Pornography and Internet Censorship

[AzurePhoenix]

I agree. I just think something needs to be done to limit access for those who shouldn't be watching it.

[swansont]

consider that 80% of school students have accidentally stumbled upon porn while on the Internet.

 

I think that only 20% of them being able to find it on their own points to the poor state of educational systems.

[Phi for All]

I think that only 20% of them being able to find it on their own points to the poor state of educational systems.

swansont, the phunniest physicist on the phorum! Trust you to have the proper reference frame.

[budullewraagh]

haha good call, swansont.

 

my parents have yet to speak to me on sexual issues. one day i looked down and asked myself "hmm, what does this do?" well, not quite, but you get the drift. porn is educational and helps one figure out what does what and how it happens. otherwise, that first time would be very, very awkward

[Flareon]

haha good call' date=' swansont.

 

my parents have yet to speak to me on sexual issues. one day i looked down and asked myself "hmm, what does this do?" well, not quite, but you get the drift. porn is educational and helps one figure out what does what and how it happens. otherwise, that first time would be very, very awkward[/quote']

 

I just looked at your profile...shouldn't you be averting your eyes, underaged one? Porn is for tasteless adults, only.

 

Then again, I was once exposed to porn at the tender age of 11 ( ) and turned out okay, so eh...

[Hellbender]

I don't believe in censoring pornography, or anything for that matter. For guys, it is sort of a right of passage and a learning experience, if you watch it the right way.

[budullewraagh]

"I just looked at your profile...shouldn't you be averting your eyes, underaged one? Porn is for tasteless adults, only."

 

no, not really

[Coral Rhedd]

Ouch. And yeah, I did eventually get saddled with a bad rep, that of the Wild Prude. It died though after sophomore year, when I became just one one of the other 49 percent of the 1,500 girls at my school to ADMIT to doing it. Am I proud? Not really, not that I'm ashamed. Why, because porn has desensitized me even further. Not a good thing, I believe.

 

Right. A woman's libido is a delicate thing. It should be cherished, protected, and culitivated. I am not talking about virginity here. Virginity is already owned by the religious right so the rest of us don't have to worry about it.

 

I was a virgin when I got married at nineteen and I made a terrible choice of a husband. We do not make good choices when we are horny.

 

I brought up my daughter with dictum: "You need not be a virgin when you marry because only a fool marries before age 25."

 

I certainly hope I haven't offended any who have married early, but the need to warn people of impending disaster outweighs good manners in this case, I feel.

[Pangloss]

Free access to whatever floats your boat doesn't concern me.

 

Respecting the boundaries of parental right to child-raising, however, concerns me a great deal.

 

A lot of the rhetoric that flies around under the auspices of "free speach" in this issue is really more about indoctrination and political correctness. Phrases like "you can't stop them from looking at naughty pictures" are often followed by "you can't tell them that you think getting married before having sex is a good idea", or "you can't enforce gender stereotyping on them".

 

Is that really the business we want our government to be in? Telling parents how to raise their children? Because if you start down this slope by taking away the parents' right to censor a minor's multimedia input, I guarantee you that you're heading hell-bent-for-leather towards state-run child-rearing (or zero childbirth in the middle and upper tax brackets).

 

The funny thing is, the far left is all about "staying out of the home" when it comes to issues like gay rights (like getting anal sex laws struck from the books). But when it comes to politically correct behavior, they're more than happy to tell you exactly how you must behave. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that what the far left is trying to sell you is every bit as dangerous as what the far right is trying to sell you.

[Hellbender]

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that what the far left is trying to sell you is every bit as dangerous as what the far right is trying to sell you.

 

and you have convinced me of that, BTW

[Coral Rhedd]

Free access to whatever floats your boat doesn't concern me.

 

Respecting the boundaries of parental right to child-raising' date=' however, concerns me a great deal.

[/quote']

 

Parents do have devices on their computers that they can use to limit access to what their children see at home and there is also software for purchase, and, even better, there is supervision and limits. The computer need not be used as a babysitter, just as the television should not.

 

I think some of what has been happening in this thread is joking and teasing because people -- even the left -- are not necessarily comfortable talking about sex -- and talking about pornography and children is even more uncomfortable.

 

A lot of the rhetoric that flies around under the auspices of "free speach" in this issue is really more about indoctrination and political correctness. Phrases like "you can't stop them from looking at naughty pictures" are often followed by "you can't tell them that you think getting married before having sex is a good idea", or "you can't enforce gender stereotyping on them".

 

Indoctrinating whom?

 

Is that really the business we want our government to be in? Telling parents how to raise their children? Because if you start down this slope by taking away the parents' right to censor a minor's multimedia input, I guarantee you that you're heading hell-bent-for-leather towards state-run child-rearing (or zero childbirth in the middle and upper tax brackets).

 

I don't think anyone wants to take away the parents right to censor. They just want to retain their right to explore.

 

The funny thing is, the far left is all about "staying out of the home" when it comes to issues like gay rights (like getting anal sex laws struck from the books). But when it comes to politically correct behavior, they're more than happy to tell you exactly how you must behave. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that what the far left is trying to sell you is every bit as dangerous as what the far right is trying to sell you.

 

Pangloss, I am not certain what you are arguing here?????

[budullewraagh]

i second that. im not following either

 

"I think some of what has been happening in this thread is joking and teasing because people -- even the left -- are not necessarily comfortable talking about sex -- and talking about pornography and children is even more uncomfortable."

 

hey, i'm completely comfortable

[Coral Rhedd]

i second that. im not following either

 

"I think some of what has been happening in this thread is joking and teasing because people -- even the left -- are not necessarily comfortable talking about sex -- and talking about pornography and children is even more uncomfortable."

 

hey' date=' i'm completely comfortable[/quote']

 

At your age, you young rogue, you are supposed to be blushing.

[budullewraagh]

blushing? i'm laughing

[-Demosthenes-]

Does any one think it’s bad to look at it? Because I'm under the impression that it is bad.

 

Why would parents not want their children to see it? I think that might be an indication that is could be negative. It seems the have similar effects to drugs, it's addictive, and it makes you do things that you normally wouldn't do. I see your points, I just don't agree with them.

[Coral Rhedd]

Does any one think it’s bad to look at it? Because I'm under the impression that it is bad.

 

Why would parents not want their children to see it? I think that might be an indication that is could be negative. It seems the have similar effects to drugs' date=' it's addictive, and it makes you do things that you normally wouldn't do. I see your points, I just don't agree with them.[/quote']

 

I suppose it would depend upon what it is. I think parents do have a right to draw some lines there, not so much because they are necessarily trying to stunt their child's natural curiosity, but because they may think there is some information and some images that the child could not process.

 

It would probably help to define what we mean by child. What fourteen year olds might want to view in the way of porn probably won't hurt most of them as long as it is actually something they go looking for and not something that is forced in their face.

 

However, I really think there is a sort of latent stage when children aren't interested in sexual information and really don't benefit by access to it. I think we make a mistake when we assume that they want to know everything available. They don't want to know. They want to be kids.

 

For instance, every teacher knows that fourth grade boys are absolutely fascinated with references to elimination. But their approach to it is giggly and they are inclined to use scatological references to insult each other. Their interest in actual sexuality is pretty peripheral to a multitude of other things -- like sports and social status.

 

I think it makes sense to provide protections for children from porn in elementary school. This is most easily accomplished by monitoring their internet use.

 

But people who try to protect net-surfing high schoolers from looking for porn are probably fighting a losing battle anyway.

[Pangloss]

I don't think anyone wants to take away the parents right to censor. They just want to retain their right to explore.

 

Minors have no such right to retain.

 

Pangloss, I am not certain what you are arguing here?????

 

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Basically what I'm saying is that one of the fallacies that often arises in this debate, as it's usually played out in the public discourse (not necessarily here -- I'm not debating anybody, just making observations), is when people believe that "it's about the kids". In fact this debate is really about the parents, or rather "parenting".

 

We hold parents responsible for raising their children, at least in part because we as a society do not know the best way to raise children (or at least cannot agree on the subject). We can hardly hold them responsible on one hand, ensuring them that their judgement is accepted as "what's best for their child", while at the same time making it impossible for them to do what they feel is right. It's a Catch-22. Like asking a soldier to subjugate a town full of AK-47-wielding terrorists, but "without hurting anybody".

 

So as a society, we basically have a choice:

1) Control every aspect of child rearing, and dictate exactly how every aspect of it is to be handled. (or)

2) Keep our noses out of it unless absolutely necessary to maintain the immediate welfare of the minor.

 

So getting back to the subject at hand, the question of whether pornography on the Internet should be controlled or censored, this is actually a very simple question: Can the rights of parents to decide what their children can or cannot see be controlled if we elect NOT to control access to pornography?

 

If the answer to that question is "no", then under the implied constitutional principle of protection of minorities against the will of the majority, the right to view uncontrolled pornography must be denied.

 

Therefore arguments in favor of open access become illogical, and are reduced to either personal preference or a desire to impress a specific set of beliefs upon other people. For most folks (such as here), it's the former. For a few far-left demogogues, it's the latter (but they gladly yank the rest of us along, trying to pretend it's the former and ignore/deny the parenting issue).

 

Of course, pornography on the Internet can't actually BE controlled, so the point is more or less moot anyway. But it was a given for the discussion that the opposite was true, so here we are. My two bits, for what it's worth. (shrug)

[YT2095]

whatever became of the idea of Internet Passports? I seem to remember hearing about them some years back, and have heard nothing since.

 

I guess until then, as with other things, Adult supervision is required until they`re of such an age it`s no longer needed.

[Sayonara]

whatever became of the idea of Internet Passports?

People who knew what they were talking about must have got involved.

[Coral Rhedd]

Minors have no such right to retain.

 

 

 

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Basically what I'm saying is that one of the fallacies that often arises in this debate' date=' as it's usually played out in the public discourse (not necessarily [i']here[/i] -- I'm not debating anybody, just making observations), is when people believe that "it's about the kids". In fact this debate is really about the parents, or rather "parenting".

 

We hold parents responsible for raising their children, at least in part because we as a society do not know the best way to raise children (or at least cannot agree on the subject). We can hardly hold them responsible on one hand, ensuring them that their judgement is accepted as "what's best for their child", while at the same time making it impossible for them to do what they feel is right. It's a Catch-22. Like asking a soldier to subjugate a town full of AK-47-wielding terrorists, but "without hurting anybody".

 

So as a society, we basically have a choice:

1) Control every aspect of child rearing, and dictate exactly how every aspect of it is to be handled. (or)

2) Keep our noses out of it unless absolutely necessary to maintain the immediate welfare of the minor.

 

So getting back to the subject at hand, the question of whether pornography on the Internet should be controlled or censored, this is actually a very simple question: Can the rights of parents to decide what their children can or cannot see be controlled if we elect NOT to control access to pornography?

 

If the answer to that question is "no", then under the implied constitutional principle of protection of minorities against the will of the majority, the right to view uncontrolled pornography must be denied.

 

Therefore arguments in favor of open access become illogical, and are reduced to either personal preference or a desire to impress a specific set of beliefs upon other people. For most folks (such as here), it's the former. For a few far-left demogogues, it's the latter (but they gladly yank the rest of us along, trying to pretend it's the former and ignore/deny the parenting issue).

 

Of course, pornography on the Internet can't actually BE controlled, so the point is more or less moot anyway. But it was a given for the discussion that the opposite was true, so here we are. My two bits, for what it's worth. (shrug)

 

I have no problem with anything you said. The problems lie in practicalities.

 

Here is an example: I used to be a substitute teacher. Substitute teachers are rather low on the totem pole in education because there are only two things usually expected of them, control children and watch movies. This is because some subs are so odd or ignorant no one in a right mind would trust them to actually teach. (One showed up to teach middle school boys PE in a sheer white dress, hair curlers, and flip flops. )

 

So movies it is. I have seen Forrest Gump 16 times. Here's the problem. Many movies that teachers deem educational are rated R. Many parents of high schoolers (especially the younger ones) will not permit their children to watch R-rated movies. Here is the solution: At the beginning of the school year the parents are sent a permission slip. The slip allows the parents to give permission for their children to watch R or PG-13-rated movies. If they do not sign the slip, for the rest of the year their children will be sent to study hall when one of these movies is shown. Some parents have complained that this exclusion of their children from class is discriminatory.

 

What do you think?

[Pangloss]

I understand practicalities, but I'm a little confused why you had to show a movie. Surely you had other options. Why did they call you (a highly trained educator) at all? Why not just have an administrator show the movie?

 

As a parent, I wouldn't sign a general permission slip like that. Study hall works for me, and if need be I'll give them some extra homework to do while they're in there. (I'm not a parent, just saying if I were.)

 

As an educator (I've taught in both academic (community college) and corporate environments), I have serious reservations about the use of mainstream movies in education. I do know that they can be good for visualization. My mother's been a high school latin teacher for decades, and sometimes uses movies about Ancient Rome to demonstrate some aspect of that culture. That's fine, I have no problem with that.

 

But films are very BAD about critical thinking and analysis. Not only do they effectively shut the analytical brain completely off, but they often skirt the truth in doing so. I would have serious misgivings about any teacher who wants to use a movie to make a socio-political point of *any* kind. Even Schindler's List, for example. Or Forrest Gump -- I could see using it to show certain aspects of technology, or possibly something historical in nature. But not political. And I would immediately follow it up with a discussion about whether protestors against Vietnam were the saints that they might think they were after seeing that movie. Pointing out the aspects of their life shown in that movie that are less than perfect, and moving on to talk about where they might have crossed lines, substituting religious fervor for critical thinking.

 

Students should be spending their time in a socratic relationship with their teacher, not watching a movie. Mixing things up once in a while to maintain that connection? Great. Giving the kids a little entertainment because of a problem or to give someone a break? Not if I have anything to say about it.

 

Not trying to give you a hard time here, just expressing my opinion and trying to understand. I still haven't ruled out teaching high school (love the idea; worry about the control issues), and would appreciate any further thoughts you might have.

[AzurePhoenix]

In Marine Bio we're watching Finding Nemo and in Biology we're watching Evolution. Neither movie would make a good impression scientifically in the student's mind if we just watched the movies and left it at that, but our teachers make us go through and pick apart things that are wrong or improbable and then explain why, as well as describe concepts that the movies did cover accurately, or why something was approached from a certain way. I've seen it to be far more effective than the average research project. Now, in spanish we watched lion King, and that was just a load of useless garbage

[Pangloss]

Makes sense, I can see the value in that.

 

With Lion King, was it shown in Spanish? That would seem like a good idea to me, at least in princinple, although I'd probably show segments or scenes instead, chosen for various levels of difficulty, etc.

[Coral Rhedd]

I understand practicalities' date=' but I'm a little confused why you had to show a movie. Surely you had other options. Why did they call you (a highly trained educator) at all? Why not just have an administrator show the movie?

[/quote']

 

My B.A. is in English not Education so I am not certified. I could teach on a waiver but that means no benefits. This time was between my B.A. and my M.A. They don't care what sort of degree you have as long as you graduated from high school. Everyone's name goes into a pool and a computer calls you. The teacher has no idea who is going to show up to sub their class unless they plan in advance. Most of them reserve movies for this reason. (This also tends to help maintain order better.)

 

I've done many things to avoid regular employment so that I can have time to write.

 

As a parent, I wouldn't sign a general permission slip like that. Study hall works for me, and if need be I'll give them some extra homework to do while they're in there. (I'm not a parent, just saying if I were.)

 

Well, I did because I knew exactly the sort of movies they were going to be showing. I knew nothing would be too raw.

 

But films are very BAD about critical thinking and analysis. Not only do they effectively shut the analytical brain completely off, but they often skirt the truth in doing so. I would have serious misgivings about any teacher who wants to use a movie to make a socio-political point of *any* kind. Even Schindler's List, for example.

 

How are they going to learn critical thinking at all if all controversy is avoided?

 

Or Forrest Gump -- I could see using it to show certain aspects of technology, or possibly something historical in nature.

 

They mostly show it in Psych classes because they think it creates tolerance for mentally retarded (what they call it in the disability biz) or developmentally delayed (what they call it in the public schools) people. Because I have worked with mentally retarded young people, I hate the movie. To me it shows a trivial and inaccurate picture of the problems and discriminations these people face. So if I were to object to any movie the teachers showed, it would be that one.

 

 

But not political. And I would immediately follow it up with a discussion about whether protestors against Vietnam were the saints that they might think they were after seeing that movie. Pointing out the aspects of their life shown in that movie that are less than perfect, and moving on to talk about where they might have crossed lines, substituting religious fervor for critical thinking.

 

I think almost anything can be political. I can't see how it can be avoided.

 

Students should be spending their time in a socratic relationship with their teacher, not watching a movie. Mixing things up once in a while to maintain that connection? Great. Giving the kids a little entertainment because of a problem or to give someone a break? Not if I have anything to say about it.

 

Teaching in the public schools here can be pretty brutal. For instance, each of the high schools goes into lock down several times a year because of gang violence and weapons and bomb threats. I don't think they teach the expectations that they should have, but this a poor area. Most teachers aren't even teaching in their specialty. I've tutored some of those teachers to pass the essay part of the state teacher's exam. I think it's safe to say that 50% would not know what socratic instruction is.

 

Not trying to give you a hard time here, just expressing my opinion and trying to understand. I still haven't ruled out teaching high school (love the idea; worry about the control issues), and would appreciate any further thoughts you might have.

 

Worry about the control issues. Ignore the small stuff because much adolescent misbehavior is to get your attention. As a sub, I learned not to smile or laugh at their jokes. This was hard because I am a pretty easy going person and I really like teenagers. (But I don't do well with systems. ) Pay attention to the big stuff -- like drugs and guns.

 

But I am not really the person to give advice. I haven't been a regular public school teacher for many years.

[AzurePhoenix]

With Lion King, was it shown in Spanish? That would seem like a good idea to me, at least in princinple, although I'd probably show segments or scenes instead, chosen for various levels of difficulty, etc.

 

 

Yes it was shown in spanish. But does that make a difference when our generation already knows the story and words by heart? And watching the movie only brings frustration as you watch and realize that you only know at the very best, four or five words throughout the movie. And it's distracting when the love scene comes around. It's so innocent, but in spanish for some reason, the two lions rolling around in the grass suddenly take on a rather pornographic appearance.