A decision on Thursday by Judge Lowell Reed Jr, a federal district court judge, has made it clear that efforts to protect children from online pornography will have to remain up to the parents.

When children look for porn on the Internet, they’re sure to find it; and sadly, sometimes it crosses their eyes without intent. While I wouldn’t oppose a law that removed “porn popups” from the Internet, but I do feel strongly that it is the parents responsibility to protect their children from content that they feel is unsuitable for them.

If the Internet was a gun, pornography would be its bullets. Sure, I do see pornography as a bad thing; but there are evils everywhere, and it doesn’t mean one should restrict everything that contains immoral influences from their children.

Many things in this world can be very useful to a child, including a computer, but not so much the Internet. It should remain strictly up to the parents to monitor their children on the Internet, not the government.

It sickens me when people place the blame on a third-party to justify their poor parenting. If you don’t like it and have no means to enforce or monitor it, remove it.

I may be dumb, but I’m certainly not ignorant. I know the Internet contains much material that is unsuitable for children, as should everyone; therefore, I employ rigorous methods in my home to prevent such content from reaching my children’s eyes.

I do realize, however, that many children can operate a computer far better than their parents; so I’ve provided a few tips to help:

First, Place your computer in the most popular room in your home, and make sure the monitor is clearly visible. When your child is on the Internet, check in frequently to see what he/she is doing. Don’t feel intimidated; it’s your home, and you are the one who is responsible for your child.

Second, employ some sort of web filtering software such as Net Nanny, CyberPatrol or RESCUECOM Internet Security Suite. Often times, your Internet Service Provider will offer child filtering software free of charge; so it may be wise to check with them first. Filtering software has numerous advantages; they allow you to choose which times your child can be on the Internet, block or allow only certain web pages, and will even scan the page for special keywords (sex, xxx, etc,.) prior to loading the page.

Third, If your child is older, you may choose to implement a form of “spy” software to see what sites they are visiting, read their Instant Messaging text, etc,.

Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media seems to offer a different view, saying, “Today, if a child were to walk into an ‘adult bookstore,’ he or she would be told to leave, because it is against the law to sell pornography to children in real space. But if that same child were to ‘click’ to most commercial websites that distribute pornography, he or she could view pornography free of charge and without restriction, because when it comes to ‘cyberspace,’ the federal courts think it is up to parents to keep children away from Internet pornography.”

Unlike the Internet, nothing good can come out of an adult bookstore. Robert’s views are valid; however, they should be directed towards ignorant parents than federal courts.

If all else fails, just remove the Internet connection altogether or supervise Internet usage; a computer without the Internet can offer the same advantages to any child given  the correct software loaded on that machine. And by all means, don’t bitch because someone else isn’t doing your job.

Related:

Entry was posted on Friday, March 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 am under Adult content, Internet, Legal, Opinion.

Read more entries by George Gardner.
Stumble It!