to judicial review, which the IWF has recognised.

A significant disadvantage of the IWF process is that the external review applies legal principles, but is not itself a legal process, so does not help the law evolve. This weakness is found in other self-regulatory models.

SafeSubcribe/Instant Unsubscribe - One Email, Every Sunday Morning - So You Miss Nothing - That's It

There is also a lack of information about appeals, why decisions were made, and how many were made. There is incomplete information about how the process works.[3] Appeal findings are not made public.[4] Notifications are not always placed on content blocks by ISPs. This is currently voluntary.


[1] See
[2] See reference 38 below

[4] The BBFC, for instance, operates a system of publishing the reasoning behind its content classification appeals.


Read Open Rights Group recommendations HERE

Read the full report (pdf download)  HERE


Open Rights Group is a UK based digital campaigning organisation working to protect the rights to privacy and free speech online. With over 3,000 active supporters, we are a grassroots organisation with local groups across the UK. VISIT WEBSITE



At a time when reporting the truth is critical, your support is essential in protecting it.
Find out how

The European Financial Review

European financial review Logo

The European Financial Review is the leading financial intelligence magazine read widely by financial experts and the wider business community.