Children And The Internet Essay, Research Paper

Children and the Internet

Although the U.S. created the Internet in the 1960s as a communications tool for the military, it was not until after the government opened it to the public in the late 1980s that the Internet became a unique communications phenomenon. Nobody could predict the speed by which people all over the world grabbed onto this new form of technological communication. In 1995, there were an estimated 56 million Internet users worldwide; by 1999, this figure is expected to rise to 200 million. This tremendous growth has caused something our world has never seen before; for the first time in history, the governments of this planet are facing something that is larger than all of them combined . . . and they are terrified. A wealth of information is readily available to those who possess the technological means to access and contribute to it. It is the place where “any person can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox” (Sheremata 22). This has made the Internet a very powerful and positive forum for free expression. Parents, however, are concerned that the Internet makes pornographic, hateful, violent, profane and destructive content easily accessible to their children. But who is ultimately responsible for keeping the Internet safe for children: parents, educators, Internet service providers or the government? And how can one regulate this new form of communication without infringing on peoples’ right to freedom of expression?

Some would say that the Internet needs to be regulated by eliminating all pornographic, destructive, violent and hateful web sites. This would ensure the protection and welfare of everyone’s children. Pornography and “adult-oriented sites” are the main part of the Internet that parents do not want their children to have access to. From text to images, the graphic portrayals of almost every form of sexual activity are available to anyone regardless of age or gender. Without any restrictions one may view these images or read these “stories” within a few minutes of logging onto the Net. Making Internet service providers (ISPs) delete all the pornography may be the key to getting rid of Internet smut.

Hate propaganda is not a recent symptom of the Net but has grown significantly in the past few years. The Internet has more than 150 extreme web sites, offering a vast array of racist literature and graphics. The propaganda that these racist sites publish is believed to be detrimental to children’s welfare and mental stability. Anti-Semitic views and harassment are also part of the hate propaganda expressed on the Net. Many people think that the Internet should be free from such racism and hate, and that getting rid of these web sites would be beneficial for all.

Another problem with the Internet is all the sites that contain destructive and violent texts. Recipes for things like how to make pipe bombs have parents worried. Parents become very frightened for the safety of their children when they can make a bomb from household materials. About two years ago at a bus terminal near Erminskin Shopping Centre in Edmonton, Alberta, a teenager placed a homemade pipe bomb into a watermelon that blew not only the watermelon apart along but the bus terminal as well. Such recipes for disaster are everywhere on the net and should be eliminated before more children get hurt or killed.

Children are vulnerable to what they see and read on the Internet. Pornography, hate propaganda, and violent content is upsetting, confusing and can give children incorrect information and can also be emotionally destructive. They don’t have the knowledge to decide whether this material is good for them or not and cannot differentiate between healthy and unhealthy sexual activity. Children are easily influenced and should not be able to view or access such sites which contain pornography or hate propaganda. Canadian law states that a person must be 18 or older to purchase erotica, yet a child of nine can access such pictures on the Net that would make most adults sick.

Hate propaganda on the net may recruit kids into cults or influence their beliefs so that they exhibit racist behaviours. Also, any user can enter a hate web-site, and download pages of text and graphics without any legal hindrance or technological impediment. Such ideas and beliefs must be not be exposed to children for their safety. Destructive and violent texts also need to be kept at arms length from children because children are curious by nature. They may attempt to make some of these homemade recipes from the Net. Children have had their hands blown off before, when attempting to make pipe bombs from a recipe off the Internet.

The Internet provides access to more pornography and hate speech than parents can handle, but it also provides the tools to let them protect their children from such evils. Many markets have an incentive to regulate themselves, competing to offer consumers protection from unpleasant experiences. Parents can choose Internet access from service providers that can help them keep their offspring away from offensive material. American Online (AOL) is one of these ISPs that offer parental controls for differing ages such as child, teenager, and adult. The government is also regulating ISPs in order to them accept some of the responsibility for the material that they circulate using their network on the Internet, and will also be required to obtain a license. To guarantee that minors are not accessing inappropriate material, content providers will be required to register all users who visit their sites to verify their age. This registration process will prevent anonymous browsing and speech online, since the user will have to identify themselves in order to enter that specific site.

Also, filter and blocking software can control the presence and accessibility on the Internet of material judged objectionable by parents. The user-based filtering software is presented as an option for parents and educators so that they, instead of governments or ISPs, can engage in blocking sites considered unsuitable for children. Some better-known filters that block keywords, phrases, or certain blacklisted sites are Net Nanny, SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, and CyberSitter. However, none of these current filtering tools are 100% effective but range around 97% effectiveness. The newest filter on the market My Father’s Eyes is the first and only Internet filtering device which is 100% secure and guarantees that children will not be exposed to material which is either questionable or offensive. However, the implication of blocking and filtering software could inevitably lead to, in a worst case scenario, a bland and homogenized Internet for children.

The vast majority of the content on the Internet is not porn, but if people want adult content they can find it. However, child pornography is on the Net as well and should be altogether wiped out, some forms of pornography may, in certain instances, provide a useful social service, such as “relief for the lonely or education for the dysfunctional” (O’Connell, 36). Pornography is legal as anyone can see by looking behind the counter at their local convenience store. The pornographic magazines may be wrapped in brown paper but they are still there. Of course, children do not have access to this pornographic medium. They do, however, have access to the Net through their homes, schools, and libraries. A recent survey by SurfWatch showed that nearly all parents whose children have Internet access are aware of the dangerous material on the Internet, but many have no idea how much time their children are spending on it. Parents need to pay attention to what their children are doing, and even closer attention to how they are using the Net. The protection of children must also go outside of the home, at their schools and at their libraries. Presently, many schools and libraries at the elementary, junior and senior levels are beginning to use these filtering devices to block certain aspects of the Internet that they deem questionable. This still presents the problem of censorship but at a minimal level for children not adults.

People may not like pornography or racist views but the right to freedom of expression guarantees that people can have those views and post that material. Not only is anonymous communication another class of constitutionally protected speech, but it is a vital component of online interaction. David Jones, a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., has found that “the more experience people have on the Net, the more they appreciate its openness” (5). Jones also added that, “people come to realize that they can make choices themselves and [that] they don’t need some bureaucrat to decide what they can [or cannot] see” (3). The Internet is an adult environment, with all the problems of the real adult world. Therefore, a system of restrictions should be placed on children below the age of 18. Getting rid of certain forms of expression on the Net diminishes what it stands for – freedom of expression. People who are over the age of 18 need not be censored, for they are presumed to be adults who can make the necessary decisions as to what they wish to view or read on the Internet.

Most authors using electronic media do not produce material that is any “worse” than that available from newsagents, video shops, or mail-order sources. What is new is that all types of material are equally, and easily, accessible to everyone. Regulation of the Internet is not needed but one must regulate children’s access to it. Through the use of ISPs that have parental controls or by using your own filtering software one may keep all the “evils” of the Net away from their children. Freedom of expression is not limited in this process but children’s viewing capabilities are. However, since kids are usually more computer smart than their parents, keeping one step ahead of them in the technology arena can be quite a trick. To censor the Internet or let the government handle it would be ultimately the worst thing that could happen. Where would the government stop once they had this power to eliminate ideas that aren’t in their “best interests”? We do not live in Singapore where they restrict the Internet. The Internet does not present the views of a few privileged speakers, but rather allows all participants to publish, comment on, and even refute, what they read. Therefore, any attempt to regulate the Internet would impact heavily, and negatively, on free expression.

5c9

Caragata, Warren. “Crime in Cybercity” Landmarks: A Process Reader Scarborough, Ontario:

Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada, 1998: pp. 149-153

“Canadians Call For Internet Regulation.” Newsbytes News Network, 12-23-1997, pp 23-24

Sheremata, Davis. “Smut on the Internet.” Vol. 22, Alberta Report / Western Report,

05-01-1995, pp 19.

“Internet Freedom.” Online. Oct 3 1998. http://www.netfreedom.org/uk/nofmain.html

Yaman, Akdeniz. “The Regulation of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Internet.”

Online. 3 October 1998. http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/internet/97_1akdz/contentf.htm