I think Further up Further in was Re: Black pages

[Cousineau, Laura]

I have two children, a boy and a girl, ages 10 and 12.  I am very proud indeed 
when they surf the net.  I feel they are learning about gathering information.  
They have learned to download shareware and print out pages about their favorite 
pop stars.  They know how to use search engines.  This is no more a "babysitting  
device" than is a tennis match or a scout meeting.  It is, no more or less, one 
of their many activities.

Just as I teach them about what televisions shows they may view, and what videos 
they may rent, I teach them about what they may and may not view on the net.  
  My child was not allowed to keep the Doom game we had downloaded, because 
after we tested it, I deemed it too violent.  These are my decisions.  I do not 
want the government involved.

We should all be outraged by child pornography and the depiction of violence 
against women.  But I think history shows that when government gets involved 
with censorship, it hurts us rather than helps us.  If the government wants to 
help families, let them stop violence against children and women.  That has 
always been against the law, although it seems to be quite pervasive still in 
our society.

Laura Cousineau
Information Access Librarian
Perkins Reference
Duke University
lkc at mail.lib.duke.edu

RE:
Marcia Tucker wrote:

> 
> I can not tolerate the bizarre idea that children have a "right" to
> be on the Internet/World Wide Web without some direction via an adult
> or teacher!  It would be similiar to having left a child alone in
> Times Square (NYC) without any direction or help!
> The Internet can never be a baby sitting service or
> a playground which allows children to freely roam
> regardless of this bill!  There is already available
> censoring software which could aid parents/teachers if they are worried,
> so why the Bill?

First of all, thank you Marcia for your support for those of us fighting these 
new laws.

I feel I must respond to some of the issues brought up in the above paragraph. 
When we talk about children getting on the Internet, what are we talking about? 
8-year-olds or 14-year-olds? I can see an 8-year-old getting guidance from a 
teacher or parent when they surf the Net, but the current debate bothers me 
because it purports to protect "children" under the age of 18 from indecent 
materials on the Net.

I'm 30 now, but I try to remember myself as a teenager before the age of 16. I 
was very angry that adults felt they had a right to restrict what I read or saw. 

 I had always been a very advanced reader and started checking out books from 
the "adult" sections of public libraries at an early age.

I'm saying that "teenagers" from the age of 12 should have the same free speech 
rights that adults enjoy. They should be able to surf the Net like any adult. 
Kids at this age are at a developmental stage where they can handle 
controversial materials they might find. Sure, some of them are immature and may 

be shocked, but so are some adults. Why should we protect them from accessing 
the Penthouse Web page when they may be able to access Daddy's magazine 
collection. I think that some parental guidance could be benefical at these 
ages, but access shouldn't be dependent on it.

I guess you all could chalk me up on the children's rights side. I know this 
whole debate has been a thorny one.

Chuck Munson