Your ACLU at work again.

[Steff]

Thanks to computers everywhere accessible to anyone it's way easier to control a child's diet than to control what they view on the internet.

 

Sad.

 

That's an interesting link, but how do we know that the music/tv/culture/etc is what's making kids violent or sexually active? Could it be that kids who are interested in that stuff are just DRAWN to those types of media?

 

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't have any real scientific or research credibility--which is what people need to make claims like, oh, it's the fault of porn or music that's ruining society.

 

 

I agree re the credibility. Though I can only speak for me and my childhood.. I didn't have half the exposure to the things "kids" today do and like I said above sex was unheard of in my social circle at the age it is now.

[Rex Kickass]

Where exactly is a kid going to go that will get them unfettered access to the internet other than a friend's house?

 

Seriously, because whenever I need internet access to check my email on the road - I always find myself out of luck.

[Soxy]

Once again. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. But that's to be expected from some.

I'd still like to see some statistical or empirical support for your "reasoned" argument.

 

Thanks to computers everywhere accessible to anyone it's way easier to control a child's diet than to control what they view on the internet.

 

Sad.

I agree re the credibility. Though I can only speak for me and my childhood.. I didn't have half the exposure to the things "kids" today do and like I said above sex was unheard of in my social circle at the age it is now.

I'm not convinced that sexual behavior is really as out of control as it is portrayed in the media. I look back at my friends and how sexually active we were (or really weren't) when we entered college (6 years ago), and I think that the hyperpromiscuous teen is still in the minority.

[Steff]

Where exactly is a kid going to go that will get them unfettered access to the internet other than a friend's house?

 

Seriously, because whenever I need internet access to check my email on the road - I always find myself out of luck.

 

 

Isn't that enough? If it's not at home the parent can't stop it can they? With food - what a crazy comparison - until the "child" is paying for their own food a parent is filling them with things they choose.

 

While in Hawaii Jim and I found free internet access all over the place.

 

I'm not convinced that sexual behavior is really as out of control as it is portrayed in the media. I look back at my friends and how sexually active we were (or really weren't) when we entered college (6 years ago), and I think that the hyperpromiscuous teen is still in the minority.

 

 

 

With D having just turned 6 and my "granddaughter" , , just 3 months old I have somet time before I have to get worried with that stuff.

[Soxy]

I don't understand why parents can't just password protect internet access at home. Internet usage is a privilege not a right, so if a kid abuses the privilege TAKE IT AWAY. I am absolutely baffled why the government needs to be at all involved in this.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So is dodging a question. But that's been expected of you for quite some time. If parental responsibility is acceptable for determining a child's diet, why isn't it acceptable for determining the content that a child views on the internet? There are plenty of for-profit, market-based solutions that will think of the children better than the government ever could.

 

What someone views on the internet is an issue of personal responsibility and parental responsibility. The government has no place in limiting what can and can't be viewed online.

 

 

As Steff said earlier it's extremely difficult for parents to stand by their kids and monitor their internet viewing whenever they are viewing it. Conversely, parents have a lot of control of what their kids are being fed because nearly all of the time they are the ones doing the feeding.

 

The Internet is the wild west of media and the regulation covering it is far less stringent than television or radio and as a result the wrong people (kids) are far more likely to view the wrong material (porn).

[Soxbadger]

Nuke,

 

But parents can buy products to regulate their own internet network, much like parents can set their tv not to play certain channels.

 

If a parent is to lazy to do this, then I dont care what their excuse is.

 

Most children know how to use a remote, know how to click the "Video on Demand" button, and then know how to get "late night entertainment" which broadcasts 24/7 on almost every cable movie network.

 

I think the comparison to not allowing children to eat at fast food places without parents permission is pretty much the same. When I was a child from the ages 8 up, I often was able to walk to food places, white hen, etc and buy whatever the hell I wanted. My parents had no control over what I ate, outside of limiting the money the gave me.

 

But a parent can limit the internet access they give the child.

 

What we have here is a failure of parents to be proactive.

 

They want some one else to raise their child because they couldnt be burdened.

[mr_genius]

I am against government regulation of legal internet content.

 

 

but i do see Nuke's point on this issue. If the FCC relaxed rules and USA network or CBS decided to show XXX movies many would rejoice, but most parents wouldn't. i doubt the argument "just block the channel" would work too well.

 

if ISP's were smart they would offer packages that came with software to block pornograhpic sites. a lot of parents do need help when it comes to monitoring their kids internet viewing. in many cases the kids know more about computers than the parents. i don't think it would be bad if the government offered free porn blocking software and had a website explaining the whole process.

Edited October 25, 2006 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

I would have no problem if the govt wanted to create something like the "V-chip" for computers.

[southsideirish71]

Where exactly is a kid going to go that will get them unfettered access to the internet other than a friend's house?

 

Seriously, because whenever I need internet access to check my email on the road - I always find myself out of luck.

 

 

Schools and the Library.

[Soxy]

Schools and the Library.

Don't parents have to sign off on usage of the internet there? I know mine did in high school and at the library while I was under age.

[Steff]

But parents can buy products to regulate their own internet network, much like parents can set their tv not to play certain channels.

 

If a parent is to lazy to do this, then I dont care what their excuse is.

 

Most children know how to use a remote, know how to click the "Video on Demand" button, and then know how to get "late night entertainment" which broadcasts 24/7 on almost every cable movie network.

 

I think the comparison to not allowing children to eat at fast food places without parents permission is pretty much the same. When I was a child from the ages 8 up, I often was able to walk to food places, white hen, etc and buy whatever the hell I wanted. My parents had no control over what I ate, outside of limiting the money the gave me.

 

But a parent can limit the internet access they give the child.

 

What we have here is a failure of parents to be proactive.

 

They want some one else to raise their child because they couldnt be burdened.

 

What's to stop them from accessing porn from their friends house who's parent isn't as responsible or some other location?

 

My sister's daughter knows how to use the PPV, and while she doesn't live at my house I have a block with a password because she visits often.

 

I don't ever recall buying my own food unsupervised until I was around 9th grade and had a choice between mac & cheese or greasy pizza in the school lunch room.

 

I think your stereotyping is unfair and uninformed. Assuming.. oops, I mean ASSuming , in this situation is not fair because while a parent may be doing all they can to stop their child from accessing porn it doesn't guarantee they aren't accessing it somewhere else.

[mr_genius]

Schools and the Library.

 

or free wifi hotspots

[Steff]

Don't parents have to sign off on usage of the internet there? I know mine did in high school and at the library while I was under age.

 

 

I wish they had to at the Plainfield one. Every time I go in there the group of boys at the terminals is a dead giveaway as to what they are doing. We also have a mini community center next to the fire house and they have access in there with no supervision that I've ever seen.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Took me a little while Soxy but here you go.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120605a.cfm

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst111405a.cfm

 

This study, who's findings were presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, documents the negative impact of direct viewing by children of porn.

 

 

 

 

 

To compound the problem, this study here, taken by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children........

 

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=699

 

........found the following.

 

A study of online child safety from the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center presented a mixed bag, finding that while incidents of predators approaching children were down, the rate of children being exposed to adult content online was up.

 

The report, titled “Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later,” collected information from 1,500 children ranging in age from 10-17.

 

According to the study, children who were exposed to online adult content jumped from 25 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2005.

 

I also enjoyed the irony of locating these stats on a site dedicated to anti-censorship causes.

 

Going back to my original Heritage foundation link, if you believe the London School of Economics interpretation of children's exposure to online pornography.......

 

.........

According to a study on Internet usage of children by The London School of Economics, nine out of 10 kids who go online will stumble across pornography. Let me be clear: That’s 90 percent of kids who will view porn -- most while doing their homework.

Edited October 25, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[southsideirish71]

I am against government regulation of legal internet content.

but i do see Nuke's point on this issue. if USA network or CBS decided to show XXX movies many would rejoice, but most parents wouldn't. i doubt the argument "just block the channel" would work too well.

 

if ISP's were smart they would offer packages that came with software to block pornographic sites. a lot of parents do need help when it comes to monitoring their kids internet viewing. in many cases the kids know more about computers than the parents. i don't think it would be bad if the government offered free porn blocking software and had a website explaining the whole process.

 

 

I think you hit it on the head here. Most parents either are not versed enough in the threat, or they are too naive on what their kids are exposed to. Its the old, my son/daughter would never hit XXX porn palace website. Well maybe yes or maybe no. But if they mistype a search, get the right piece of malware, or just are a bit creative they will wind up there. Now there are 2 issues with this, you have the moral issue of Child X seeing some pretty nasty stuff. On the other hand, curiosity can lead them into danger if they either decided to explore this road and they can wind up on a chatroom/webboard with people that can hurt them. Or just by innocent chatting on a myspace/community site that isnt being watched they can wind up with a friend they believe is 13 but in reality is 45. I was able to sit in a classroom years ago with fellow law enforcement officials federal/local and the class was based on luring the perverts our way so we could setup a sting to grab them. Within a few minutes of being in some normal chatrooms with a profile of a 13 year old girl we had morons trying to setup meets with us. We had one guy so bad and he was local, that we setup a sting for a lab on our Thursday afternoon class. So there are 2 different issues here the morality of the child, and the safety of the child. One can impact the other. Going down the dark alley at night is a bit more dangerous than walking on a busy well lit street. We should allow children to experience technology as it is their world that they will have to live in, but we should take measures as a society and as parents to limit what our children are exposed to. To be really honest you should take whatever measures you can as a parent to either lock down your system or monitor the hell out of it and know exactly what your kids are up to.

 

or free wifi hotspots

 

 

You mean 60% of the houses in Downers Grove or any town in the USA. It takes like 30 seconds to setup WEP/WPA on a access point yet no one does it. On my block there are 9 houses with WiFi. I am running WPA2, the guy next to me is running WEP, the rest are wide open.

[Soxy]

Took me a little while Soxy but here you go.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120605a.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst111405a.cfm

 

This study, who's findings were presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, documents the negative impact that not only direct viewing by children of porn.

To compound the problem, this study here, taken by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children........

 

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=699

 

........found the following.

I also enjoyed the irony of locating these stats on a site dedicated to anti-censorship causes.

First, a lot of the second link you provide talks about the negative impact ADULT usage of pornography has on children. So, does that mean PARENTS shouldn't be allowed to view porn? Basically, the heritage websites seem to be anti-porn period.

 

And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article).

 

Personally, I think porn is like alcohol. Yes it's a vice. It's not for everyone. But in moderate doses can it cause problems? I doubt it. If you're on the net every night playing the skin flute to porn then, yes, that is obviously going to negatively impact your family.

ETA: It's also definitely not for underage people.

 

I wish they had to at the Plainfield one. Every time I go in there the group of boys at the terminals is a dead giveaway as to what they are doing. We also have a mini community center next to the fire house and they have access in there with no supervision that I've ever seen.

Honestly, you should bring that up at a library board meeting (or to someone on the board). You pay for their services, so give them your feedback.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

First, a lot of the second link you provide talks about the negative impact ADULT usage of pornography has on children. So, does that mean PARENTS shouldn't be allowed to view porn? Basically, the heritage websites seem to be anti-porn period.

 

And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a subset. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article).

 

Personally, I think porn is like alcohol. Yes it's a vice. It's not for everyone. But in moderate doses can it cause problems? I doubt it. If you're on the net every night playing the skin flute to porn then, yes, that is obviously going to negatively impact your family.

Honestly, you should bring that up at a library board meeting (or to someone on the board). You pay for their services, so give them your feedback.

 

 

From the second link.

 

When a child or adolescent is directly exposed the following effects have been documented:

 

1.

Lasting negative or traumatic emotional responses,

2.

Earlier onset of first sexual intercourse, thereby increasing the risk of STD’s over the lifespan,

3.

The belief that superior sexual satisfaction is attainable without having affection for one’s partner, thereby reinforcing the commoditization of sex and the objectification of humans.

4.

The belief that being married or having a family are unattractive prospects;

5.

Increased risk for developing sexual compulsions and addictive behavior,

6.

Increased risk of exposure to incorrect information about human sexuality long before a minor is able to contextualize this information in ways an adult brain could.

7.

And, overestimating the prevalence of less common practices (e.g., group sex, bestiality, or sadomasochistic activity).

[Soxy]

From the second link.

From my post:

 

And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article).

 

Yes it has been documented, but Nuke, they don't tell you the frequency or prevelence. It's also been documented that a Republican Congressmen sent dirty e-mails to kids. Does that mean that the majority of congressmen do it? Or that a statistically insignificant number of congressmen do it? Without that kind of a qualification (and I would argue actual sources supporting this) it's a useless statement.

[mr_genius]

You mean 60% of the houses in Downers Grove or any town in the USA. It takes like 30 seconds to setup WEP/WPA on a access point yet no one does it. On my block there are 9 houses with WiFi. I am running WPA2, the guy next to me is running WEP, the rest are wide open.

 

 

"i luuuuv free internet"

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

From my post:

 

And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article).

 

Yes it has been documented, but Nuke, they don't tell you the frequency or prevelence. It's also been documented that a Republican Congressmen sent dirty e-mails to kids. Does that mean that the majority of congressmen do it? Or that a statistically insignificant number of congressmen do it? Without that kind of a qualification (and I would argue actual sources supporting this) it's a useless statement.

 

 

So you've gone from "oh its not really a problem"

 

I'm calling bs on that. I need to see some stats (from a reputable journal) linking porn and teen pregnancy, STDs, and age of first sexual encounter.

 

I don't buy that argument AT ALL and I would like to see some scientific support for your claim.

 

to "well it's a problem but you can't prove how much of a problem".

 

We know the effects that this stuff has on kids, we know that kids are getting access to porn online in ever increasing numbers and yet you persist in your viewpoint that this is not a pressing issue.

[Soxy]

Nuke, this study kind of addresses your point, but with relatively different hypotheses and conclusions.

 

Interesting peer reviewed article on the topic. Just found it. If anyone would like to read the entire article, drop me a pm with your e-mail and I can send you a pdf.

 

Estimates suggest that up to 90% or more youth between 12 and 18 years have access to the Internet. Concern has been raised that this increased accessibility may lead to a rise in pornography seeking among children and adolescents, with potentially serious ramifications for child and adolescent sexual development. Using data from the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years), characteristics associated with self-reported pornography seeking behavior, both on the Internet and using traditional methods (e.g., magazines), are identified. Seekers of pornography, both online and offline, are significantly more likely to be male, with only 5% of self-identified seekers being female. The vast majority (87%) of youth who report looking for sexual images online are 14 years of age or older, when it is developmentally appropriate to be sexually curious. Children under the age of 14 who have intentionally looked at pornography are more likely to report traditional exposures, such as magazines or movies. Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated. Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver. Results of the current investigation raise important questions for further inquiry. Findings from these cross-sectional data provide justification for longitudinal studies aimed at parsing out temporal sequencing of psychosocial experiences.

Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2005) Exposure to Internet pornography among children and adolescents: A national survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 8, 473-486.

 

ETA:

Ongoing concern about effects of sexually explicit materials includes the role of such material in sex offenses. Issues include sex offenders' experiences with pornography and the link between pornography and sex crime rates. Review of the literature shows that sex offenders typically do not have earlier or more unusual exposure to pornography in childhood or adolescence, compared to nonoffenders. However, a minority of offenders report current use of pornography in their offenses. Rape rates are not consistently associated with pornography circulation, and the relationships found are ambiguous. Findings are consistent with a social learning view of pornography, but not with the view that sexually explicit materials in general contribute directly to sex crimes. The effort to reduce sex offenses should focus on types of experiences and backgrounds applicable to a larger number of offenders.

 

Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 405-427

 

So you've gone from "oh its not really a problem"

to "well it's a problem but you can't prove how much of a problem".

 

We know the effects that this stuff has on kids, we know that kids are getting access to porn online in ever increasing numbers and yet you persist in your viewpoint that this is not a pressing issue.

No, I'm still waiting to see evidence from a peer reviewed journal, or at least evidence that actually has a real SOURCE. You have not yet provided any sort of statistics about increased likelyhood of getting pregnant or an STD. You have one source that says (without any citations or referenes for the fact) that says that there are documented instances of kids looking at porn having sex earlier and getting more stds. I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the your document because it provides no empirical evidence or, well, any outside evidence

 

I'm not saying this is NOT a pressing issue. I'm saying this is an issue that should be dealt with by families (and I don't mean Uncle Sam).

[Rex Kickass]

Schools and the Library.

 

Public schools can filter internet access. If they don't, maybe as a parent who gives a crap about your kid seeing such things - you should go to a school board meeting and insist on it.

[southsideirish71]

Public schools can filter internet access. If they don't, maybe as a parent who gives a crap about your kid seeing such things - you should go to a school board meeting and insist on it.

 

Well I am already taking a vested interest in my school district and have attended meetings after I bought a house in Downers Grove well before we even had our first born. I asked this and was given some nonsense from their technical director on how hard it is to get blocking software. I volunteered my time, and I even got one of my software vendors to flip the bill on some free software for the school. They still ain't thrilled about the premise of having to block stuff. But onto new problems, they are closing the school 2 blocks away and selling it for profit, and now we will have to send our kids to a school 2 1/2 miles away, and just to make matters better they want a tax increase also due to too many kids in the schools. Oxymoron time at the School district. As I have found out so far, local schools are a spiderweb of politics, bulls***, and soccer moms looking out for the program that their kid is involved in. Internet filtering is a mess that I will have to keep pounding into their heads over and over until they cave or I have to go to the papers about.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, this study kind of addresses your point, but with relatively different hypotheses and conclusions.

 

Interesting peer reviewed article on the topic. Just found it. If anyone would like to read the entire article, drop me a pm with your e-mail and I can send you a pdf.

 

Estimates suggest that up to 90% or more youth between 12 and 18 years have access to the Internet. Concern has been raised that this increased accessibility may lead to a rise in pornography seeking among children and adolescents, with potentially serious ramifications for child and adolescent sexual development. Using data from the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years), characteristics associated with self-reported pornography seeking behavior, both on the Internet and using traditional methods (e.g., magazines), are identified. Seekers of pornography, both online and offline, are significantly more likely to be male, with only 5% of self-identified seekers being female. The vast majority (87%) of youth who report looking for sexual images online are 14 years of age or older, when it is developmentally appropriate to be sexually curious. Children under the age of 14 who have intentionally looked at pornography are more likely to report traditional exposures, such as magazines or movies. Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated. Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver. Results of the current investigation raise important questions for further inquiry. Findings from these cross-sectional data provide justification for longitudinal studies aimed at parsing out temporal sequencing of psychosocial experiences.

Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2005) Exposure to Internet pornography among children and adolescents: A national survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 8, 473-486.

 

ETA:

Ongoing concern about effects of sexually explicit materials includes the role of such material in sex offenses. Issues include sex offenders' experiences with pornography and the link between pornography and sex crime rates. Review of the literature shows that sex offenders typically do not have earlier or more unusual exposure to pornography in childhood or adolescence, compared to nonoffenders. However, a minority of offenders report current use of pornography in their offenses. Rape rates are not consistently associated with pornography circulation, and the relationships found are ambiguous. Findings are consistent with a social learning view of pornography, but not with the view that sexually explicit materials in general contribute directly to sex crimes. The effort to reduce sex offenses should focus on types of experiences and backgrounds applicable to a larger number of offenders.

 

Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 405-427

No, I'm still waiting to see evidence from a peer reviewed journal, or at least evidence that actually has a real SOURCE. You have not yet provided any sort of statistics about increased likelyhood of getting pregnant or an STD. You have one source that says (without any citations or referenes for the fact) that says that there are documented instances of kids looking at porn having sex earlier and getting more stds. I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the your document because it provides no empirical evidence or, well, any outside evidence

 

I'm not saying this is NOT a pressing issue. I'm saying this is an issue that should be dealt with by families (and I don't mean Uncle Sam).

 

You've been provided with a study, presented to the U.S. Senate no less, that says that exposing children to pornography has negative effects on their development, including the effects you deny exist. ( even though these effects should be patently obvious to anyone when you take into account how impressionable children are ). You choose to disavow it.

 

You have been presented with facts and stats that say that children are viewing pornography online in increasing numbers, in spite of parent's best efforts to rein that sort of thing in. You choose to disavow it.

 

You say you require stats proving that it is so, yet even in the absence of said statistics ( I can't find a study that is that focused ) there is hard evidence that pornography negatively affects a childs development and they have easier and easier access to it. It is certainly logical to draw the conclusion that I originally have drawn but you can't seem to draw that correlation.

 

So from the history of this thread it is safe to say that you don't believe that pornography has negative effects on children. Now, in your last sentence you are saying that children viewing pornography is an issue and needs to be dealt with. Which is it?