Rules...laws...responsibility

[GreenIs]

So I use a site called open diary and said in one of my notes how the site lists rules of don't insult, don't swear...basically be a decent person, but they are never upheld. I thought it was aweful that in some OD's you could read how to kill yourself or how to be successfully vomit your food up to be thin. I said these were inapproperate for all the many young teens on the site who could be influenced. Well I got a real stronge response to it. Most agreed with me but then one did not and said the usual to what we all here "it's up to the parent or guardine, not me to care about someone elses kids." This just blew me away. I mean in first respect sure, they are right, but then in later respect not all kids have parents who care so it leaves these rules and laws to protect them and it is up to us as decent people to uphold them. Afterall they are put there to protect everyone, and without them our world would be...well...gun slingers time.

So basically I wanted to here how you guys stand on how far is too far to care about other peoples kids and the laws that protect us all?

 

[Mulderator]

Hmmmm. I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you talking about rules and laws regarding the content of the Internet or kids in general. In other words, if you are talking about regulating the content of the Internet, you open a big can of worms. If you are talking about laws to protect children in general, that is an entirely different question. Maybe you can clarify?

 

[columbo]

Hi,

I agree with you that certain content is inappropriate for children (ie-a step-by-step guide to commiting suicide), but unfortunately, freedom of expression is a pretty wide blanket, and we cannot censor or forbid material just because we find it distasteful. I think that the only feasible solution to protecting children, is to introduce better safeguards from adult-oriented content on the internet. We have such safeguards to prevent the sale of liquor, tobacco, and other products that we deem "adult", and yet the internet remains, in a sense, a "free-for-all". I think that steps are being taken in the right direction by certain sites requiring actual proof of age, as opposed to saying "Are you really over 18?". I think that governments should require ISP's to thoroughly review any content before they allow it to be posted. If any material is deemed inappropriate for children, then those who run the sites should have to make everyone verify their age, before allowing access. Right now, I think that only some adult sites have this in effect.
However, I do want to say that in the last 10 years, it seems as though more and more youth-related crime is occuring, and the blame for this is lying on the internet, or violent movies, or music. This is complete nonsense. Society is not responsible for raising your children, and instilling a set of values and morals upon them. Our responsibilty is to not participate in or create something which may harm or corrupt a child. Ensuring a good upbringing is the responsibilty of the parents of those children.

 

[MacFromOK]

How many think it's OK to let your children go out
anywhere (brothels, etc.), anytime, without you
knowing where they are or what they're doing?

The internet is basically a door to the world,
with all it's treasures and trash.

PARENTS: MONITOR YOUR KIDS. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Cheers, Mac

 

[columbo]

Often it is the same people that allow their children to go out, without knowing where they're going or who they're with, that blame their kid's behaviour or mistakes on movies, music, TV, and the internet (anything but their piss-poor parenting).

 

[GreenIs]

mulder, I think what I am asking is...whether it is right to dismiss any laws or just common decent ideas knowing that children maybe looking on.

Like Mac said there is no exceptions.

But not all kids out there have perants or guardines who watch over or guide them while they surf the net, and when I saw this one site were they actually stated their rules but were not upholding them. I found it terrible becuse many kids from ages 14-18 use the site, and as we all know these are the ages when most teens are either depressed or suicidle at some point.

K, i've lost my point now...lol. Basically i was upset because someone chose to not care and their OD was full of stuff you wouldn't want anyone reading, eg: how to kill yourself successfully.

I was annoied by irrisponisibility towards others younger then ourselves.

The internet is a shopping mall full of a lot of great things but more so I think a lot of bad things our kids can get into...including ourselves. I think it should be regulation that if you have children in the house who have access to the computer that they are given their own IP so that they can in no way visit any site that may be insuiteable. Everything needs a limit...even the internet.

 

[Mulderator]

OK, but I think that's up to the individual parent, not the government. I don't agree with any attempt to "regulate" the Internet although I don't agree with much of what is on there (a large percentage is pornogrophy). That then brings up the issue of what is dangerous to children. Frankly, I'd rather have my children on a pornogrophy site than one that promotes violence, if I had to choose. However, I don't think the Internet is any different then any other instance in life. I expect my children to know right from wrong. We've spoken with them and they know they are not to go on any sight that's "dirty" and they both (ages 9 and 11) know exactly what we mean. However, I AM NOT going to police it just like as they get older I would not attempt to find out whether they were doing anything I didn't like (i.e., sex, smoking pot, etc.). I expect them to police themselves and obey the rules of the household until such time they demonstrate they can't do it.

Bottom line is I nor any of you can shield your children from anything. If they are inclined to do drugs, have premarital sex, surf porn sites on the Internet, or whatever, they are going to do it regardless of, and often in spite of, your rules to the contrary. All you can do is lead by example by emphasizing good moral values, courtesy to their fellow human being, the importance of bulding their own values, etc. and most importantly, PRACTICING IT YOURSELF. It is impossible to force your children to do or not do something, especially when you don't yourself. And of course, I'm not talking about 5 or 6 year olds--I'm talking about as they get old enough to start formulating their own values and morals.

One thing I think is very important is the participation of activities outside of school. I encouraged strongly my girls to play sports, which both of them do as I think its an excellent way to learn valuable lessons for later in life and keep them out of trouble. Both have taken up an instrument to play, and the list goes on an on. Its like the old saying, "idle hands are the devils work" or something like that. Keep 'em involved in positive activities and set an example is all you can reasonably do. After that, its in God's hands, or whatever power you believe controls these things.

 

[columbo]

Mulder,

When I spoke of "regulations", I wasn't referring to government control over content, I was referring more to a need for ISP's to be more responsible for what their customer's are posting. The advertisement industry has strict regulations on what is acceptable, and what is not. These regulations are in place in print media, television, billboards, radio, etc. If I were to try to buy advertising space on a billboard, and told the company that owned that billboard that I was planning on writing out suicide instructions in giant letters, or putting up a pornographic photo, do you think they would allow it? Of course not. So why should the internet be any different?
I definitely agree that parents must shoulder a great portion of the responsibility, but I don't think that absolves anyone without children from the responsibility of doing their part to protect them. It is an unfortunate reality that kids are targeted and preyed upon (well into their teens), and I sincerely hope that you won't resign to letting your kids completely "police" themselves, as I'm sure they'll need your guidance for many years to come.

 

[MacFromOK]

I agree. There's a reason the legal age for the
most part is 18 (drinking is 21 ain't it?)...

 

[Mulderator]

I sincerely hope that you won't resign to letting your kids completely "police" themselves, as I'm sure they'll need your guidance for many years to come.

You're missing the point. The only way a child learns responsibility is to allow them to be responsible. I'm not saying I'm going to tell my daughter she can come home anytime she likes. When she starts dating or going out with friends (i.e., unsupervised by adults), she'll have a time she has to be home. If she does not and the reason for not isn't reasonable, she'll lose some privileges.

There are parents who believe they need to protect and shield their children from all the evil and bad there is in the world. I don't agree with that. I think the children need to learn as young as possible to start defining their own moral code and my sincere hope is they will not surf the porn site on the internet because they have a moral repugnancy to it. I'm not going to put protections on the computer to stop them from doing it--I personally don't agree with that, but I can understand another parent wanting to do it. My belief is that if I allow my children great personal freedom (as I had when I was a child), they will be more discerning adults. You can't expect a child to act responsibly until you GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM TO!

That's my point about not "policing" them. That's not the same as letting them do whatever the hell they want.

 

[Jest8]

Grrrrr... there's so many damned answers to this question I can't seem to pick the right one!

We've got to give kids some credit... just because there's information on a web site on suicide 101, it does NOT mean that they will go out and do it!
And how many people need to be instructed on how to throw up? It's not that difficult!

Now I'm not naive enough to believe that children are all smart and have learned right from wrong, but censorship is not the answer.. it has never been the answer. Better education about the things we're afraid of is.

 

[RandyG]

Darn it Mulder!!

Will you please stop printing my own views!! I want you to go back to your normal silly ideas, and leave my brilliant ones alone!


In all honesty, I think we can chalk this one up to another we can agree on!

It scares me to think of someone else, or a group of "moral majority" wannabees, deciding that they know best for my child. That is what my fear is of what GreenIs proposed. It's a great idea to set guidelines and standards, but some people take it too far, and you all of a sudden have enforced laws that are stupid and nonsensical.

the laws against suicides is one. how are you to enforce this one?

 

[Mulderator]

In actuality, Randi, the law against suicide is a good thing and not because anyone thinks its going to deter anyone from doing it. What it is for is that many people who attempt suicide are not successful, probably because they don't really want to be successful. But what it does is lets authorities take them into custody and "hold" them where they can be given medications and hopefully deterred from a second attempt.

Interesting thing about depression. People think its a mental thing or that its caused by great stresses or tragedy. The truth is that clinical depression (as oppossed to someone feeling "down")is an organic condition caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain. The only effective treatment for it is anti-depressant medication. Counseling is actually a bad thing for a person who is severely depressed because it may cause the person to avoid the medication they need. The modern psychiatrist DOES NOT recommend any counseling and in fact recommends against it until a person has been on a course of anti-depressants for several months and is out of danger of suicide. Only then will they allow counseling, if the person desires.

But your point Randy about the religious right is important because many of those organizations are oppossed to the use of anti-depressant medications believing that faith in God is all anyone needs. Its like telling a diabetic all they have to do is have faith in God and they don't need their insuline--ridiculous.

Recently my niece suffered from severe post pardom depression and I recall my sister saying "we have to get her off the drugs" and I just about ripped her heart out of her chest. Well meaning relatives, unfortunately, believe they can help the depressed person with "emotional support" when in reality they should step aside and let the doctor treat the condition. I'm not saying you don't give moral support, but you DON'T give recommendations as to how to "get better". You wouldn't do it for a diabetic and you shouldn't do it for a person suffering from depression. Both conditions are organic and can only be treated effecticely with medication. Bottom line is you let a medical professional treat the condition--you don't do it for yourself or for your loved one.

PS--now watch the people that come out of the woodwork on this one

 

[GoneForNow]

Point of order Mr. Moderator, it is against the law to attempt suicide, it is not against the law to commit suicide, for obvious reasons. Death is the forgiver of all transgressions and some taxes too.

 

[DNeurococo]

GB - If it is NOT against the law to (successfully) commit suicide, then how can they prosecute Dr. Jack Kevorkian for assisting someone to do something not against the law?

My guess is that it IS against the law to commit suicide, only it is a bit difficult to prosecute someone for it!