Faithful readers will recall that I frequently pen essays responding to calls by politicians or other critics to regulate media content or the Internet “for the children.” One of the most intriguing things about these calls to regulate to protect children is that they are seemingly completely devoid of any historical perspective. Politicians or critics either imply or state directly that children are at grave danger from media content or the Internet, but I think we’ve lost all perspective about what really harms kids.
about a century ago, some two million American children between 10 and 15 years old had “gainful employment,” according to census data. And unlike teenagers with summer jobs now, these children often worked 12- or 14-hour days, seven days a week. Most of them worked on family farms, but others were employed in mines, mills, canneries or city streets, polishing shoes, hawking newspapers or delivering messages. They attended school sporadically, if at all.
For industrial employers, young workers were cheap and tractable. They could do simple, repetitive tasks for long hours, and their small size often worked to their advantage. To many people, it seemed as natural for children to work in factories as it did to work alongside their parents planting seeds, washing dishes or milking cows.
That really gives you some appreciation for how far we’ve come, doesn’t it? I’ll take the problems we have today versus those of 100 years ago! And I feel the “harm” associated with media content or the Internet is something most parents can handle on their own without resorting to government regulation.
I do not mean to completely belittle concerns about online child safety or access to inappropriate media content — after all I just wrote a whole book entitled “Parental Controls & Online Child Protection“! But I do think we need to put things in a little perspective when it comes to “child safety” and appreciate the strides we’ve made.
This 52-page article appears in the latest volume of the Catholic University Law School’s CommLaw Conspectus. The article can be found online here.
In this essay, I make the case that the radically unfair system of modern broadcast industry regulation must be completely abolished. “If America is to have a consistent First Amendment in the Information Age,” I argue, “efforts to extend the broadcast regulatory regime must be halted and that regime must be relegated to the ash heap of history.” I go on to make the case against all the traditional broadcast industry regulatory rationales and conclude that: “the traditional rationales for asymmetrical regulation of broadcasting — scarcity, pervasiveness, and the public interest — either no longer make sense or are increasingly impractical to enforce in an age of technological convergence and media abundance. Instead of resisting the inexorable movement toward media parity and a consistent First Amendment standard for the Information Age, policymakers should embrace these changes and focus on responding to the problem of objectionable content through education and empowerment-based strategies that enable families to craft their own household media standards.”
Now that I have completed my 10-part series of essays to coincide with “National Internet Safety Month,” I thought I’d list them all in one place. All the information in this series of essays was condensed from my new Progress & Freedom Foundation special report, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” I will be making constant updates to that report online, so if you have suggestions please let me know.
The links for the 10 installments in the series are listed below:
This is the final installment of my 10-part series of essays that have coincided with “Internet Safety Month.” Many of these essays have focused on the variety of parental controls tools on the market that can help parents better control, or at least monitor, their children’s Internet usage or online communications. (See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.) Other essays focused on the importance of education, building public awareness, and the need for stepped-up law enforcement efforts aimed at prosecuting online predators. (See parts 7, 8, and 9).
In this final installment, I want to focus on what I believe is the most important—and most frequently overlooked—part of the parental controls and online safety discussion: Good parenting!
Specifically, it is important to realize that many household-level rules and informal parental control methods exist that represent the most important steps that most parents can take in dealing with potentially objectionable content or teaching their children how to be sensible, savvy media users. Indeed, to the extent that many households never take advantage of the many technical tools I outlined in earlier essays, it is likely because they rely instead on the informal household media rules and strategies discussed below.
Well, I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record on this point, but it never ceases to amaze me how some policymakers get away with speaking so poorly of parents during policy debates about media content. First, you will recall that, in late April, the Federal Communications Commission released a report calling for the regulation of violent video content on the grounds that parental control tools and efforts were ineffective. (For details, see my essay: “FCC Violence Report Concludes that Parenting Doesn’t Work.”) Then, just last week, at a House Commerce hearing on “The Images Kids See on the Screen,” Rep. Ed Markey and several other members of the committee argued that parents just couldn’t cope with modern media and that government needed to step in on their behalf. But nothing could top the performance of Sen. John Rockefeller at today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on “The Impact of Media Violence on Children.”
Sen. Rockefeller opened the hearing with a verbal tirade “repeatedly bashing TV and its executives as though they were Dan Aykroyd’s Irwin Mainway SNL character out to sell bags-o-glass to unsuspecting kids,” as John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cablenoted. Sen. Rockefeller, who is planning to soon introduce legislation to regulate “excessively violent” television programming, said that the industry is being “cowardly” and “debasing our culture” in a “never-ending race to the bottom.”
Rockefeller went on to say that the industry was “blaming parents” for not dealing with the problem of objectionable content with private controls and methods instead of censoring content themselves before it ever got on air. “Parents do not want more tools,” he argued, “they want the content off the air.” Of course, that point is debatable as I’ll discuss more below.
In late April, the Federal Communications Commission released a new report recommending that the government assume a great role in regulating violent video content on television.In response to that report, I penned a lengthy essay entitled, “FCC Violence Report Concludes that Parenting Doesn’t Work.”
I wasn’t kidding. Flipping through that report, one is struck by the fact that the FCC seems to think that parents are completely incompetent and that only benevolent-minded bureaucrats can save the day from objectionable fare that enters the home. And now Congress is ready to get into the game as well. During the House Commerce hearing I testified at last Friday on “The Images Kids See on the Screen,” Rep. Ed Markey, Chairman of the Telecommunications & Internet subcommittee, said that “I believe Big Father and Big Mother are better able to decide what is appropriate for their kids to watch, rather than Big Brother.” Yet, almost in the same breath, he went on to note that he was prepared to give the FCC greater authority to regulate certain things on television “for the children.” Several others members of the subcommittee made similar statements, professing on one hand to believe in parental responsibility, but then quickly listing several caveats and calling for government to regulate media content in some fashion. Not to be outdone, the Senate Commerce Committee plans a hearing tomorrow on “The Impact of Media Violence on Children.”
For those of us who continue to believe in personal responsibility (as well as that little thing called the First Amendment), this is all very frustrating. As I pointed out in my recent book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods,” there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children. Parents have been empowered to make decisions for themselves and their families. And parents seem to be growing more comfortable with the idea of making these decisions for themselves instead of turning to government to do it for them. Two new public opinion polls reflect that reality.
This month, as part of “National Internet Safety Month,” I have been posting a series of essays about how parents can deal with potentially objectionable online content or contacts. In my new book, Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods, I argue that the best way to deal with concerns about online child safety is through a “3-E Solution,” which stands for “education, empowerment, and enforcement.” The empowerment and education components have already been discussed extensively in previous installments in this series. (See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).
But, to reiterate, it is essential that parents take steps to mentor and monitor their children as they enter the world of cyberspace. And industry should empower parents with more and better tools to help them do that job. But the tools discussed throughout my book provide a great deal of assistance already.
As essay #7 in this series made clear, education is even more important. “You need to take a holistic approach” to such problems, notes Ron Teixeira, executive director of the National Cyber Security Center.” Teixeira argues that it is essential that we drill basic lessons into our children–the digital equivalent of “don’t take candy from strangers,” for example–to ensure that they are prepared for whatever technologies or platforms follow social networking sites. “Education is the way you teach children to be proactive, and that will stay with them forever,” he rightly concludes. As Parry Aftab of Wired Safety argues, it’s about teaching our kids to “use the filter between their ears” and “make responsible decisions about their use of technology.” Critical thinking, in other words, is the best form of self-protection.
As will be discussed next, the final “E” in the 3-E Solution is enforcement, as in stepped up law enforcement efforts to find and adequately prosecute child predators.
Over at the Google Public Policy Blog, there’s an interesting post about recent efforts by Google to lobby the State Department and USTR to treat censorship as a trade barrier. Andrew McLaughlin writes:
Just as the U.S. government has, in decades past, utilized its trade negotiation powers to advance the interests of other U.S. industries, we would like to see the federal government take to heart the interests of the information industries and treat the elimination of unwarranted censorship as a central objective of our bilateral and multilateral trade agendas in the years to come.
But my hope is that the U.S. government can begin to move – incrementally, agreement-by-agreement, over the coming decade and beyond – to include in our bilateral and, eventually, multilateral trade agreements the notion that trade in information services should presumptively be free, absent some good reason to the contrary.
I can see how censorship hurts U.S. IT companies, especially if entire sites like YouTube are blocked when governments object to some user-generated content. But good luck to our trade negotiators in getting China or other repressive governments to loosen their grip over information!
I am testifying today at 10:00 in the House Energy & Commerce Committee (Telecom & Internet subcommittee) at a hearing on “The Images Kids See on the Screen.” The purpose of the hearing is to examine the negative things that children may be exposed to on various screens (TV violence, product placement, fatty foods, smoking, etc.) and what should be done about it. My prepared remarks are attached below.
______________________________
Testimony of Adam D. Thierer
Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom
The Progress & Freedom Foundation
June 22, 2007
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today and giving me the opportunity to testify. My name is Adam Thierer and I am a senior fellow with the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) where I serve as director of PFF’s Center for Digital Media Freedom.
This hearing is particularly timely for me because this week PFF released a new special report that I spent the last two years compiling entitled, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” The booklet provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents better manage media content, whether it be broadcast television, cable or satellite TV, music devices, mobile phones, video game consoles, the Internet, or social networking websites. (Incidentally, this booklet can be downloaded free-of-charge at www.pff.org/parentalcontrols, and I plan on making frequent updates to the report and re-posting the document online as new information comes to my attention).
As I note in my book, we live in an “always-on,” interactive, multimedia world. Parents need to be prepared to deal with media on multiple platforms, screens, and devices. While this can be a formidable challenge, luckily, there has never been a time when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them determine and enforce what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children. And that conclusion is equally applicable to all major media platforms, or all the screens our children might view.
Today, PFF has released my latest book: Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods. The entire publication is online and can be downloaded at http://www.pff.org/parentalcontrols (Note: I will be making constant updates to the book in coming months and will post them to that site).
As the title implies, the report provides a broad survey of everything on the market today that can help parents better manage media content, whether it be broadcast television, cable or satellite TV, music devices, mobile phones, video game consoles, the Internet, or social networking websites. I put this report together to show policymakers, the press and the public that many constructive options exist that can help parents control media in their homes and in the lives of their children.
While it can be a formidable challenge to be a parent in an “always-on,” interactive, multimedia world, luckily, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them determine and enforce what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children. And that conclusion is equally applicable to all major media platforms. In the past, the OFF button was the only technical control at a parent’s disposal. Today, by contrast, parents (like me!) have myriad tools and methods to restrict or tailor media content to their own household tastes and values. Those restrictive tools include: the V-Chip and TV ratings; cable and satellite set-top box screening tools; DVD blocking controls; cell phone blocking tools; video game console controls; Internet filtering and monitoring tools, instant messaging monitoring tools; operating system controls; web browser controls; search engine “safe search” tools; media time management devices, and so on. You will find an exhaustive discussion of all these tools and many others in my book.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.