Parent Rights

The Rights of Parents in the Digital Age
Parental control is not censorship

By Lawrence J. Magid

In the cover story of Wired magazine's May issue, "The Rights of Kids in the Digital Age," Jon Katz grumbles that politicians and the public in general are widely advocating censorship for children.

"The young have a moral right of access to the machinery and content of media and culture," he asserted. "Blocking, censoring, and banning should be the last resort in dealing with children, not the first."

I agree that arbitrary controls on what children experience online shouldn't be the first line of defense, but I reject the notion that parental control is a form of censorship. Only governments censor. Parents have both a right and a responsibility to determine what is suitable for their children. Katz also complained that, "President Clinton has enthusiastically embraced the idea that parents should have the right to block kids' TV programs." But there is a big difference between installing a chip that empowers parents to exercise control and establishing a government policy that determines what you and I can read or view.

I am strongly opposed to censorship. But I support parents who provide guidance for their kids whether in cyberspace, in school, or even in the choice of what they eat for breakfast. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body, but I won't let my kids guzzle sugary cereal every day.

The government can't possibly know what is right for my kids to see. Even rating systems, like the one established by the Motion Picture Association, are arbitrary and often inappropriate. "Schindler's List" got an R rating because it depicted violence and horrendous situations. Yet, I think it's a "must see" for teenagers who need to know about the Holocaust. "ID4" (about an alien invasion on the Fourth of July) got a mild "PG" and was endorsed by self-appointed morality cop (and former Reagan Education Secretary) Bill Bennett, despite the fact that it featured the sanitized mass destruction of U.S. cities. I'm not arguing that ID4 is inappropriate for children (my kids and I loved it), but I find it ironic that destruction is more OK than tasteful nudity or an historically significant docudrama.

At the risk of sounding Republican, I believe in family values when it comes to what kids can do online. But unlike some members of the GOP, I'm not trying to define what constitutes a family or its values. I'm not thrilled with the Democratic party's approach either. Inspired, I suspect, by Hillary Rodham Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village," several speakers at the Democratic National Convention, including the President, repeatedly implied that America is one big family. I'm all for brother and sisterhood and agree that all citizens share certain responsibilities, but not everyone in America is part of my family. I have enough trouble providing guidance for my own children.

Although I reserve the right to control what my kids do, I can't dismiss the issues raised by the Wired story. Kids need to be empowered and respected and allowed to seek out their own culture. "After centuries of sometimes benign, sometimes brutal oppression and regulation," the author argues, "kids are moving out from under our pious control, finding one another via the great hive that is the Net." Well, the Net isn't the first technology that has allowed kids to move beyond the sphere of parental control. My generation had rock and roll and beach parties, not to mention the so-called counter culture.

Yet, the Net allows youngsters to extend their sphere without having to leave home, a good argument for a high dose of parental tolerance. I'd rather my child engage in virtual exploration of sexuality in a chat group than engage in potentially dangerous behavior. Preventing communication doesn't suppress a child's curiosity or desires.

I'm reminded of the case of Daniel Montgomery, an almost 16-year-old Seattle teenager who ran away to spend time with a 17-year-old boy he "met" in an America Online chat room. His parents were frightened during his absence and appalled that he left without permission. The FBI got involved because it feared he was abducted or seduced by an adult. Once it was determined that this was a voluntary meeting between two minors, the FBI dropped its investigation. But the press continued to report the story as if something terrible or out of the ordinary had occurred. If this had been a meeting between a boy and a girl in a video arcade, it wouldn't have made the local paper, let alone the national talk show circuit. But combine cyberspace, youth, and homosexuality, and you get a triple whammy news story.

I appeared on a TV talk show with Daniel and his father, Bill Montgomery. During the show, Daniel acknowledged that he was gay. This came as a surprise to his father, and apparently to his mother, who told a reporter from the Seattle Gay News, "I don't know when he started thinking anything about gay people--probably when he talked to those people on America Online."

That's not likely according to Warren Blumenfeld, editor of The Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity. "There is a cultural myth that homosexuality is caused by recruitment by an older gay or lesbian person on 'impressionable youth,'" said Blumenfeld. "The chat room isn't causing homosexuality, it's providing a window into an already existing dark and dank closet."

Daniel's father also blamed the chat room for Daniel's behavior and advised other parents to keep their kids away. I disagree. While I can't speak for that family, I agree with Blumenfeld that free expression online is a relatively safe and healthy way for kids to explore their sexuality, politics, spiritual identity, and whatever else is on their minds.

Cyberspace isn't 100 percent safe for children. There are risks associated with being online just as there are risks associated with being in a city, riding in a car, or even sitting in a classroom. It's important to minimize risk, but it's also important to enjoy life, grow, and learn. The art of parenting (it's not a science) requires making daily judgments for your children. You're not always right, but you're always the parent. Take an active role in your children's online behavior. Join them in a chat group--at least at first--and talk with them about it. For more advice, order my free booklet "Child Safety on the Information Highway." For a free paper copy, call 800/843-5678.