Stop child porn providers, too

When Jerry Brobst of Bigfork was arrested last year for possession of child pornography, it was somewhat shocking.

Here was a respected member of the community, a man noted for his civic works, his sense of humor, his professional ability and his theatrical talent. At the Inter Lake, many of us were acquainted with Brobst because he had worked for years as communications director at a large local company.

No one could have guessed that 62-year-old Brobst had a secret vice - looking at pictures of children in sexually provocative poses - that would make most people sick.

But, of course, all the talent in the world, or all the money in the world, or all the good intentions in the world will not protect someone from temptation, vice or addiction. Brobst said he had gotten involved looking at child pornography about three years previously because it was "forbidden fruit."

There were no excuses, however, that could save Brobst once he was found guilty of possession of child pornography. He has been sentenced to seven years in prison, and will not get any breaks.

That raises an interesting question, however - just why is it OK to send a man like Brobst to prison for seven years for downloading child pornography, but the government seems to be doing absolutely nothing to crack down on the rampant distribution of child porn on the Internet?

Part of Brobst's crime was receipt of child pornography, but isn't transmission of such material an even greater offense? Why is it that hundreds of Internet service providers offer access to child pornography and other offensive material such as bestiality and sexual assault, but are considered protected by the First Amendment?

Surely, the end user of pornography should not be society's scapegoat for its sins while the producers and distributors of pornography not only go free, but reap profits of millions of dollars.

Let's remember that people who compulsively view pornography suffer from a sexual addiction. They are the equivalent of the teenager who gets hooked on meth and ruins his or her life. Society does have a right to handle such people in a way that will protect us all, but drug and porn users are generally not evil people; they are instead people who have been enthralled by evil, to their own detriment.

Society must come to grips with the importance of the Internet in our world today, and it must find a way to regulate the use of the Internet. If society has decided that child pornography is important enough to lock up Jerry Brobst for seven years, then it must also take responsibility for shutting down access to millions of illicit images available in every home in this country that has Internet access.

Internet access providers can and should be held responsible for making sure that sites which provide illegal content are not available to the general public.

Does that sound like a restraint on the First Amendment? Tell that to Jerry Brobst. He used an Internet service that provided child pornography right into his home and was arrested for it. That being the case, whoever provided him the pornography should be charged with a crime, too, just as you would arrest a drug trafficker in addition to a drug user.

If we don't concentrate on eliminating child porn at the source, there will be more and more arrests in the future of people like Brobst who saw the "forbidden fruit" brought into their homes and were too weak to resist it.