Providers must take lead in tackling online porn
THE world wide web has changed our lives forever, and in many ways greatly for the better. We can shop online, watch entertainment online, and communicate instantly with friends across the globe through social media. It is impossible to imagine the world without the internet.
Yet, there is a dark and deeply troubling side to the web. The very unshackled freedom of expression and communication – the revolutionary, even noble, principles on which it was founded – has allowed a despicable underworld of sickening pornography and violent depravity to grow up virtually unregulated.
Those who take an extreme libertarian view would say that this downside of the web, while unpleasant, is a price worth paying for the enormous freedoms the internet brings all of us. However, such an argument cannot be sustained when viewed in the light of heinous murder cases, including, most recently, that of schoolgirl April Jones. Police officers found that Mark Bridger, who murdered five-year-old April, had numerous indecent images on his computer He had also views violent sexual scenes. There is a pattern here. Stuart Hazell, who killed 12-year-old Tia Sharp, regularly downloaded child abuse images on his mobile phone. And such cases do not only involve children. Jane Longhurst was 31 when she was murdered by extreme-pornography obsessive Graham Coutts.
Yesterday, Jane’s mother Liz, speaking in the wake of Bridger’s conviction, identified the availability of violent hard-core pornography online as something that contributes to the mindset and, therefore, the actions of men like Bridger, Hazell and Coutts. Mrs Longhurst was clear what must be done. Companies such as Google have to “get their act together” to tackle the problem. Her views were echoed by Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, who said vile images were still too easily available online.
In its defence, Google says it has a “zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse content”. It helps fund the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), an independent body that searches the web for child abuse imagery. It sends links it finds to Google, which are removed from its search index.
Such a stance is commendable, but does not go far enough. Google has not, for example, made its “safe search” mode, which blocks access to pornography sites, a default setting. This, and its reliance on the IWF, gives the impression it is being reactive rather than proactive over pornography, which a succession of judges have said does contribute to the behaviour of men like Bridger.
It is wrong, of course, to focus just on Google. Other internet service providers are equally culpable. However, as one of the most successful search engines in the world, Google must, as John Carr – a UK government adviser on online child safety said – show “moral leadership”. Where Google leads, others will follow.