Re: Children and the Net
Jeff Gostin says:
jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon) writes:
The Internet is a wild and exciting place. You want your children to get to know it. But you would also like a way to build little fences between them and some things that they are just too young to deal with. How do you do it?
In my eyes, it's really quite easy: Don't let your children use Internet UNTIL AND UNLESS you feel they are emotionally stable and mature enough to handle any kind of message that comes across the net.
There are other simple strategies, like using a service like Prodigy that censors its messages, or starting a service for like minded parents that censors the material children can access. You don't need change the whole world to alter what a small minority read. I'm not a believer in the notion of keeping your children "protected" because the world is a dangerous place and I feel that you produce children unable to cope with the world if they don't know what is in it. At the same time, I feel Mr. Zooks has the right to raise his children as hot house flowers if he likes, and he can accomplish his goals perfectly well without censoring us, which I feel would be unacceptable even if Mr. Zooks could not raise his children unexposed to the world without censorship. Luckily, both sets of goals are achievable. Perry
Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> writes:
A society that forceably prevents fundamentalists from brainwashing their children also has the right tools to keep me from explaining to my children why government is evil and why there is no god.
The cure for brainwashing is not to silence the brainwasher, but to make sure the intended victim is exposed to a wide variety of other viewpoints. We can cure the children of Fundamentalists quite easily without preventing their parents, or you for that matter, from expressing any point of view you choose. Truth usually wins over bullshit when both are equally illuminated in public view. I would certainly oppose any law which said that parents could completely control a minor's access to information in order to make sure that the parent's perspective was the only one presented. 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. Kids experiencing the Net for the first time are perfectly safe if they follow some simple guidelines. 1. Never give out personal information like your name, address, or phone number to strangers. 2. Check all information obtained from the Net with a trusted person before acting on it. 3. Change the channel if someone interacts with you in a way you find crude and offensive. One should remember that a kid sitting in his living room at a computer is perfectly safe in physical sense. There is nothing bytes of data can do to harm him. As long as he does not volunteer inappropriate information to strangers, he can cruise to his heart's content without fear of unwanted consequences, and learn all sorts of interesting things in the process.
I oppose any attempt to prevent free speech on the net in order to cater to the needs of fundamentalists, but I also oppose vehemently any attempt to make them conform in the education of their children with YOUR view of what is right and wrong.
I certainly agree with this in terms of the censorship issue.
I feel that it is perfectly fine if they produce bowlderized and censored net links for their kids -- I just don't want them changing the structure of everyone else's life in order to do it.
They can just use America Online. It comes pre-bowlderized and pre-censored right out of the box.
Mr. Zooks has a perfect right to raise his children any way he likes that is not inconsistant with the wishes of his children, and I do not want to see you or anyone else telling him what to do, just as I do not want Mr. Zooks telling US what to do.
It's the wishes of the children that tend to be overlooked when the Funny Mentalists are having their legislative orgy. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> writes:
A society that forceably prevents fundamentalists from brainwashing their children also has the right tools to keep me from explaining to my children why government is evil and why there is no god.
Mike Duvos writes
The cure for brainwashing is ... to make sure the intended victim is exposed to a wide variety of other viewpoints. We can cure the children of Fundamentalists by ....
Much though it pains me to acknowledge that Perry is ever right about anything: If I find that the children of fundamentalists are being "cured" I will move my ammo stash from my garage to hole in the hills, and take my gold out of the safety deposit box, and add booby traps to my alarm system. It is completely impossible for a private person to insulate his children from opposing views. Only the state has that kind of power. Unlike Mike, I have actually raised children. Once every few months I make them sit still for about thirty seconds and utter a few Words of Profound Wisdom in their general direction. Surprisingly this has proved startlingly effective. The infrequent comments from their father have proved vastly more influential than the steady propaganda they receive from their compulsory government miseducation.
Very young children need to be protected from graphically violent material which they might find disturbing.
By who? I gather you do not entirely trust parents to perform this important social activity.
It's the wishes of the children that tend to be overlooked when the Funny Mentalists are having their legislative orgy.
Who is more likely to care about the welfare of a kid? A fundamentalist who happens to be the kids father, or bureaucrat in charge of child welfare? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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:
If I find that the children of fundamentalists are being "cured" I will move my ammo stash from my garage to hole in the hills, and take my gold out of the safety deposit box, and add booby traps to my alarm system.
Children are "cured" of their parents' ideas all the time. I've known lots of kids who grew up in restrictive settings where their access to forbidden ideas was tightly controlled. After four years at college away from parental influence, they were magically transformed into happy free-thinking sensible people.
It is completely impossible for a private person to insulate his children from opposing views. Only the state has that kind of power.
If it's impossible, then why does such outrage manifest itself when it is suggested that it shouldn't be done? Something is fishy here.
Very young children need to be protected from graphically violent material which they might find disturbing.
I gather you do not entirely trust parents to perform this important social activity.
There's always one loony toon who wants to screen all five volumes of "Faces of Death" for his son's kindergarten class. :) Teaching kids is sort of like feeding them. In general, we let the parents make the day to day decisions. But we also let experts research what things are toxic and hold parents accountable if they insist upon feeding the kid lemon scented furniture polish. Both approaches are needed.
It's the wishes of the children that tend to be overlooked when the Funny Mentalists are having their legislative orgy.
Who is more likely to care about the welfare of a kid?
A fundamentalist who happens to be the kids father, or bureaucrat in charge of child welfare?
This is a trick question, right? Caring counts for zip. The road to Hell is paved with good parental intentions. Suppose the fundamentalist father wants to beat his six year old son with a belt everytime he touches himself to save him from Satan's influence? A little bureaucratic input from a child welfare professional might not be a bad idea in such a case. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Mike Duvos says:
Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> writes:
A society that forceably prevents fundamentalists from brainwashing their children also has the right tools to keep me from explaining to my children why government is evil and why there is no god.
The cure for brainwashing is not to silence the brainwasher, but to make sure the intended victim is exposed to a wide variety of other viewpoints. We can cure the children of Fundamentalists quite easily without preventing their parents, or you for that matter, from expressing any point of view you choose.
This may be so, but I am unsure that I have any interest in spending energy in attempting to "cure" people of their views. Its not my place to tell people what to think, and I'm uncertain that a society that makes it easy to perform such "cures" is necessarily one that I want to live in. Perhaps society would wish to "cure" my children of their views. Frankly, I don't CARE if fundamentalists brainwash their children. I want to be left alone myself, and I'm perfectly willing to leave them alone, too. I'm not so interested in running my neighbors lives, nor am I so perfect that I am capable of running theirs as well as my own. So long as they grant me the same respect they can tell their children that Jesus levitates at all times thirty stories above the Royal Albert Hall for all I care. I just don't want them telling ME what to do and think. Understand that I disagree with Zooks' proposal to impose a censorship structure on the net. I merely ALSO disagree with the flood of opinions that seem to say that he doesn't have the right to raise his children as he sees fit. If he wants to only let them see sanitized net traffic, let him find a service to provide that to his children. I am not interested in interfering in his life. I ask the same respect from him, but thats all. Perry
Mike Duvos writes:
I would certainly oppose any law which said that parents could completely control a minor's access to information in order to make sure that the parent's perspective was the only one presented.
This won't cut it. No outsiders can interfere with how I raise my children, in terms of the views I expose them to. ("Public schooling" is not the issue, as children can be sent to Xtian, Buddhist, Adventist, or whatever schools,...so long as minimal standards are met. There is no requirement for ideological or memetic balance.) Practically, any system such as Mike proposes above would fail. Parents have control over the reading material of children. Ditto for television, movies, etc. I'm getting involved here in this political discussion because some Cyherpunks think it's OK to forcibly butt into how others raise their children, that this is somehow consistent with a Cypherpunk attitude about information and liberty. It's not. We saw this idea that "parents cannot force their children ..." reach its fruition in the Branch Davidian case, where the BATF had to burn the children in order to save the children. I reject the notion that the state needs to intervene in families in order to make sure that balanced and appropriate views are provided. --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."
On Sun, 31 Jul 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:
Practically, any system such as Mike proposes above would fail. Parents have control over the reading material of children. Ditto for television, movies, etc.
Exactly. An that's where the control should stay. In my view the 'net' should be like a giant world-wide library. You can get good stuff and you can get bad stuff and it is up the parents to regulate what the kids get. Passing the buck to the net authorities just circumvents the parent's control of the material. What if there is something that I want my kid to access and the 'authorities' say that it cannot be allowed until they turn 18.
I'm getting involved here in this political discussion because some Cyherpunks think it's OK to forcibly butt into how others raise their children, that this is somehow consistent with a Cypherpunk attitude about information and liberty. It's not.
Raising kids the way you believe is all part of the 1st amendment. When then state starts telling you how to raise them(as it already is in some states) then you have just lost one of your greatest freedoms and rights.
We saw this idea that "parents cannot force their children ..." reach its fruition in the Branch Davidian case, where the BATF had to burn the children in order to save the children.
But the state always knows whats best, right? Have you heard that the ABC documentry on Waco has been postponed under pressure from the WH until after the crime bill is voted on? Heard his on the radio the other day.
I reject the notion that the state needs to intervene in families in order to make sure that balanced and appropriate views are provided.
An interesting thing that I learned in anthropology last quarter. Out teacher likes to goo of on tangents and give useful info. According to him the Bureau of Indian Affairs(BIA) sent the Indian kids to BIA school on other completely different reservations in order to break down the transfer of the Indian culture from the elders in the tribes to the children. If you don't transfer your culture(whatever it may be, religious, anti-government, etc) to your kids then it is lost. If the governemnt is the one doing the 'cultural development' of your kids then where is that going to leave us in a generation or two? Brian --------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Linux: The choice of a GNU generation | cypress@connected.com sysop of FreeZone datahaven (206)569-2911 | finger for PGP key --------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
BCL <cypress@connected.com> writes:
Raising kids the way you believe is all part of the 1st amendment. When then state starts telling you how to raise them(as it already is in some states) then you have just lost one of your greatest freedoms and rights.
The constitution has no age limit on the basic rights it guarantees. It is only by interpretation that these rights have been transformed into "adult rights", a term just as obnoxious to many as "white rights" or "men's rights" were when those interpretations prevailed. Your right to do whatever you like to your children stops where their constitutionally protected rights begin. I'm all in favor of an uncensored Net but I am also in favor of guaranteed access to that Net for all citizens, including young ones. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Timothy C. May, speaking for parents everywhere, writes:
This won't cut it. No outsiders can interfere with how I raise my children, in terms of the views I expose them to. ("Public schooling" is not the issue, as children can be sent to Xtian, Buddhist, Adventist, or whatever schools,...so long as minimal standards are met. There is no requirement for ideological or memetic balance.)
I reject the notion that the state needs to intervene in families in order to make sure that balanced and appropriate views are provided.
This notion that the state is not permitted to interfere in the workings of the family unit can work both ways. It can also suggest that no outsiders can intefere in the way you treat your wife, or when your children get large and muscular, how they might decide to "raise" you. Too bad when they decide that paying the nursing home to pamper ol' Grandpa Tim is dipping too deeply into the family vacation budget. 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."
Practically, any system such as Mike proposes above would fail. Parents have control over the reading material of children. Ditto for television, movies, etc.
Parents have control in the home. Children have access in lots of other places, like libraries, which have historically resisted any attempt to censor any but the most egregious reading material based solely on the age of their clients.
We saw this idea that "parents cannot force their children ..." reach its fruition in the Branch Davidian case, where the BATF had to burn the children in order to save the children.
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been toasted. Family interference cuts both ways. Besides, if kids were twice the size of adults and had six inch fangs, you wouldn't hear any of this "can't interfere in the family nonsense." Parents would demand 24 hour in-home protection from the state and raise taxes to pay for it. Most such rhetoric is just an excuse for parents to impose their will on people who cannot yet defend themselves. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
On Sun, 31 Jul 1994, Mike Duvos wrote:
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been toasted.
Puh-leeze! There has been little to no evidence of ANY abuse of the Branch Davidian children. The only thing we know is that Koresh liked his mates young but that doesn't mean the rest of hte children were abused and, of course, Koresh's kink is quite normal in quite a few places. Are you forgetting that the BDs were investigated for child abuse and cleared earlier?
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 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).
might decide to "raise" you. Too bad when they decide that paying the nursing home to pamper ol' Grandpa Tim is dipping too deeply into the family vacation budget.
Most of us have a simple answer to this one: if "Grandpa Tim" is using "his" money, he can spend it as he wishes. If he's using his son's money, then his son can cut back on the "pampering." Simple, and common sensical. Not 'perfect," in that various unhappy situations may occur, but the best solution, for lots of reasons. I don't want outsiders interfering in such decisions.
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. (This may sound like Sternlight. Sternlight falters because he _claims_ to have kill-filed someone, then can't resist responding.)
Parents have control in the home. Children have access in lots of other places, like libraries, which have historically resisted any attempt to censor any but the most egregious reading material based solely on the age of their clients.
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'm not sure what Mike proposes to do about this situation. I know that anybody insisting on access to my children to give them "alternative views" will not be met kindly.
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been toasted.
It's well-established that David Koresh could have been picked up easily on any of his trips into Waco or on any of his morning jogs around the Branch Davidians ranch. A former Sheriff who once served papers on Koresh has said the same thing: merely walking up and knocking on the door would almost certainly have worked. The Waco massacre has been debated many times in many groups, and I don't intend to get into it here. The connection with crypto exists, but is a bit of a reach. The connection of the recent comments by several folks who argue that Cyherpunks should support forcible reeducation of children, either pro-Christian or anti-Christian (the comments about "Funny Mentalists"), is stronger to the themes of this list. 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. --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."
Mike Duvos writes:
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas,
I know it's chic to refer to Texas as the last bastion of barbarian living, but I'd like to see some citation for the above if you really believe it's true. Note also that I've heard tell kids get beat up in other states too, though that might just be rumor. | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com> | | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO. ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX: | | (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
On Mon, 1 Aug 1994, Mike McNally wrote:
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas, I know it's chic to refer to Texas as the last bastion of barbarian
Mike Duvos writes: living, but I'd like to see some citation for the above if you really believe it's true. Note also that I've heard tell kids get beat up in other states too, though that might just be rumor. As far as I know, the above was NOT the case, and no evidence existed of abuse. The search warrent talks about having guns and "clandestine" *publications* and neve authorizes breaking into windows to serve a NORMAL search warrent.
Berzerk.
Mike Duvos writes:
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas,
I know it's chic to refer to Texas as the last bastion of barbarian living, but I'd like to see some citation for the above if you really believe it's true. Note also that I've heard tell kids get beat up in other states too, though that might just be rumor.
I'd like to throw my $0.02 into this, too. I've lived in Texas for most of my life, and I can assure you that what Mike Duvos says is most certainly *not* true! -- Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 ecarp@netcom.com, Ed.Carp@linux.org "What's the sense of trying hard to find your dreams without someone to share it with, tell me, what does it mean?" -- Whitney Houston, "Run To You"
Mike Duvos writes:
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas,
I know it's chic to refer to Texas as the last bastion of barbarian living, but I'd like to see some citation for the above if you really believe it's true. Note also that I've heard tell kids get beat up in other states too, though that might just be rumor.
I'd like to throw my $0.02 into this, too. I've lived in Texas for most of my life, and I can assure you that what Mike Duvos says is most certainly *not* true!
The behavior of the Branch Davidians towards their children is well documented, both by child welfare workers in Texas and by sworn testimony of former members. "I've lived in Texas and therefore none of this is true..." is neither relevant, accurate, nor compelling. The Branch Davidians were proclaimed "cleared" of charges of child abuse by Texas authorities in the presense of physical evidence which would have been considered abuse in most other states. Declaring that one has lived in Texas does not change any of this, nor does it change the well-documented statistics on corporal punishment in the Texas public school system, in which Texas is the nation's leader. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
participants (9)
-
Al Billings -
BCL -
Berzerk -
jamesd＠netcom.com -
khijol!erc＠apple.com -
m5＠vail.tivoli.com -
mpd＠netcom.com -
Perry E. Metzger -
tcmay＠netcom.com