NEW YORK — Over three years after XBIZ reported on how an obscure U.S. foundation was funding sponsored anti-porn content that ran amidst the actual journalistic pieces written by the staff of The Guardian newspaper, the self-proclaimed “world’s leading liberal voice” continues publishing similarly produced slanted pieces calling for state regulation of adult content online.
Most of these pieces, sensationalizing supposed “harms” being inflicted on both minors and adults by exposure to sexually explicit content, have been authored for several years by a single freelancer, Harriet Grant.
Among Grant’s recent attention-demanding headlines include: “Thousands of U.K. Young People Caught Watching Online Child Abuse Images,” “U.K. School Pupils ‘Using AI to Create Indecent Imagery of Other Children,” “Pornography Driving U.K. Teens Towards Child Abuse Material, Say Experts,” “‘It Stole My Soul’: Readers on How Watching Porn at a Young Age Affected Their Life,” and “A Fifth of Teenagers Watch Pornography Frequently and Some Are Addicted, U.K. Study Finds.”
All of these articles ran in 2023, parallel with a relentless campaign by the Tory government and its media allies to pass the Online Safety Act, which finally became law in October after many years of delays.
The Online Safety Act, criticized by virtually all online privacy and digital rights advocacy groups and activists, grants broad powers to the politicians and bureaucrats appointed to the U.K.’s regulatory agency, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to target material they consider “harmful,” essentially reestablishing content-based state censorship in the U.K.
Although a few of Grant’s pieces stoking anti-porn panic have ran as actual Guardian articles, several others are discreetly labeled as partnerships between The Guardian Foundation and the generically — and vaguely — named U.S. nonprofit Humanity United.
As XBIZ reported in March 2020, these articles look almost exactly like the rest of The Guardian’s online content, with the same font, design, artwork, layout and out-links to other stories.
Framing All Porn as ‘Exploitation’ and ‘Trafficking’
Back then, The Guardian classified these invariably pro-War On Porn reports as part of its “Exploitation in Focus” series, noting the content was produced “under the sponsorship of Humanity United.”
Guardian pieces included quotes from Labour politicians claiming that “the online harms bill doesn’t go far enough” and that the government has “to get control” over the adult industry, offered a platform to religiously inspired Exodus Cry mouthpiece Laila Mickelwait to conflate consensual and nonconsensual adult content, and openly advocated for “shutting down” Pornhub.
Buried in the small print next to the article, a link led to a page where The Guardian disclosed that the “Exploitation in Focus” series was “supported, in part, through a grant to TheGuardian.org by Humanity United, a U.S.-based foundation dedicated to bringing new approaches to global problems that have long been considered intractable.”
A disclaimer described the Humanity United content as “editorially independent” and covering “modern-day slavery.” As XBIZ noted, by categorizing its pornography coverage as part of its modern day slavery section, The Guardian implicitly conflated legal, consensual adult entertainment production and distribution with human trafficking.
Launched in 2008, Humanity United claims to be a foundation “dedicated to cultivating the conditions for enduring freedom and peace. Working from a belief that whatever problems humans create humans can solve, we support and build efforts to change the systems that suppress human rights and contribute to human suffering.”
“At Humanity United, we believe in the power of people to bring about extraordinary change,” the group states. “When humanity is united, we can act together to create a powerful force for human dignity.”
The Omidyar Network
The Humanity United webpage discloses that this generically named nonprofit is “part of The Omidyar Group, a diverse collection of organizations, each guided by its own approach, but united by a common desire to catalyze social impact.”
The Omidyar Group is the philanthropic arm of billionaire couple Pierre and Pam Omidyar. Pierre Omidyar founded eBay and wrote the proprietary code that underlies it.
Pam Omidyar, who describes herself as “a philanthropist, mom, and ocean lover,” steers the Omidyar Network, “a philanthropic investment firm, funding both for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations to create opportunity for individuals around the world to improve their own lives.”
“Soon after the creation of Omidyar Network, there was a clear realization that there are some people who are unable to take advantage of the economic opportunities Omidyar Network creates,” the couple’s philanthropic literature proclaims. “As a result, Pam had a vision for the creation of Humanity United — a foundation dedicated to bringing new approaches to global problems that have long been considered intractable.”
Humanity United, as part of its core mission, “builds, leads, and supports efforts to change the systems that contribute to problems like human trafficking, mass atrocities, and violent conflict.”
Although back in 2020, the Humanity United logo could be found on the articles demonizing the adult industry and advocating for state intervention penned by Harriet Grant, the 2023 articles only show the logo of TheGuardian.org.
Journalism vs. Paid Advocacy
TheGuardian.org is a nonprofit connected to the Guardian news organization whose very much admitted advocacy mission is “to advance and inform public discourse and citizen participation around the most pressing issues of our time through the support of independent journalism and journalistic projects at the Guardian.”
TheGuardian.org, its literature states, “will identify projects where it can partner across a range of organizations including academic institutions, other charitable organizations, non-profit media, and NGOs.”
Although many people associate The Guardian news organization with the U.K., where it originated, and with the British political left, wealthy members of the U.S. business and nonprofit elite comprise the bulk of the TheGuardian.org’s board.
The 2023 anti-porn articles by Grant link out to a page disclosing the Humanity United funding like it did three years ago.
A peculiar disclaimer states that “The only restriction to the Guardian’s coverage is where Humanity United is prohibited under U.S. law from directly funding or earmarking funds to: (a) conduct lobbying or otherwise attempt to influence legislation; (b) influence the outcome of any specific or public election; (c) undertake any activities for a non-charitable purpose; (d) induce or encourage violations of law or public policy; or (e) cause any private inurement or improper private benefit to occur. This means that any communications to the public in which a view is expressed about a specific legislative proposal, and the recipients of the communications are urged through a ‘call to action’ to contact government officials, must provide a reasoned, objective consideration of facts and issues in a full and fair manner that enables third parties to develop their own positions on any legislation that may be discussed.”
Grant’s latest piece, published on Monday, claims that “thousands of U.K. young people” were supposedly “caught” watching CSAM. It includes the following quote: “police forces and charities called for the swift implementation of the online safety bill, which includes the implementation of age-verification measures to protect children from pornography.”
A Policeman’s Musings About Human Sexual Development
Grant’s pieces regularly quote conservative members of law enforcement, religious activists and government officials disparaging adult content in the broadest terms and making sweeping claims based on unquestioned “scientific reports” or surveys. No or little attempt appears to have been made to contact any stakeholders with actual knowledge of the adult industry.
The Monday piece includes quotes from Tony Garner, a West Mercia policeman who has worked with religious anti-porn groups and believes that “access to very extreme pornography” is literally changing people’s brains.
“I’ve been in policing 20 years and have been scratching my head the past couple of years about the harm we are seeing,” Garner told Grant about what he considers especially “abhorrent” material.
“It’s scary,” Garner continued. “As a country, as a society, it feels completely out of control.”
Grant allows the policeman to share at length, unquestioned and without consulting anyone with expertise, his notions about brain chemistry and human sexual development.
Garner considers minors are “desensitized” by porn and develop an “increasing interest in shocking material after being exposed to violent pornography.”
Grant, The Guardian and the sponsoring foundations also repeat Garner’s assertion that “children are becoming addicted to very harmful material” and his demand for “intervention.”
The policeman is then allowed to dissertate at some length about his personal fantasies of how teenagers process adult content. “Let’s say you are a 12-year-old boy and you look online for sexual videos of girls your own age,” he told Grant. “It’s natural [that] young people will be curious in this way. But what they find is rape and abuse material. It’s horrific.”
“The erotic template is being formed by young people masturbating to increasingly extreme material, even pedophilic material,” the West Mercia law enforcement officer concluded.
