Online child sexual abuse material: Should telcos block first and ask questions later?

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

The issue of whether internet service providers and telecommunications companies should immediately block websites containing child pornography is once again raising difficult questions about online freedom, due process, and the urgent need to protect children.

Under Philippine law, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), more commonly referred to as child pornography, occupies a very different legal and moral category from most cybercrimes. Unlike online libel, scams, copyright disputes, or even hacking-related offenses, child pornography involves the direct abuse and exploitation of children. Every image or video is not simply “content,” it is evidence of harm inflicted on a real child. This distinction matters.

According to Mr. Angel Redoble, former CISO of PLDT and Smart and current Chairman of the Philippine Institute of Cyber Security Professionals (PICSPro), Philippine laws — particularly the provisions strengthened under the anti-online sexual abuse and exploitation of children framework — recognize that waiting for a lengthy court process before taking action could allow continued victimization and the further spread of abusive material. Because of this, internet service providers are legally expected to act swiftly once child sexual abuse material has been properly identified and verified.

The question, however, is where the line should be drawn.

Should telcos and internet providers be empowered to immediately block verified child pornography sites without a court order? Many argue the answer is clearly yes. The logic is simple, unlike other cybercrimes, the harm here is immediate, ongoing, and irreversible. Every minute such material remains online risks retraumatizing victims and creating new ones.

This is also why child pornography cannot simply be equated with other internet offenses.

Take scams, fake news, cyber libel, copyright disputes, or even politically sensitive speech. These often involve competing claims, questions of context, intent, and constitutional protections such as free expression and due process. A wrongly blocked website in those cases may raise serious concerns about censorship, abuse of authority, or prior restraint.

Child sexual abuse material is different.

There is little moral ambiguity when verified content depicts the abuse of minors. The debate is not whether exploitation is wrong, but how fast society should act to stop access to it.

At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about overreach. Telcos should not become self-appointed investigators, judges, and executioners of internet content. Verification standards must be clear. Blocking powers should remain narrowly focused on verified child sexual abuse material, not expanded casually into broader categories of speech or content that governments, companies, or interest groups simply dislike.

The challenge, then, is balancing urgency with accountability.

If a website is verified to contain child sexual abuse material, should it be blocked immediately, even without a government or court order, to protect children? Or should stricter judicial processes still apply before any blocking action takes place?

More importantly, why do many people still treat child pornography as “just another internet crime” when, in reality, every image often represents an actual child who has already been abused?

What do you think? Should verified child pornography sites be blocked immediately once identified, or should telcos first wait for a court order or a formal government order before taking action?