Rui and all,<br><br>Hello!<br><br>Let me just add a few things to what you said below. <br><br><i style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">"Perhaps we must look at mechanisms that allow for parent-controlled filters..."</i><br>
<br>I have worked for 6 years with teenagers where my job was to teach teenagers about online safety and to make sure they use the Internet effectively for educational purposes. For a while my work entailed me to set up policy editing where I work with the network administrator in blocking words such as "<i>sex</i>" or "<i>breasts</i>" (<i>apologies if I offend anybody for the use of such words but I am trying to present the words as specific items for explanation purposes)</i> in our digital library. The only frustration that our students have is when they research online, for instance, about "breast cancer," it won't let them open the index from the search query because the word "breast" was blocked. So they complained but we have set our user policies that were acknowledged by the parents themselves prior to the implementation of the policies we set. As long as these rules are within the guidelines as set in the student's and faculty manual, we can implement our policies, subject to deliberation when conflicts arise. They have to comply so they use the hard bound encyclopedias available in the library instead if some searches are blocked online. Maybe it would also be good for them to learn how to use encyclopedias like we did (before computers and the Internet made it easier for us to do our school work). Or maybe it will also teach some kid diligence.. or maybe not, but we tried. Well we did our part in school. But we are aware that once these kids go home and use their own computers, it is beyond our control. So we leave it to the parents do their roles at home. It is possible to create a balance of safety both in school and at home if both institutions work together. I am speaking in the standpoint as an educator.<br>
<br><i style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">"<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">As for children "producing" their own porn, that is an entirely
different issue altogether and to call it porn begs the question of
whether understand <u><b>w</b><b>hat porn is and what adolescent behaviour is</b></u> -
children are doing it for the thrill, just like in generations before,
others smoked, drank, consumed drugs, etc, using something within their
reach for shock/ status value among their peers. Cellphones and webcams
are now part of the arsenal of weapons within their reach to impress
their peers or establish their credibility within the group...."</span></i><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">I was in the airport waiting for my flight last May and I picked up this Reader's Digest May 2009 issue. The cover was "Parent Alert - Is Your Child Sexting?" The article would definitely describe what porn is and how teenagers behave nowadays. The article even coined the word "<i>pornopolis of [American] culture</i>" when referring on how to prevent children from wittingly and unwittingly becoming citizens of that "pornopolis." Fortunately, I found the article online and maybe some of you might be interested to read it, maybe as parents.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/parent-alert-teens-and-porn/article125454.html">http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/parent-alert-teens-and-porn/article125454.html</a><br><br>My "sentiments" on this matter may be warranted or not. But in my own experience, we did our fair share of "censoring" but it didn't entirely solve the problem of child pornography. My concept of "child pornography" has evolved into thinking nowadays of how children themselves can take off their clothes and stand in front of a webcam or snap pictures of themselves, and then post them online. I am not sure if current legislation on child pornography would allow children to be prosecuted for acts they are not even aware of as a "crime" because they consider it as a joke. By the time these sites, where children supposedly can post their naked pictures, can be censored for such content, the damage has been done - their friends had a good laugh, some sleazeball might have watched it already, and yet they might do it again. IMHO, <i>parents </i>should act as "parents" (proactive and reactive techniques) more than being their kids' "<i>friend</i>" (indifference and intolerance) so it can be their strongest alternative to combating child pornography than any legislation that cannot entirely stop this crime.<br>
<br>Thanks.<br><br>Regards,<br>Charity<br><br><br><br>On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Rui Correia <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:correia.rui@gmail.com">correia.rui@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi<br><br>I am in two minds as to how to react to this - it is one of those clear cut cases where freedom of expression and other rights have to be balanced and treated with responsibility. The UN Human Rights Commission "three-part test" refers.<br>
<br>However, calling it censorship is a bit alarmist. Censorship is normally carried out to prevent the bulk of the people from accessing information of their/ general interest and the circulation of which is a threat to the hold on power of the government of the day. Blocking child pornography cannot be called preventing access to information of the general interest of the bulk of the population, pornography can be be said to be of general public interest and the CDU does not need to suppress this kind of information to guarantee its political power. <br>
<br>And I fully agree about NOT bringing Nazis and Hitler into this discussion. What the CDU is doing in not Germany-specific - it could have been France or any other so-called established democracy.<br> <br>Blocking access to certain kinds of products is nothing new, whether this be alcohol, drugs or adult content. <br>
<br>You can't freely buy child pornography (or other forms of extreme sexual material) where you buy the rest of your books/ magazines/ newspapers, and yet nobody complains about this as a violation of freedom of expression. <br>
<br>It is an accepted norm that broadcasters have a "watershed" (normally 22:00) - which separates family viewing from so-callled adult viewing and films in cinemas/ theatres carry ages restrictions. In my many years in the field, I've never seen this being referred to as a violation of freedom of expression.<br>
<br>Likewise, nobody would object if schools searched students' bags before
entering schools looking for pornographic material - it is seen as a
measure to protect children and society. <br>
<br>So, whereas controlling child pornography on the internet might raise concerns about creating precedents for other types of internet content or being overzealously implemented, it is a reality that the anonymity of the internet is a contributing factor and therefore solutions must be found. Our role as civil society is not to knee-jerk at government decisions, but to use our vast and diverse experience to assist/ guide/ steer in finding solutions. <br>
<br>So the challenge now is not to oppose the implementation of mechanisms to fight child pornography because these infringe on freedom of expression, but to use our common, combined and vast experience to offer alternative solutions.<br>
<br>Perhaps we must look at mechanisms that allow for parent-controlled filters, just as is the case with satellite/ cable pay television. The user/ parent would have the freedom of using whichever software he/she chose, just like we choose the virus/ spam/ adware/ filters that we choose.Internet cafes and libraries or other places with public use internet would do the same ... perhaps we could have an adults section in internet cafes, just as we have the smokers section in restaurants in some countries! ;-). <br>
<br>As for children "producing" their own porn, that is an entirely different issue altogether and to call it porn begs the question of whether understand what porn is and what adolescent behaviour is - children are doing it for the thrill, just like in generations before, others smoked, drank, consumed drugs, etc, using something within their reach for shock/ status value among their peers. Cellphones and webcams are now part of the arsenal of weapons within their reach to impress their peers or establish their credibility within the group. So, Joe, they are not perverted - one day they will be successful politicians/ businessmen etc, and perhaps might have to face having to admit that they ONCE did take part in exchanging nude/ sexual material with their peers (just as today politicians/ etc admit to having ONCE tried cannabis etc).<br>
<br>Best regards,<br><br>Rui <br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">2009/6/17 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nyangkweagien@gmail.com" target="_blank">nyangkweagien@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div><div></div><div class="h5">I just read this and found it interesting for the caucus group. <br><br>Quite a great move by the German authorities aimed at securing responsible youth hood. <br>
<br>
Aaron<br>
<br clear="all"><br>
==============================<div>==============================<br>
<br><br>
"Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government - a grand<br>
coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party - seems<br>
united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote on<br>
the erection of an internet censorship architecture.<br>
<br>
The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the<br>
discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in<br>
order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship<br>
architecture enabling the government to block content containing child<br>
pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to<br>
administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers<br>
obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government".<br><br><br><br></div><br>-- <br>Aaron Agien Nyangkwe<br>Journalist-OutCome Mapper<br>Special Assistant The President<br>ASAFE<br>P.O.Box 5213<br>
Douala-Cameroon<br><br>Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22<br>Fax. 237 3342 29 70<br>
<br></div></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>________________________________________________<br> <br> <br>Rui Correia<br>Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant<br>2 Cutten St<br>Horison <br>
Roodepoort-Johannesburg, <br>
South Africa<br>Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336<br>Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838<br>_______________<br>áâãçéêíóôõúç<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>