Re: Children and the Net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

//  Very young children need to be protected from graphically violent
//  material which they might find disturbing.  Other than this, I am
//  not sure any censorship on the Net is appropriate.

It's exactly this tone that I'm afraid of.  Need?  In who's opinion?  While
I might agree that children shouldn't indiscriminately be seeing
potentially disturbing material, the way that I'd state it is: "I'd like my
children to be protected from graphically violent material".  Note that it
would be *my* children that *I* want to protect.  And I have the means to
handle that.  Not that I have kids, but...

It's insidous, the ways that morals get turned into law and regulations.


- -- 
- -  david d `zoo' zuhn  -| armadillo zoo software -- 
- --  zoo@armadillo.com --|   unix generalist (and occasional specialist)
- ------------------------+   send e-mail for more information
  pgp key upon request  +----------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLjv44u80ah2ymxnRAQGC+QP/dwj7FONy059sHsY55/0aX7RfSrvh5lm4
C66P1azSmbdF7nqY4jrR5Eau+/pcqgkOnRvMD5Sjl9n2aInfXZM1K1uLZDim2gbw
+SrLnYW/7tg1NdZA6Al83a5EGbfR9wS7q9g8OsIflizdvyqo4egAv3mav3IRIGsM
1XAXXu9gtqg=
=0aMR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

david d `zoo' zuhn <zoo@armadillo.com> writes:

 >> Very young children need to be protected from graphically
 >> violent material which they might find disturbing.  Other
 >> than this, I am not sure any censorship on the Net is
 >> appropriate.

 > It's exactly this tone that I'm afraid of.  Need?  In who's
 > opinion?  While I might agree that children shouldn't
 > indiscriminately be seeing potentially disturbing material,
 > the way that I'd state it is: "I'd like my children to be
 > protected from graphically violent material".  Note that it
 > would be *my* children that *I* want to protect.  And I
 > have the means to handle that.  Not that I have kids, but...

 > It's insidous, the ways that morals get turned into law
 > and regulations.

Young kids have the same feelings looking at realistic
depictions of violence in movies that they would have looking at
the real thing.  This is true even if they intellectually grasp
that what they are viewing never really happened.  Many movies we
wouldn't think twice about can cause children intense emotional
pain.

The critical faculty needed to gate such feelings situationally
develops at different ages in different children, but is
generally well-developed by the age of 12.

Many other countries simply rate movies by specifying how old
you have to be to see the movie.  These ratings are made by
experts who understand the effects various types of imagery are
likely to have on young viewers.  A typical blood and guts
adventure film might get a rating of 12.  Something really gross
would probably get a rating of 15.  Sometimes movies are
completely banned in certain countries, like "Predator II" in
Norway.  Note the absence of any mention of parents in the
preceeding.

In America, where everything about kids is really about parental
power, we have a completely silly ratings system full of phrases
like "Parents Strongly Cautioned" and "May Be Inappropriate." The
effect of all this is that a parent can take a 6 year old to
"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and put him in therapy for the rest of
his life, but a 16 year old can't even go near a movie which
doesn't star Bambi without dragging some generally unwilling
adult along.

No one gets protected from anything and the system exists
entirely as an parent ego-boosting exercise.

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

I don't disagree with you on the effects of this sort of thing on
children. What I don't like, in any form, is a blanket statement like
"children need protection from".....  Or at least in any context where this
protection is mandated.  I see the shift from "children need protection
from violent images" (and all that entails) to "the people need protection
from terrorism" (and that *that* entails).  Yes, there is a real concern in
both of these cases.  But the actions taken as "protection" tend to be as
commensurate as using a sledgehammer to swat flies.

If we have mandated "protection", who is to do the mandating?  The national
government?  No, thank you.  They've got too much power as it is.
Community standards?  Hmm.  Better, but that concept has just recently
taken a broadside hit, at least where the net is concerned.  It'll be
interesting how the Supremes deal with Virtual Communities.

Mike Duvos writes
> Young kids have the same feelings looking at realistic
> depictions of violence in movies that they would have looking at
> the real thing.  This is true even if they intellectually grasp
> that what they are viewing never really happened.  Many movies we
> wouldn't think twice about can cause children intense emotional
> pain.

I will decide what movies my kids see thank you very much.

I took Jim to see his little brother being born, and I
took them both to see "Total Recall"

Are you going to call the cops and charge me with child abuse?

> effect of all this is that a parent can take a 6 year old to
> "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and put him in therapy for the rest of

My children are doing just fine.  Screw you!


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

James A. Donald writes:

> I took Jim to see his little brother being born, and I
> took them both to see "Total Recall"

Did he enjoy the part where Arnold shoved the metal rod up the
guy's nostril and out the top of his head?  Will you be upset
if they try this at home?

> Are you going to call the cops and charge me with child abuse?

Probably not.  Is there anything you wouldn't expose a pre-teen 
to, just out of curiosity?  Japanese soldiers bayonetting babies?
Hardcore S&M gay porno?  Roseanne naked?

>> effect of all this is that a parent can take a 6 year old to
>> "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and put him in therapy for the rest of

> My children are doing just fine.  Screw you!

Why am I getting the feeling that there are no limits at all here?

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Mile Duvos writes:

> 
> Why am I getting the feeling that there are no limits at all here?
> 

Not "no limits," _different limits_.

And since we all have different limits for what we want our children
to see, we want to make the choices ourselves.

(Ironically, James Donald's point about having his son see a live
birth is fairly _tame_ in some circles. Here in Santa Cruz, classes of
4th and 5th graders are routinely visited by midwives (or midpersons,
I guess) who show them all sorts of things. It's politically correct
to show the kids these sorts of things.)

(Visiting one friend, his daughter pointed out a large metal bowl
containing the afterbirth (of a recent birth). I was not
impressed. I'll leave it to you to guess what they were doing with it
at home. Should we _raid_ this house? Or should we _mandate_ this
behavior? Should pagans and lesbian witches visit publically-mandated
classrooms so as to de-program children of their patriarchal,
Xtian-centered, homophobic tendencies?)

[An answer to this rhetorical question: There's no more reason to
centralize and assign schools than there is to centralize and assign
food stores. Elminate public funding for education--or go to a voucher
system if you must--and let the various schools and their diverse
approaches compete for the dollars of the parents. Simple.]

This diversity is why it's so important that we not let governments,
or even local "communities" dictate what we can see, what we can let
our children see, or tell us what we _make_ our children see.

A pretty basic idea, I'd say.


--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:

 > Mike Duvos, speaking for cretins everywhere, writes:
 >> Timothy C. May, speaking for parents everywhere, writes:

 > Please, Mike, let's not resort to winning arguments with
 > comments such as yours above.

I'm not sure why suggesting that many parents would agree with
the views recently expressed by you about controlling their
childrens' access to the media is a comment you take offense at,
what it has to do with "winning" one way or another, or why you
would characterize those having an opposing point of view as
cretins.

 > I think I was reasonably polite in my response to you, even
 > foregoing my intended spoof (along the lines of Christian
 > Fundamentalists demanding the right to speak to the children
 > of Heathens and Jews, a point consistent with your point
 > that parents have no right to stop such sources of outside
 > information).

I wouldn't really have a problem with children hearing the views
of Christian Fundamentalists, as long as participation wasn't
obligatory, and it wasn't a state-sponsored event.  If the
children were teens, I would feel quite uncomfortable with the
notion of parents having the power to deny them access to such
information.

 >> Social Darwinism carried to its logical extreme is not a pretty
 >> sight, even for one fond of viewing the misfortune of others as
 >> "evolution in action."

 > Personal attacks are not welcome on this list, Mike. Not by
 > me, at least. If you persist, your comments will get no
 > further answer from me.

No personal attack intended.  I am a strong supporter of
egalitarian societies with strong social safety nets, and think
that youth emancipation will likely be the next big civil rights
movement in this country.  I am also willing to pay high taxes in
order to feel secure that all citizen-units are suitably housed,
well-fed, and taken care of.  This is entirely self-serving on my
part, since it cuts down on social unrest and street crime.

 > My children are not allowed to visit public libraries, as I
 > dislike having them exposed to the collectivist ideas
 > therein. When they have read all the books in our home,
 > preferably twice, then perhaps I will allow them to visit a
 > library. I also school them at home. Perfectly legal.

I spent a large part of my childhood in university libraries and
learned a lot more from the books they contained than I ever got
out of the decaying public school system.  I'm sure I would have
been outraged if anyone had ever suggested that such information
be forbidden me solely because of my age, or the wishes of my
parents.

I can only hope that the preceeding was another one of your witty
parodies.  I've never met a parent before who would forbid their
children access to a library.

 > Anyone who supports censorship of one view or another, who
 > supports forcible intervention in family and group culture,
 > probably will not care for the inevitable implications of
 > strong cryptography.

Au contraire.  I view strong crypto as a liberating influence on
everyone who is a member of the aforementioned families or
groups. strong crypto = absolute personal privacy.

I think the transition to an information-based economy will
result in a fundamental reorganization of who wields power in our
society.  In the future, all information will be available to
everyone and a 30 year old might have no advantage over a 12 year
old in his ability to create wealth.  This is certain to effect
major alterations to the power balance within families.

In times in the historical past, young people began closely
associating with adults at a young age and were able to function
as adults by the time they reached their early teens.  As society
became more complex, and a lengthy education was required to do
anything useful, childhood was extended and children were
disempowered in order to better serve the ever-growing and
all-powerful educational cabal.

This process has now peaked, and our society is filled with 35
year old college educated children who can't afford to move out
of their parents homes.  A reversal is iminent, aided by the
explosive growth of personal information technology, and public
education as we know it is heaving its last dying gasp.

All positive signs, IMHO.

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Tim May <tcmay@netcom.com> writes - 

> 
> This diversity is why it's so important that we not let governments,
> or even local "communities" dictate what we can see, what we can let
> our children see, or tell us what we _make_ our children see.
> 
> A pretty basic idea, I'd say.
>

The _most_ basic, I'd venture to say, upon which the ideals of
a democracy are founded. I think you've summed it up quite nicely, Tim.

- paul

Mike Duvos says:
> Why am I getting the feeling that there are no limits at all here?

Why do you have such an unhealthy fascination for how others raise
their children? I have enough trouble running MY own life without
telling people what to do. I know of no one who is such a paragon of
perfection that their views may be used as a benchmark by which all
child rearing may be judged.

I do not yet have children. However, I am absolutely certain that in
half the societies on earth I'd be considered someone dangerous to
children. Why? I'm a political "nutcase". I don't believe in the state
controlled version of the institution of marriage (although I believe
in permanent committed monogamous relationships) and thus refuse for
political reasons to marry. I believe in open access to information
for children and a far more liberal view of the rights of children
than most people have. I suspect that when I become a parent, any law
that could be used to "cure" the children of fundamentalist
christians, Amish, etc, would be applied to mine right off the bat --
after all, I'm a dangerous man.

Live and let live, I say. I don't want others judging my child
rearing, and I have little or no desire to judge theirs. Leave them
be unless their idea of discipline for children involves The Rack or
The Firing Squad.

Perry

Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com>

 > Why do you have such an unhealthy fascination for how
 > others raise their children? I have enough trouble running
 > MY own life without telling people what to do.

I merely wish to spare another generation of kids from 18 years
of grief at the hands of self-righteous power-hungry adult
authority figures.  Not exactly an unreasonable goal.

 > I know of no one who is such a paragon of perfection that
 > their views may be used as a benchmark by which all child
 > rearing may be judged.

A generally true, but completely irrelevant statement.

 > I believe in open access to information for children and a
 > far more liberal view of the rights of children than most
 > people have.

 > Live and let live, I say. I don't want others judging my
 > child rearing, and I have little or no desire to judge
 > theirs. Leave them be unless their idea of discipline for
 > hildren involves The Rack or The Firing Squad.

The first paragraph here, although it sounds nice, is completely
obliterated by the second.

It like saying "I'm all in favor of rights for Blacks, but of
course I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they can do
with their niggers."

Or "I'm really against anti-Semitism, but I have no desire to
judge anyone elses practices with regard to hiring, housing, club
membership, or whether they would want their sister to marry
one."

Saying you are for childrens' rights on one hand, and then
suggesting that those rights should be completely dependent on
whomever the specific child happens to win in the parent lottery,
is idiotic and useless.

 > I suspect that when I become a parent, any law that could
 > be used to "cure" the children of fundamentalist christians,
 > Amish, etc, would be applied to mine right off the bat --
 > after all, I'm a dangerous man.

We're talking about Net access here.  How would a law which
guaranteed that to all citizens, regardless of age, threaten you?

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

James A. Donald writes:
> > I took Jim to see his little brother being born, and I
> > took them both to see "Total Recall"

Mike Duvos writes
> Did he enjoy the part where Arnold shoved the metal rod up the
> guy's nostril and out the top of his head? 

Yep.  They thought that was really great.

> Will you be upset
> if they try this at home?

At the age of three Jim figured out that death was permanent and
extremely serious. 


> Why am I getting the feeling that there are no limits at all here?

Because we do not like having someone elses limits imposed on us 
at gunpoint.

Lets make a deal.  I will let you deprive your kids of information
concerning sex, death, reproduction, and violent injury etc, provided
you let fundamentalists deprive their kids of information concerning
your religious views.


Fair deal?

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com