Responding to Phaedra's complaints, one by one....

On Tue, 9 Jan 1996, phaedra wrote:

   xerxes said...
> There have been extensive focus group studies of parents 
using the 
> > Internet and online services, as well as those who do not.  There is no 
> > need to prompt them about their fears concerning cyberporn.  They tell 
> > you how they feel, without your specifically asking.......that is how 
> > strong the salience is.  This feature of opinion is more pronounced in 
> > some areas, such as the mid-west, than others.  Exon is from Nebraska, BTW.
> 
> Do they fear it because they have experienced it, because it has "forced" 
> its way into their homes, because their children have hacked their way 
> into pornographic sites, because their children have "accidently" 
> stumbled onto sites with nudity, because their neighbors have shared 
> horror stories, because a friend of a friend of a friend's kid got a 
> dirty email? 
> Or because they have been whipped into hysteria from an iresponsible 
> media and an overzealous, over-regulatory government? 

Extremists on both sides of this issue do seem to have whipped themselves
into a semi-hysterical state....but the average parent just seems to be
concerned about potential problems ... due to news reports they have seen
of actual problems, and less often, the example of a picture of two they
have seen that someone they know has downloaded. 

More responses below.

> > I believe that parents should control their kids access, for example, but 
> > I also know that this belief begs the question.   Many parents need help 
> > here.  Parents should also try to keep kids from smoking, but that does 
> > not keep parents groups from trying to force local authorities to more 
> > strictly enforce sales to minors state laws, ....does it?  
> > 
> >  
> > > > Parents remember their parents warning them about tobacco and alcohol (and
> > > > most of us listened)....but we never dealt directly with cyberporn when we
> > > > were kids.  The devil you know is always less threatening than the one you
> > > > do not.  Besides, many more people smoke and drink than use net
> > > > porn............think about it.  Many feminists also oppose pornography. 
> > > > 
> > > > Politicians represent popular will....THAT'S THEIR JOB.  The anti-tobacco
> > > > campaign is coming from the elites, while the anti-smut concerns are
> > > > coming from the masses, ......its a question of numbers. 
> > > 
> > > The masses aren't even online yet. People are being manipulated into a 
> > > frenzy about something they don't understand, haven't experienced and 
> > > will likely never experience.
> > 
> > No.  Not in all cases.  many people who have access express the same 
> > fears.  There have been more than a few on the tube lately, telling the 
> > broadcast network viewing public how their kids were victimized. 
> 
> 
> Many. More than a few. 
> Spare me these generalizations, please. 

I am not writing a legal brief here, phaedra old chum.  Many cases have 
been reported in the past two years. One may research specifics on the 
legal databases, or Lexis Nexis Dialog......
 
> Exactly what is victimization anyway? Their children were physically 
> assaulted or received live phone calls or questionable email or what? 

All of these are victimization, and they have all occured, and been 
reported as examples.  I HAVE NOT seen a discussion of the total number 
 of such events.... i.e. is the total increasing in the past 3 years, or 
not, for example, but I expect that someone must be compiling these numbers.

> You don't really expect me to accept fuzzy examples like that, do you?

I do expect you to accept that they have happened, because they have been 
widely reported by broadcast and print journalists.  I do not expect you 
to accept any quauntitative assumptions about their prevalence, since I 
am not aware that any such stories have circulated,....but that data may 
exist at this point....I may look into this.
 
> How about I say, 'wow, i heard that there are christian right parents who 
> are pretending that their children have been harassed online just so they 
> can get on TV and talk about filth on the Internet'?

Well, the FBI has brought cases in the DC area recently and won convictions.
The perps were caught in sting operations........the number of such cases 
pending, is, as I understand it, growing.  This is checkable......are 
there any journalists on this list interested in getting some better 
numbers on the legal angle here?

> I am more likely to believe that than I am to believe there are monsters 
> hiding in the Internet ready to pounce on my child. 

There are some bad folks out there on the net....believe it.  How 
prevalent they are I cannot say....but some numbers may be available to a 
resourceful person who wants to know......

> 
>  The CBS 
> > series, THe Client, had an entire dramatized program about it less than 2 
> > weeks ago...about 11 million people saw it.  ABC has covered it, NBC has 
> > covered it, CNN.......   are all these journalists wrong?  Are they all 
> > extremists?  Are they all ignorant?  hmmmmm......? 
> 
> 
> The key word is DRAMATIZE. 

Fine.  All the networks' news divisions have covered this.  I mentioned 
the CBS drama of two weeks ago because that is the first non-news 
portrayal of the issue I had seen so far,

> Oh yeah, i remember in the 80s all the horror stories about the personal 
> columns. About how women were being stalked and killed through the 
> personals. There were LOTS of media stories about that. Were they 
> ignorant or looking for good ratings? 

Crimes related to the personals columns have happened, and continue to 
happen.  Drama writers adopt stories from life...it happens.

> > > I am not afraid of SMUT coming into my home. 
> > 
> > well, good for you.......does this make you better than the people who 
> > do fear cyberporn...
> 
> 
> It makes me a lot less hysterical over phantom threats. I think the people 
> who "fear" cyberporn fear a lot more than dirty pictures on the Internet. 
> Strangely enough, they seem to fear their own children.

Concern over REAL sources of RISK is not hysteria.  It is prudent, 
responsible conduct for people with young kids.  You seem determined to 
believe that certain real events have not happened.  They have, including 
rapes and abductions, accomplished and attempted.  These are on the 
record, and you can find them if you wish to do so.

I am going to forward this note to a producer I know at one of the 
broadcast network news programs, and ask them if they can find some of 
the numbers for the rate of indictments and convictions in cyberporn/ped 
type cases in the past 3 years.  The high degree of skepticism about the 
facts of these events prevalent among some on this group surprises me.

> A few questions for you:
> 
> At what age do you allow a teenager to have a phone in his/her room? 

I would say this depends upon the specifc teen, his/her maturity, school 
performance, and the economic circumstances of his/her parents.  I doubt 
that many kids under 14 should have a personal phone.

> At 
> what age do you allow unmonitored access to a computer?

Similar answer.  I know kids who use a computer commonly while their 
parents are out, or engaged in other activities.  Many kids arrive home 
from school while their parents are still at work.  Booting the family PC 
is pretty simple...logon ditto, especially with an untimed ISP account.
 
> Why is it not enough that a parent filter the child's access? 

This question just is not that simple...it has been answered repeatedly, 
but it keeps getting asked by people who are determined to avoid the 
reality of living with kids.  You must keep them from 
temptation....especially younger (under 14) or irresponsible kids. They 
will deliberately try something you warn them about, just out of 
curiousity, or on a dare, or because they forgot, or because one of their 
friends did it, or.....any one of a million reasons.  Kids are 
kids....their judgement and experience is limited, ..even the best ones 
push the limits....it is their nature.  At a certain point you just 
cannot protect them any longer....but that point is not at 12-13, and 
trends that loosen parental control at ever younger ages are not healthy.

Kids have access to computers when parents are not around.  Parents want 
kids to use the machine as a substitute for TV....it is better for 
them...in most cases....but unfortunately, not all cases.

As Vinnie pointed out, there are no doors in cyberspace.  A 11 year old
cannot walk into a strip club......but the bouncers will stop him/her. 
But an 11 year old can enter the seamier side of the Usenet.....NO
PROBLEM...it happens .... the printed out images appear in school yards. 
This problem was reported in the UK 2 years ago. 

All parents are not in a position to keep their kids from this activity 
all the time.  There is no way for the average parent to protect the 
average kid from this misstep at all times.  Parents NEED AND DESERVE HELP.

> (if you spout out the how-tough-it-is-to-be-a-parent line, i'll scream)
> 
> 
> I am also curious about when exactly parents determined their kids have a 
> govt-protected right to access the Internet? If you want to protect your 
> kid, keep the sex-obsessed brat off the Net. Use the library for research. Use 
> the school computer for research. 

This view is extremely myopic.  Parents cannot always keep kids off the 
net.  And when they are on the net, they cannot always monitor activity 
minute to minute.  Teachers cannot do this either.  


  
> > Not even close to my motto.  Your characterization of my position is a
> > profound distortion of my actual beliefs.  Just one more of many.
> > Hohum....
> 
> "Hohum?"
> 
> Now _there_ is a open-minded willingness to explain your position!

I have been explaining my positions on this issue on this list for 14 
months or so.  Check Steve's archive if you do not believe me.  The last 
time was just days ago.....  
 
> 
> You say a lot, but your "actual beliefs" are a cloudy picture. 

Not to  the folks who have read my posts.  Vin knows where I stand; I'll 
wager Steve does; I think Richard does; Doc may know at this point, and 
others too,.... I certainly explained it to Thom often enough.

> You claim that existing laws are not sufficient to cover the Internet, 
> but you don't clarify where they fail. 

Nonsense, they fail because they do not control the problem...if you 
doubt me...go observe the obscene images in the alt.binaries, enforcement 
is not successfully dealing with these.

You speak in very emotional, 
> defensive terms, but you also show a lack of understanding of 
> where government-mandated restrictions will lead. 

Nonsense.  It is entirely unclear that possible nightmare scenarios are 
predestined.  The scare tactics about where certain legislation MIGHT 
lead is ungrounded in demonstrable evidence.  They are allegations.
If enforcement mechanisms become too onerous, the courts will intervene, 
as will the political process, and the imbalance will be rectified.  The 
possibility that a piece of legislation might not be absolutely perfect is 
not a reason necessarily to reject it.  The original Clean Air Act was 
hardly perfect, but it was necessary, and the problems were fixed in time.

> 
> You refuse to see beyond your parental paranoia and accuse everyone who 
> disagrees with you of distorting your position. 

The individuals who distort my position deserve to be so criticized. 

> 
> Honestly. Ask yourself, if "many" people misinterpret your point of view, 
> then perhaps it is you that is unclear. 

Ok, I'll ask myself.  There are 1400+ people on this list, and about 6-9
who have been actively taking issue with me on aspects of this issue.  Am
I being unclear, or are they being obtuse in order to argue their
ideological convictions without addressing my points.  My convictions
remain consistent with my posts, which tickle my friends, and infuriate my
opponents. Hmmm.....that seems right.  8-)

I am very accustomed to encountering rhetorical subterfuge.  It does not
surprise ....but only bores.  Attacking a distortion of a person's positions
is far easier than actually making the effort to refrain from stereotyping
them.  Essentially, most folks are lazy.  I can be lazy too, especially 
if my respect for an opponent begins to ebb.

cheers back at ya, jwr or Eppie or whomever,

xerx  ..... carpeting snow cave tonight.....

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #465
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Thu Jul 20 11:31:34 1995
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23325 ; for ; Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:31:31 -0400