We need all the help we can get in fighting porn

The Mormon state followed up its resolution by proclaiming that the “internet violates a person’s First Amendment rights” because it “forces pornography on people who don’t want to view it”.

The measure described a series of social ills it attributed to “the pornography epidemic”, including objectification of and violence against women, the “hypersexualisation” of teens and children and the development of “emotional and medical illnesses” and “deviant sexual arousal” in those who view it.

Ironically, Utah has the dubious honour of being the state that downloads more pornography than any other state, according to a 2009 Harvard study.

Inevitably, the naysayers have been airing their opposition vociferously, doing it down because of the religious zealotry, claiming its justifications are “pseudo-science”, with one academic saying “if porn was really that bad and if you’d look at the number of people viewing it, there would be rapes at every street corner” and that debates on the subject “tend to rely more on attitudes than science”.

But what is wrong with attitudes compared with science? If science shows one thing but people’s morals and sensibilities and morals show the opposite, who is to say which one should take precedence? Are parents not entitled to take action against something they know in their hearts is not right for their children?

The modern menace of internet porn is a new-ish and unique situation where, to a certain extent, parents have lost control over one aspect of their children’s life experience and they have the right to take back that control – with the help of government if necessary.

One way of reining in the amount of porn children are exposed to, of course, is to remove screens from the family home – but that does not protect their children from exposure at other people’s houses, at school and at any other place where they can access the internet.

Todd Weiler, the Utah state senator who sponsored the resolution, said public libraries and fast food restaurants that offer free internet were part of the problem.

“If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them,” he said at the ceremonial signing of the resolution.

“And yet our children are accessing porn on their tablets at these sites and we seem to be OK with that. It is not OK.”

And he asked those working in the adult entertainment industry: “Help us protect our children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances.”

The signing was described by activist group Utah Coalition Against Pornography as a “historic moment” and I agree.

It’s the first time a government body has declared war on both pornography and its main distributor, the internet, and it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

Can it have any significant effect on either the amount of porn and the type of porn that’s posted on the internet by both commercial interests and individuals, or who it is made available to?

I really do hope so because porn is one of the greatest horrors of our times, unforeseen by the creator of the internet and so quickly exploited by pornographers and their dirty spawn – those who have learnt to use it as a sexual weapon. It’s corrupting whole generations with potentially dire consequences.

Good luck to Utah.

IT has been a long time since I last shopped in British Home Stores, the store that has just gone into administration.

Come to think of it, I no longer shop in any major high street department store, simply because I hate their layouts, their lighting and their overall feeling of beigeness.

Their drabness smacks of the 1970s – and that does not draw me in. They don’t offer any comfort or glamour for their customers.

I once wrote to Marks & Spencer suggesting that in among its racks of beige macs and elasticated waist trousers it should place some of its settees and a table for its more elderly customers to take the weight off their feet.

Department stores are, by definition, spacious and often tiring to get around so why not acknowledge it and make it easier for their customers to explore more of it? It could always justify using the space by stacking a few in-store catalogues to tempt them into other sections.

However, M&S rejected my idea with a standard “thanks but we don’t really care about your suggestion” letter back.

Customers, spoilt by the ease of internet shopping, now expect a more exciting experience when they actually go into a high street store and sadly department stores are failing to move on from the 1970s.

Will John Lewis take the hint from the demise of BHS when it opens its new store in Brighton? Can’t wait to see.