(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

(Anonymous)
2005-03-25 07:17 am UTC (link)

HI all. I realize my comment will be totally uncool, but there is nothing about this thread except for one person's post that is making me feel better about internet responsibility. The person who posted the post you're all talking about is a kid with a mouth. Sounds like her parents should spend time with her. What the kid is actually saying makes me cringe.

Somebody here wanted to know where the parents are who are upset their kids are reading pornography on the internet. Maybe we're in the bathtub. That happens you know. Sometimes we're at the grocery store. The joke used to be that we could get in trouble before eleven o'clock, just as well as after eleven o'clock.

In any event, this is the kind of thing that causes hooplas and makes people want to raise ruckus and do things like tighten porn accessibility laws for minors and the internet in general. You know, you're all upset that the child didn't have the sense to keep her age a secret and she's smarting off. That's because she's a child. Those of you bragging about how you snuck around and read it when you were underage and doling out advice regarding how to do the same are...adults. Correct?

All right. Thanks for reading. I understand I'm discussing and not mocking, but others were doing it, so please forgive. Another mom pointed me to this discussion. Now I have to go think about it.

Mom

(Anonymous)
2005-03-25 08:05 am UTC (link)

I'm entirely in favor of parents monitoring what their children read and see, and sympathize with how hard it can be. I suspect that very few people feel otherwise.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that it does seem a little idiotic to try and make people online responsible for making sure children don't see smut, beyond the basic boundaries of stating outright what a fic contains, and not putting lurid images and prose on pages a child might accidentally stumble upon (rather than purposefully look for).

Past those basic rules? The accountability shouldn't be with Josephine McFiccer, who has absolutely no way to tell how old someone on her mailing list or surfing her website is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-03-25 09:08 am UTC (link)

Hmmm...yours is a thoughtful reply. I disagree, however. Stating what the fic is and avoiding the lurid images would be basic. I'd expect that at any site that contains objectionable material. Frankly, I don't much like stumbling into it either. I'm not just talking about fanfic, but any site that pedals porn.

Josephine McFiccer can't know who's on her mailing list or surfing her website, but she can take reasonable precautions, such as making her site password only, or at least password protecting the material that rises above PG-13. You know...separate it out, make it a little more cumbersome to get to, then, exercise good judgment before allowing somebody access.

I could argue that having sex on my front porch is my business and it's on my property. I could further announce to the neighborhood that I plan to have sex on my front porch and at what time and tell them that if they have a problem with that they shouldn't be on the street during that time. That's not a perfect analogy, or even a near-perfect one because the child has to actually click in (one hopes) to get to the objectionable material.

One of the problems we face as parents is that much of this material Googles up on safe searches because those who write it don't make it clear in their keywords or on their page that it's pornography, or they purposefully misspell the word porn so that it doesn't google up. It's not filtered. Parents can install web filters, but not many of us know that all the special terms such as 'slash' need to be filtered.

What struck me and the other Moms about this conversation, is the expectation that a child should behave as an adult. She's a child, emotionally, physically and mentally. We all know that turning 18 isn't the magic number for sudden maturity, but it's the only cutoff we have, in the United States at least. Judging from some of the commentary here, adding a few years to that mark for some people might not be a bad idea.

Societies in general set up standards and conventions meant to protect and nurture their children, so putting the onus on the purveyor of a harmful product to take reasonable measures to ensure a child isn't harmed or influenced by that product is not without precedent. The question is where that line is drawn and what actions would be considered reasonable.

Thanks for listening. Very much appreciated.

Mom