Forum Moderators: LifeinAsia
The site in question was about "foxy ladies" and was a pornographic erotic site. The front page was worded in terms the children didn't understand and thinking it was an advert, they clicked enter....
I am no prude, I respect the right to publish erotica, but publishers must be responsible to protect against accidental viewing by minors and those who may be offended. It is not good enough to use a front page disclaimer worded in terms children don't understand.
Failure to take more responsibility can only strengthen the censorship argument and lead to erotica being regulated and removed from the web, which is not in the publisher's interests.
Perhaps a front screen which asks the simple question; "How old are you?" and which responds depending upon the answer may protect the young children, while still presenting the usual disclaimers to protect adults.
Matt
Perhaps a front screen which asks the simple question; "How old are you?"
That is a good idea. A little interactive question like you suggested should make the person aware what they are getting into.
I like the idea.
Marshall
a graphic ... indicating NOT FOR PERSONS UNDER 18
Doh... If the internet had existed when I hit puberty, I would be clicking every "warning" image that I could find.
Children need protection, they can't be expected to be their own guardians.
Another point is, why 18? Why not 16 or 21? Customs and legal requirements vary from country to country.
This is a very grey area. How do you define erotica? Not all erotica is porn. Some classical paintings are definitely erotic, but we wouldn't necessarily disapprove of children viewing them.
This is a very grey area. How do you define erotica? Not all erotica is porn. Some classical paintings are definitely erotic, but we wouldn't necessarily disapprove of children viewing them.
A good point. In France, the naked chest of a woman is considered quite normal and acceptable. In Denmark hard core pornography is wildly available. While in Muslim countries bikini-babes are considered offensive and obscene.
When I chose the word "erotica" I was more meaning pornography in the definition widely understood in the UK, I realise this definition will vary from one culture to another. My daughter's issue was in encountering, by accident, pornographic images.
Matt
so typed in the name of a website they assumed should be about foxes.
As has been said before: if you wouldn't let them explore a city unaccompanied why would you let them explore the Net unaccompanied?
Rgds
Damon
Maybe a picture of Congressman Mark Foley LOL
Marshall, that was funny.
And the Internet can't.
It's not just porn. What if I believe that religion is a pernicious influence and don't want them viewing any religious information? Or tatoo sites? Or a lot of the eco-nonsense that spews in vast bellows of invisible smoke polluting the Earth like collective dinosaur methane couldn't? Or that man and man living together is a reflection of the abysmal depths our society is dredging?
There are lot of things on the internet that I don't want them to see. The tools are filtering software and personal monitoring, not one country's regulation based on it's own "moral" standards (and cartoons). I have no objection with a front screen that asks, "How old are you?" I'm against that being a legal requirement.
You know what's on the internet. You know what's published. You pretty much know what it is. Now, Ask yourself why you then let your children search on the internet without supervision if you don't want them to see what's there, and know what they just might come across - and you don't want them to be exposed to whatever material you find is offensive and too adult for your children.
That's my opinion anyways, take it or leave it - just tired of people blaming everything else but themselves, when they know what can happen.
