The advancement of technology and the growth of the Internet has allowed for an endless amount of ubiquitous information that can be accessed at just the click of a button. While in some cases this may be perceived as a good thing, in others, it is the complete opposite. In 14-year-old Amy’s case, this factor among others has lead to the search of restitution, which has been made difficult because of the infinite accessibility of the Internet, and the countless users of it. In any case of child pornography, especially Amy’s, I believe that (any) pictures that have been posted, stolen, downloaded, or distributed online should be monitored by the search engines of which they are present, and responsibility should be claimed there. I do not necessarily believe that the users who viewed, spread, or downloaded the pictures should be held accountable, although they did commit a crime in viewing this illegal content, they were not the ones who allowed the continuous distribution of it. Therefore, I believe that Amy’s restitution should be sought against the search engines who negligently permitted the presence of these photos, and breached their duty to keep explicitly illegal content off the Internet and available to the public. I believe that the damages that Amy is seeking to collect should be obtained from the search engines in full, not the many viewers of it. If it was put on to the Internet, it was allowed to stay there for a reason; in this case, one that is clearly negligence, and irresponsibility.
Referring to Lievrouw’s Alternative and Activist New Media, the genre of “Commons Knowledge,” supports that (some) people believe that everything that is put onto the Internet is theirs, and allowed to be shared, viewed, and downloaded, etc. Yet, in cases like child pornography, and photos/videos and information that are confidential, harmful, or inappropriate should not be made available, and should be somewhat restricted and monitored by the search engines that allow for Internet use. Yes, it is recognized by our culture that nearly everything on the Internet is instantly accessible, and often deemed free to use, share, and obtain. Although, in certain cases, such as Amy’s, these attributes should not be justifiable just because everything put on to the Internet is “allowed.” As the broadcaster on On The Media stated: “The legally murky terrain of the internet,” caught the legal system off guard, and hopefully made them realize the damages that can be caused by the boundless cyber-world of the Internet, and serve justice accordingly.