But what about the children!

March 3, 2001 7:57 PM

But what about the children! An internet censorship bill before the South Australian Parliament gives police ridiculously broad powers in going after material "unsuitable for children".
posted by frykitty (6 comments total)

"The aim is to deter or punish people who make available on the internet material that is offensive, or unsuitable for children,"

the internet is not for children. fuck off.


posted by lescour at 10:28 PM on March 3, 2001

Australians may be way ahead of us this time. They could actually achieve what we have always dreamed of - the ability to consciously leave your children unmonitored in the "adults world." So leave it up to the gov. to determine content I say! (albeit, with much sarcasm). Haven't been to any Australian sites recently, but I hope this would be shot down for the same reasons the CDA was...ie. jurisdiction and liability. Also, for all intents and purposes, what's to stop Australian children from entering the cesspool side of U.S. culture via the web? They certainly cannot prosecute the U.S. or the Australian ISP that routed the information to the child. They may have a Spanish inquisition on their hands, when all they would need is to simply research a bit and then supply concerned parents with information on filtering programs such as NetNanny, SurfWatch, etc. And maybe even a bit of parental supervision skills and common sense to boot? I'm certain the Australian public is already capable of this, which makes the bill unnecessary.
posted by samsara at 6:54 AM on March 4, 2001

Memo to Australians: get yourself a Bill of Rights. We have one which we would be willing to license to you for a small annual fee.
posted by dhartung at 12:28 PM on March 4, 2001

The stupidity of people in this world will always amaze me. So little Timmy's mother got upset because her son saw some pornographic pictures and now the whole country has to suffer.

Can anyone say Big Brother.
posted by Zool at 5:53 PM on March 4, 2001

...simply research a bit and then supply concerned parents with information on filtering programs such as NetNanny...
But then, if they researched a bit more, maybe they wouldn't.
I'm with you on parental supervision, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:56 AM on March 5, 2001

I think that this kind of absurdity means we're headed not necessarily towards a world of Big Brother (although I can understand and appreciate that perspective), but a world in which everything is so sanitized that 10-year-olds can have access to everything.

A while back, Roger Ebert took the media and masses to task for essentially deeming NC-17 a lighter version of X when it comes to ratings. He argued, quite well I might add, that there is no true "adult" rating available for movies out there. NC-17 is supposed to be it, but due to the stigma surrounding previous NC-17 releases, movie theaters want nothing to do with them, which means that people don't get to see them. There is a solid possibility that there is some entertainment out there that requires an adult's perspective and understanding to comprehend it... but chances are, we won't see it because NC-17 is the kiss of death.

Therefore, everything must be dumbed down or simplified to R, which kids see anyway. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing Scary Movie last year, and the theater was filled with kids. The movie is marketed to kids, I feel, but a lot of the material was offensive and disgusting to me. What was it rated? R.

No one in the chain of corporations wants to step up and say no, because there's money to be made (insert morality/ethical argument here). Parents don't want to step up and say no, because they don't have time to parent anyway. So governments have to come up with inane laws such as this one, which has a potentially negative impact on the population at large, so kids don't find pr0n links.

Here's an idea. Parental supervision, as others have suggested. sheesh.
posted by hijinx at 7:26 AM on March 5, 2001