The murders of two young Belgian girls and the suggestion that their abuse and deaths involved a major international paedophile ring have fuelled fears that ours is a society fast running out of control. In this context fears have been expressed about the role of the Internet and the ability of this major revolution in world communications to cause as much harm as good.
Such fears may be well grounded. The Internet is fast, cheap, relatively easy to use and knows no boundaries either in content or geography. It is also an example of technology moving faster than our ability to understand and control it. On the surface that would appear to be the problem - the management of technological change so that there is no room for it to be hijacked for nefarious purposes.
Senator James Exon's controversial Communications Decency Act, designed to prevent the electronic publication of pornography and other offensive material is due shortly to go before the US Supreme Court, after it was overturned by two lower courts on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. The section of the Act which has prompted most reaction prohibits anyone from using "an interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs".
The anti lobby argued that the wording was too loose. What was "patently offensive" to one person was not necessarily "patently offensive" to another. In addition, it said that the effective banning of "adult" material was too high a price to pay to shield children from any possible harmful effects and that once censorship of the Internet and other electronic services was established, it would be easier to justify barring other non mainstream material such as extreme left wing or right wing propaganda.
The lobby, spearheaded be an organisation called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, advocates other measures such as the use of so called "nanny" software: to allow parents to filter material. But this approach is flawed in that paedophiles, for example, could still send material electronically to each other. In order to close this loophole, police argue that it is necessary for the Internet service providers - the companies which sell access to the international Internet network - to agree a code of conduct which prohibits such traffic. But some providers are reluctant, as such a move would undermine the "free spirit" ethos of the Internet apart from the fact that the sheer volume of material would make such a task extremely difficult.
In the wake of the Belgian crimes and comments: made at last week's Stockholm conference on child abuse, it may seem irresponsible to cavil over wordings and censorship while children are in danger at the hands of deviants. But the American anti censorship lobby, and, by extension, those in Europe and elsewhere who are suspicious of censorship moves and their real effectiveness, are, by and large, sensible, law abiding people who have no wish to facilitate or protect those who would abuse children and would make the point that much of what has been said about the Internet since the Belgian tragedy has been alarmist and ill informed.
In the past pornography and new technology - photography, films and video have prospered together after finding some form of accommodation. It now seems that the Internet poses another question of what price, if any, society is prepared to pay for freedom of speech and expression.