[At-Large] protecting kids from porn and predators on the Internet

[Joe Baptista]

On 8/21/09, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
> > A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography
> and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb
> >
>
> First of all, this is completely off topic for an ICANN discussion, as
> ICANN has no authority over Internet content. Nor should it ever have
> any such authority.


No it is not. Protecting children from pornography and predators is
everyones business. This coming year ICANN will receive a number of
proposals for TLDs for kids. Many of these TLD operators will claim they can
protect children from predators and porn on the Internet. Most if not all of
these claims will be bogus but non the less will be made to ICANN.

Having said that. it is my observation that 99.99% of the time, when
> anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict
> adult behaviour. This plan is no exception, and I would actively
> campaign against it.


I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension course. The same applies to
anyone supporting you in this argument. Anyone reading the article will note
it has absolutely nothing to do with restricting adult behavior and
everything to do with restricting children from Internet access.

The only adults I can see suddenly restricted by the proposal to legislate
kids off the Internet would be predators of kids and pedophiles in general
and NAMBLA members in particular. Lack of kids on the Internet would mean
pedophiles have less opportunity to recruit. Common sense!

Also you would see immediate benefits that address your concerns - "when
anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult
behavior". I strongly agree with that statement. Governments increasingly
see protecting children as a means of increasing surveillance of national
and international citizens. I would go as far as saying that child porn is a
growth industry. It's the best marketing tool not only for justifying
surveillance but also it pays big bucks.

As world wide cybercrime increases exponentially we have police departments
in many countries who don't have the resources to fight criminals because
their budget is dedicated chasing the ever elusive child porn pics around
the networks. The real issues of child abuse and just basic crime fighting
get overlooked.

Legislating children off the Internet reduces government justification for
survelance as well as prevents abuse of kids and frees up policing resources
to fight real crime.

Also please remember. It is children who mostly produce the child porn these
days that is distributed on the Internet and I'm sure much loved by
pedophiles. It is an unwritten rule with most police departments that if a
child porn investigation finds children have produced porn the whole thing
is hushed up. The police don't do their job and arrest the children for
breaking the law but in all cases the kids are given a stiff warning in
front of the parents.

The policy works. Those kids don't re offend. I see a double standard being
played here. The law is the law and your a child pornographer regardless of
age if you produce child porn. The laws make no exception in the charge by
age. The only exception in law is that adults are tried via the regular
criminal courts and underage people are served by youth services - depending
on your jurisdiction. I think the punishments differer between adult and
child criminals.

Getting children off the Internet removes the potential they end up kiddy
pornographers with criminal records. Because sooner or later some cop boss
with balls is going to start charging kids and it will become a popular with
the conservative masses.

As you can see I understand your concern when it comes to government
restrictions on adult behavior. But I think under the circumstances you are
misguided in your reasoning.

There is no substitute for being a good parent and being involved in
> your childrens' lives. No legislation can compensate for that.


I agree. The problem is that a majority of parents don't do a good job of
parenting. I have had the opportunity of seeing at least four generations of
parenting and I'm not impressed. Parenting has gotten worse as we move
forward in history.

I find most I interview are good parents in principle but not in practice.
Based on your own subjective view that a function of good parenting means
being involved in your children's lives we find that parents today have less
time to spend with their children then they had in past years. That is one
of the main excuses I get from parents is the lack of time due to the
pressures from day to day living.

Good parenting is also a subjective concept. You may think your a good
parent - others may disagree. In many cases parenting is a cultural affair.
The concept changes across cultures. Parenting these days is more
experimental and an act of faith the it is a standard.

The biggest factor that influences good parenting is simply time - or the
lack thereof.

As a
> parent of two I do not want the government doing my job.


This is another nonsense catch all argument. Do you home school your
children? If not then government is doing your job already in providing
teachers and schools for them.

cheers
joe baptista


- Evan
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com