Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:04:26 +0000
From: Brandi Jasmine <nitefall@idirect.com>
To: webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com
Subject: Re: TWG: Re: Net Censorship (Warning: Long!)

> I know that the idea of "protecting children from [fill
> in the blank - sex, violence, politics, reality, etc.]" is a bit of a
> sacred cow, but it's one that I, at least, have some mixed feelings
> about...

You have the right to that decision for your own children, but not for 
anyone else's.

> The problem with parents' "right" to decide what their children can and
> can't see is, in part, the definition of a child. A six year old and a
> sixteen year old are very different creatures. And while I don't think too
> many people would contest the idea that some things aren't suitable for the
> former, when you start dealing with teenagers, things become a little more
> complex.

That choice is legally with the parents of any minor child, the definition 
of a minor being set by the state of province.  When the child achieves 
majority, they have the right to make certain decisions for themselves.  
Parents make stupid, counter-productive decisions for their children every 
day.  Some parents refuse to permit their children to have blood 
transfusions and medical care - and in all but the most extreme cases, 
parental wishes are respected.  Are ideas more sacred than medicine?
 
> But a lot of other young gays and lesbians, including a lot of my friends,
> are not nearly as lucky. I have known people whose parents responded to
> their coming out - or being "outed" - by beating them up, throwing them out
> of the house, trying to commit them to psychiatric institutions, disowning
> them, and other not-so-nice things. As a result, some ended up on the
> street, in trouble with drugs or alcohol, or attempting suicide - gay and
> lesbian teenagers have a *very* high suicide rate.

I can identify with the issue as I have gay loved ones, and because the 
Internet is a lifeline for me - and especially in the days past the group 
suicide in California, my own "community" of new-age thinkers has come 
under attack (there are people saying all "cult" sites should be 
"overseen", whatever that means).  I don't feel that denying freedom of 
choice to parents will resolve anything, and it will, IMO make matters 
worse as it deprives a bunch of control freaks from a tool that makes 
them feel as if they at least have control over what comes into their own 
homes - which for some odd reason they feel they have a right to do.   

> >Better Netnanny than the Communications Decency Act.
> 
> Well, I think we can agree on that, at least, but I'm not convinced it's
> all *that* much better. 

Well, the truth of the matter is that there is an unstoppable wave of 
"something must be done" mentality sweeping the nation.  The Internet is a 
scapegoat for any number of political interests.  Extremists on both sides 
are lining up into inflexible positions.  You may set yourself up to be an 
immovable object - brace yourself for an unstoppable force.  I prefer to 
be a little more pragmatic myself.  You will never be able to talk sense 
into a mother who's 10 year old daughter has just downloaded pictures from 
feral.com.

Brandi
--
Brandi Jasmine -- Freelance Writer, Illustrator, Consultant 
Visit: http://web.idirect.com/~bjasmine/