Comments: Authenticated sender is <nitefall@idirect.com>
From: "Brandi Jasmine" <nitefall@idirect.com>
To: webgrrls-toronto@cgim.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 08:43:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: TWG: Re: webgrrls-toronto-digest V1 #192
Priority: normal
Sender: owner-webgrrls-toronto@webgrrls.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Brandi Jasmine" <nitefall@idirect.com>
Status:   

> Yeah. Parents do make stupid desicions for their children. They can also
> be extremely controlling and abusive. I think that some people really

If their parents are stupid, controlling and abusive, then social services 
and/or the police need to be involved and like I said, no website is going to 
do them much good.

> it right I didn't save the original note)  "if you don't pay for the
> computer you can't complain about not having access to everything." Well,
> most teenagers can't afford a computer, let alone internet access. I know

I don't think you have really thought this through.  Are you suggesting now 
that Internet access is an essential service?  Who is going to pay for all 
this?  Welfare doesn't pay for clothes, furniture, hydro and phone services 
NOW, and YES, that sucks.  I was RAISED on welfare in a single-parent home.  I 
boot-strapped myself up as a teenager and young adult, I made my own 
opportunities - there were no "cool" parents to pay a $40,000 tuition.  

You imagine that some fantasy site that they "might" need access to just 
"might" solve poor kids problems, and thinking you have protected that makes 
you feel good, but that's all it does, really.  You aren't offering any 
realistic alternatives. In fact, your position virtually guarantees that many 
public outlets will close up entirely, and those that are left will be 
regulated by the government.  I hope you're okay with that.  I'm not.

> Kids should be afforded the
> dignity and respect that an adult recieves, but a lot of people see
> children as not quite human (at least not yet).

If you take this to its logical extreme, they should have the same 
responsibilities too - a thought that is terribly frightening in its 
implications.  Children NEED guidance and protection, to suggest this is an 
insult to their dignity as human beings is an insult to reason.  No-one would 
suggest that a mother who stops a child from sticking forks into light sockets 
is "dehumanizing" her child by imposing reasonable limits.  Some parents may 
draw the line in different places for their children.  As long as they don't 
impose that line on MY children, then they have the right - whether I approve 
or not.  Society draws the line at health and sanity - and I have yet to see 
any compelling argument that information exclusively available on the Internet 
could safe-guard either one.

>  I don't think that it is really easy to come across this stuff
> unknowingly. I have NEVER unwittingly downloaded ANYTHING I found

I wouldn't assume your experiences are universal.  You as an individual 
user are only in a position to speak for yourself, which essentially is my 
point.  When you encounter "public" systems such as libraries, you must accept 
the will of the majority - that is the ONLY place where the term "censorship" 
might be fairly applied -  and what that will IS as yet has not been decided 
with finality.  No matter how many pronouncements of doom have been posted, the 
Internet sky is nowhere near falling.

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