I’ve been floating around in conservative policy circles for 30 years and I have spent much of that time covering media policy and child safety issues. My time in conservative circles began in 1992 with a 9-year stint at the Heritage Foundation, where I launched the organization’s policy efforts on media regulation, the Internet, and digital technology. Meanwhile, my work on child safety has spanned 4 think tanks, multiple blue ribbon child safety commissions, countless essays, dozens of filings and testimonies, and even a multi-edition book.

During this three-decade run, I’ve tried my hardest to find balanced ways of addressing some of the legitimate concerns that many conservatives have about kids, media content, and online safety issues. Raising kids is the hardest job in the world. My daughter and son are now off at college, but the last twenty years of helping them figure out how to navigate the world and all the challenges it poses was filled with difficulties. This was especially true because my daughter and son faced completely different challenges when it came to media content and online interactions. Simply put, there is no one-size-fits-all playbook when it comes to raising kids or addressing concerns about healthy media interactions.

Something Must Be Done!

My personal approach, as I summarized in my book on these issues, was to first and foremost do everything in my power to (a) keep an open mind about new media content and platforms, and (b) ensure an open line of ongoing communication with my kids about the issues they might be facing. Shutting down conversation or calling for others to come in and save the day were the worst two options, in my opinion. As I summarized in my book, “At the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for talking to our children in an open, loving, and understanding fashion about the realities of-this world, including the more distasteful bits.” This was my Parental Prime Directive, if you will. I just always wanted to make sure that my kids felt like they could talk to me about their issues, no matter how varied, horrible, or heart-breaking those problems might be.

When talking with other parents through the years, I’ve heard about their own unique concerns and struggles. Every family faces different challenges because no two kids or situations are alike. Moreover, the challenges can feel overwhelming in our modern world of information abundance, which is flush with ubiquitous communications and media options. Sometimes these parental frustrations can fester and grow into a sort of rage until you finally hear folks utter that famous phrase: Something must be done! And that “something” is often some sort of government regulation “for the children.”

Again, I get it. When all your best efforts to help or protect your kids don’t seem to work according to plan, it’s only natural to call for help. But there are very serious problems associated with calling on government for that help. When legislators and regulators are asked to play the role of National Nanny, it comes with all the same baggage that accompanies many other efforts by the government to intervene in our lives or control what people or organizations can say or do.

Conservative Contradictions

These are particularly sensitive issues for many conservatives, both because conservatives tend to have more heightened concerns about media content and online safety issues, and also because the steps they often recommend to address these issues can quickly come into conflict with their own first principles.

Let me run through six ways that support for media content controls and child safety regulations can sometimes run afoul of conservative principles.

1) It’s a rejection of personal responsibility

Again, I understand all too well how hard parenting can be. But that does not mean we should abdicate our parental responsibilities to the State. Conservatives have spent decades fighting government when it comes to broken schools and the supposed brainwashing many kids get in them. The rallying cry of conservatives has long been: Let us have a greater say in how we raise and educate our children because the State is failing us or betraying our values.

Thus, when conservatives suggest that the State should be making decisions for us as it pertains to anything the government says is a “child safety” issue, there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on there. In his humorous Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce jokingly defined responsibility as, “A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.” For parental responsibility to actually mean something, it has to be more than a “detachable burden” that we unload upon government.

2) It’s an embrace of the administrative state & arbitrary rule by unelected bureaucrats

Beyond the classroom, conservatives have long been concerned about the specter of massive administrative agencies and armies of unelected bureaucrats controlling our lives from the shadows. I’ve spent decades working with conservative organizations and scholars trying to get the administrative state under some control to scale back its enormous power, arbitrary edicts, and costly burdens. Over-criminalization has become such a problem that, according to the Heritage Foundation, “regulatory offenses… have proliferated to the point that, literally, nobody knows how many federal criminal regulations exist today.” We’re all criminals of some sort in the eyes of the modern regulatory state.

Yet, when conservatives advocate the expansion of the administrative state through new “online safety” regulations, they are just making the over-criminalization problem worse, including by treating our own children as guilty parties for simply trying to access the primary media platforms of their generation and interact with their friends there. For example, calls to ban all teens from social media until they’re 18 would result in the most massive “forbidden fruit” nightmare in American history, with every teen suddenly becoming a criminal actor and working together to tunnel around bans using the same sort of VPNs and evasion technologies people in China and other repressive nations use to get around over-bearing speech policies. [See: “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”]

Needless to say, all this regulation and bureaucratic empowerment would have massive negative externalities for online freedom more generally as the era of “permissionless innovation” is replaced by a new age of permission-slip regulation.

3) It’s a rejection of the First Amendment & free speech rights

Conservatives have spent many decades pushing for greater First Amendment-based freedoms as it pertains to religious liberty and or organizational/corporate speech issues. Thus, when conservatives seek to undermine free speech principles and jurisprudence in the name of child safety, it could undo everything conservatives have been fighting to accomplish in those other contexts.

Conservatives are understandably upset with some social media platforms for being too over-zealous with certain types of speech takedowns or de-platformings. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and they should not be calling on Big Government to be imposing its own editorial judgments in place of private actors. [See: “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“ and “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer.“]

4) It’s a rejection of property rights and freedom more generally

Related to the previous two points, conservatives have long upheld the sanctity of property rights in many different contexts. This includes the property rights that private establishments enjoy under the Constitution to generally decide how to structure their operations, who they will do business with, and how they will do so. Private organizations and religious institutions possess not only free speech rights in this regard, but property and contractual rights, too.

But when it comes to “child safety” mandates, some conservatives would toss all this out the window and undermine those rights, replacing them with burdensome regulatory mandates that tell private parties how to conduct their affairs. Again, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here and it could have serious blowback for conservatives when the property / contractual rights of other people or organizations are undermined on similar grounds.

5) It’s an embrace of frivolous lawsuits & the trial lawyers that bring them

The last time I checked, trial lawyers were not exactly the most conservative-friendly constituency. For many decades, conservatives have looked to advance tort reform, limit junk science and frivolous lawsuits, and make sure that the courts don’t engage in excessive judicial activism.

Unfortunately, many of the child safety regulations being proposed today would empower the regulatory state and trial lawyers at the same time. Many of the bills being floated open the door to open-ended litigation and potentially punishing liability for private platforms — and not just against deep-pocketed “Big Tech” companies. The fact is, once conservatives open the litigation floodgates based on amorphous accusations of potential online safety harms, they will be empowering the tort bar (one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party, no less) to launch a legal jihad against any and every media platform out there. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle once you unleash it.

6) It’s an embrace of the same moral panic arguments your parents leveled against you

How quickly we forget the accusations our own parents and others leveled against us as children. Remember when video games were going to make us a lost generation of murderous youth? Or when rap and rock-and-roll music were going to send us straight to hell? Today, those kids are all grown up and trying to tell us that they are fine but it’s this latest generation that is doomed. It’s just an endless generational cycle of moral panics. [See: “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?” and “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”] Today’s conservatives need to remember that they, too, were once kids and somehow muddled through to adulthood.

The “3-E” Approach Is the Better Answer

At this point, some of the people who’ve read this far are screaming at the screen: “So, are you saying we should just do nothing!?”

Absolutely not. But it is important that we consider less onerous and more practical ways to address these challenging issues without falling prey to Big Government gimmicks that would undermine other important principles. We should start by acknowledging that there are no easy fixes or silver-bullet solutions. The plain truth of the matter is that the best solutions here can seem messy and unsatisfying to many because they require enormous ongoing efforts to mentor and assist our kids at a far deeper level than some folks are comfortable with.

For example, it is just insanely uncomfortable to have to speak with your kids about online bullying or harassment, pornography, violence in movies and games, hate speech, and so on. And I haven’t even mentioned the hardest things to talk to kids about: The daily news of the real world: wars, violence, tragic accidents, famines, etc. Honestly, the hardest conversations I’ve had to have with my kids were those about school shootings. By comparison, many other discussions about online content and interactions were much easier. To the extent that we’re attempting to measure and address negative media affects, I firmly believe that there a few things in this world more horrifying to kids — or harder to talk with them about — than the first 10 minutes of what’s on cable news each hour of the day.

Regardless, whether we’re talking about the potential “harms” or mass media or online content, we cannot pretend there exists a simple solution to any of it. Here’s the better approach.

I recently authored a study for the American Enterprise Institute on, “Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium.” It was my attempt to sketch out a flexible, pragmatic, bottom-up set of governance principles for modern technology platforms and issues. In that report, I noted how “[t]he First Amendment constitutes a particularly high barrier to the use of hard law in the United States,” and that court challenges were likely to continue to block many of the regulatory efforts being floated today, just as been the case countless times before in recent decades. Thus, we need to have backup approaches to online safety beyond one-size-fits-all regulatory Hail Mary passes.

I have described that backup plan as the “3-E” approach or “layered approach” to online safety:

• Empowerment of parents: Parental controls cannot solve all the world’s problems. It’s better to view them as helpful speed bumps or emergency alerts for when things are going badly for your child. In the old days, we placed a lot of faith in filtering, and that still has a role along with other tools that help place some reasonable limits not only on content but also overall consumption. But the best types of parental empowerment are those that force conversations between parents and kids by allowing reasonable monitoring to happen that is scaled by age (as in more limits for younger kids until they are gradually relaxed over time). And other carrot-and-stick tools and approaches are incredibly useful in helping parents place smart limits on youth activity and overall consumption.
• Education of youth: Education is the strategy with the most lasting impact for online safety. Education and digital literacy provide skills and wisdom that can last a lifetime. Specifically, education can help teach both kids (and adults!) how to behave in — or respond to — a wide variety of situations. Building resiliency and encouraging healthy interactions is the goal.
• Enforcement of existing laws: There are many sensible and straightforward laws already in place that address more concrete types of harm and harassment. And we have lots of laws pertaining to fraud and unfair and deceptive practices. Sometimes these rules can be challenging (and time-consuming) to enforce, but they constitute an existing backstop that can handle most worst-case scenarios when other less-restrictive steps fall short. And we should certainly tap these existing remedies before advancing unworkable new regulatory regimes.

I noted in my AEI study that, between 2000 and 2010, six major online-safety task forces or blue-ribbon commissions were formed to study online-safety issues and consider what should be done to address them. Each of them recommended some variant of the “3-E” approach as they encouraged a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological-empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Self-regulatory codes, private content-rating systems, and a wide variety of different parental-control technologies all proliferated during this period. Many multi-stakeholder initiatives and other organizations were also formed to address governance issues collaboratively. There are countless groups doing important work on this front today, including my old friends at the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) among many others.

These organizations push for a layered approach to online safety and work closely with educators, child development experts, and other academics and activists to find workable solutions to new online safety challenges as they arise. Their work is never done, and at times it can feel overwhelming. But, again, it’s the nature of the task at hand. We all must work together to continuously devise new and better approaches to addressing these challenges, because they will be endless. But let’s please not expect that we can unload these responsibilities on government and expect regulators to somehow handle it for us.

Do the Ends Justify the Means When it Comes to Media & Content Control?

I could be wasting my breath here because I’ve been attempting to appeal to conservative principles that may be rapidly disappearing from the modern conservative movement. Donald Trump radically disrupted everything in American politics, but especially the Republican Party. Many so-called national conservatives now live by Trump’s central operating principle: The ends justify the means. The ends are “owning the libs” in any way possible. And “the libs” include not only anyone on the Left of the political spectrum, but even those individuals and institutions that Trumpian conservatives believe are “the enemy” and controlled by “liberal interests.” By their definition, this now includes virtually all large media and technology companies and platforms. Thus, when we turn to the means, it’s increasingly the case that just about anything goes — including many traditional conservative principles.

To see how far we’ve come, recall what President Ronald Reagan said 35 years ago when vetoing an effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” he said. At the time, President Reagan was confronted with some of the same arguments we hear today about media being too biased or conservatives not getting a fair shake. But he called upon his fellow conservatives to reject the idea that Big Government was the solution to such problems.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump and some of his most loyal followers and even some major conservative groups today have largely given up on this logic and instead embraced regulation. While Trumpian conservatives love to decry everyone they oppose as “communists,” ironically it is this same group that is embracing a sort of communications collectivism as it pertains to modern media control. In the Trumpian worldview, media and tech platforms are useful only to the extent they carry out the will of the party — or at least the man on top of it.

These national conservatives have made a horrible miscalculation. Feeling aggrieved by Big Tech “bias,” or just feeling overwhelmed by things they don’t like about online platforms, they’ve decided that two wrongs make a right. In reality, two political wrongs never make a right, but they almost always combine to make government a lot bigger and more powerful.

It’s an incredibly naïve gamble almost certainly destined to fail, but they should ask themselves what it means if it works. This endless ratcheting effect will result in comprehensive state control of most channels of communications and information dissemination. Is this a game that you really think you can play better than the Lefties?

I’ll close by returning to one of Reagan’s favorite jokes. He always used to say that, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I would suggest that an even scarier version of that line would be, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you parent your kids.”

Don’t let it be you uttering that line.

______________

Additional Reading

· Adam Thierer, “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”

· Adam Thierer, “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?”

· Adam Thierer, “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues”

· Adam Thierer, “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“

· Adam Thierer, “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“

· Adam Thierer, “Ongoing Series: Moral Panics / Techno-Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “No Goldilocks Formula for Content Moderation in Social Media or the Metaverse, But Algorithms Still Help”

· Adam Thierer, “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“

· Adam Thierer, “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“

· Adam Thierer, “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“

· Adam Thierer, “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“

· Adam Thierer, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“

· Adam Thierer, “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“

· Adam Thierer, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

· Adam Thierer, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods (2009).

This weekend, The Wall Street Journal ran my short letter to the editor entitled, “We Can Protect Children and Keep the Internet Free.” My letter was a response to columnist Peggy Noonan’s April 9 oped, “Can Anyone Tame Big Tech?” in which she proposed banning everyone under 18 from all social-media sites. She specifically singled out TikTok, Youtube, and Instagram and argued “You’re not allowed to drink at 14 or drive at 12; you can’t vote at 15. Isn’t there a public interest here?”

I briefly explained why Noonan’s proposal is neither practical nor sensible, noting how it:

would turn every kid into an instant criminal for seeking access to information and culture on the dominant medium of their generation. I wonder how she would have felt about adults proposing to ban all kids from listening to TV or radio during her youth. Let’s work to empower parents to help them guide their children’s digital experiences. Better online-safety and media-literacy efforts can prepare kids for a hyperconnected future. We can find workable solutions that wouldn’t usher in unprecedented government control of speech.

Let me elaborate just a bit because this was the focus of much of my writing a decade ago, including my book, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods, which spanned several editions. Online child safety is a matter I take seriously and the concerns that Noonan raised in her oped have been heard repeatedly since the earliest days of the Internet. Regulatory efforts were immediately tried. They focused on restricting underage access to objectionable online content (as well as video games), but were immediately challenged and struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on free speech and a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But practically speaking, most of these efforts were never going to work anyway. There was almost no way to bottle up all the content flowing in the modern information ecosystem without highly repressive regulation, and it was going to be nearly impossible to keep kids off the Internet altogether when it was the dominant communications and entertainment medium of their generation. The first instinct of every moral panic wave–from the waltz to comic books to rock or rap music to video games–has often been to take the easy way out by proposing sweeping bans on all access by kids to the content or platforms of their generation. It never works.

Nor should it. There is a huge amount of entirely beneficial speech, content, and communications that kids would be denied by such sweeping bans. That would make such ban highly counter-productive. But, again, usually such efforts just were not practically enforceable because kids are often better at the cat-and-mouse game than adults give them credit for. Moreover, imposing age limitations of speech or content are far more difficult than age-related bans on specific tangible products, like tobacco or other dangerous physical products.

Acknowledging these realities, most sensible people quickly move on from extreme proposals like flat bans of all kids using the popular media platforms and systems of the day. Over the past half century in the U.S., this has led to a flowering of more decentralized governance approach to kids and media that I have referred to as the “3E approach.” That stands for empowerment (of parents), education (of youth), and enforcement (of existing laws). The 3E approach includes a variety of mechanisms and approaches, including: self-regulatory codes, private content rating systems, a wide variety of different parental control technologies, and much more.

Over the past two decades, many multistakeholder initiatives and blue-ribbon commissions were created to address online safety issues in a holistic fashion. I summarized their conclusions in my 2009 report, “Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer.” The crucial takeaway from all these task forces and commissions is that no silver-bullet solutions exist to hard problems. Child safety demands a vigilant but adaptive approach, rooted in a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Digital literacy is particularly crucial to building wiser, more resilient kids and adults, who can work together to find constructive approaches to hard problems.

Importantly, our task here is never done. This is an ongoing and evolving process. Issues like underage access to pornography or violent content have been with us for a very long time and will never be completely “solved.” We must constantly work to improve existing online safety mechanisms while also devising new solutions for our rapidly evolving information ecosystem. Nothing should be off the table except the one solution that Noonan suggested in her essay. Just proposing outright bans on kids on social media or any other new media platform (VR will be next) is an unworkable and illogical response that we should dismiss fairly quickly. No matter how well-intentioned such proposals may be, moral panic-induced prohibitions on kids and media ultimately are not going to help them learn to live better, safer, and more enriching lives in the new media ecosystems of today or the future. We can do better.

On Wednesday afternoon, it was my great pleasure to make some introductory remarks at a Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) event that was held at the Yahoo! campus in Sunnyvale, CA. FOSI CEO Stephen Balkam asked me to offer some thoughts on a topic I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about in recent years: Who needs parental controls? More specifically, what role do parental control tools and methods play in the upbringing of our children? How should we define or classify parental control tools and methods? Which are most important / effective? Finally, what should the role of public policy be toward parental control technologies on both the online safety and privacy fronts?

In past years, I spent much time writing and updating a booklet on these issues called Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods. It was an enormous undertaking, however, and I have abandoned updating it after I hit version 4.0. But that doesn’t mean I’m not still putting a lot of thought into these issues. My focus has shifted over the past year more toward the privacy-related concerns and away from the online safety issues. Of course, all these issues intersect and many people now (rightly) considered them to largely be the same debate.

Anyway, to kick off the FOSI event, I offered three provocations about parental control technologies and the state of the current debate over them. I buttressed some of my assertions with findings from a recent FOSI survey of parental attitudes about parental controls and online safety.

Provocation #1: While parental controls will continue to play an important role, it may be the case that many parents will not need parental controls technologies quite to the extent we once thought they did.

In one sense, usage of parental control tools is actually surprisingly high. The FOSI survey reported that 53% of parents say they have used parental control tools to assist them in monitoring their child’s Internet usage. That’s much higher than I would have expected.

Of course, that means that the other half of parents aren’t using parental controls. Why aren’t they? It can’t be because parents aren’t aware of the tools. Awareness of parental control tools is growing. According to the FOSI survey, 87% of parents report knowledge of at least one parental control technology.

Some critics claim it’s because the tools are too complicated, but that’s also hard to believe. The tools keep getting easier to use and cheaper—often being completely free of charge.

The better explanation lies in the fact that, first, talking to our kids continues to be the most important approach to mentoring youth and protecting them, just as it was for previous generations of parents. Almost all of the parents surveyed by FOSI (96%) said they have had a conversation with their child about what to do and not to do online.

Second, “household media rules” are the other unforgotten element here. These rules can be quite formal in the sense that parents make clear rules and enforce them routinely in the home over an extended period of time. Other media consumption rules can be fairly informal, however, and are enforced on a more selective basis. In my book on parental controls, I devised a taxonomy of household media rules and outlined four general categories: (1) “where” rules; (2) “when and how much” rules; (3) “under what conditions” rules; and, (4) “what” rules.

The FOSI survey reveals that such household media rules are widely utilized. Nearly all parents (93%) said they have set rules or limits to monitor their children’s online usage. In particular:

• 79% of parents surveyed require their children to only use the computer in a certain area of the house. (This is an example of a “where” rule.)
• 75% of parents limit the amount of time a child can spend online. (This is a “how much” rule.)
• 74% set rules for the times of day a child can be online. (This is a “when” rule.)
• 59% established time limits for use of a child’s cell phone. (This is another “how much” rule.)

Again, many pundits and policymakers routinely ignore the importance of such household media rules when talking about online child safety. They incorrectly assume that lower than expected usage of various parental control technologies means that those tools have failed or that kids are in great danger online. The reality is that most parents usually think of parental control technologies as a backup plan or complement to traditional parental mentoring and rule-setting responsibilities.

In fact, the FOSI survey revealed that, of those parents who have not used parental controls, 60% of them said it was because they already have rules and limits in place. Of course, none of this should be surprising. Most of us over 40 grew up without any parental control tools in our homes. Just like our parents before us, we devise strategies to mentor our youth and guide their development. Simple lessons and smart rules will, therefore, always be the first order of business. Technological controls will often only be used to supplement and better enforce those lessons and rules, if they are used at all.

In sum: parents are parenting!

Provocation #2: Kids are more resilient than we think.

Despite the panic we sometimes hear surrounding online safety and privacy, kids seem to be adapting to online environments and challenges quicker than parents (and policymakers) give them credit for. Without minimizing the seriousness of any particular concern, I think we need to step back and appreciate just how good of a job most kids have done adjusting to the modern Information Revolution.

There’s a great deal of literature in the field of psychology and sociology dealing with resiliency theory. When we think about risk in this world, there exists a range of responses. Prohibition and anticipatory regulation are on one end of the spectrum. Resiliency and adaptation are on the other.

When highly disruptive information technologies come on the scene, the first reaction is often prohibition or anticipatory regulation. That’s driven by fear of the new and unknown. Oftentimes, however, patience is the better disposition. Building resiliency and crafting adaptation strategies often makes more sense. Instilling principles and lessons to last a lifetime will ultimately do more to make our kids smart, savvy cyber-citizens and prepare them for the worst of what the world might throw their way.  It’s like the old “teach a man to fish” approach, except in this case it’s “teach a child to think.”

In many ways, this is precisely what has been happening for the past decade. Both parents and kids have been “learning on the job” so to speak. They’ve been adapting to new online worlds and gradually assimilating them into their lives. In the process, they have learned important lessons and become more resilient.

Of course, some risks are serious enough that they demand a more anticipatory solution, perhaps even prohibition. Child porn and online child abuse of any sort are the primary examples. But for most other things, social adaptation and resiliency responses generally trump prohibition or anticipatory regulation as the smart solution.

Provocation #3: The most interesting and important public policy debate going forward—both for child safety and kids’ privacy concerns—continues to be the vexing question of where to set to defaults and who sets them.

This isn’t the provocative part of this particular provocation. After all, we’ve always know that defaults matter . Psychologists speak of “status quo bias,” or the general inclination for humans to often stick with the choice they’ve initially been offered. Thus, default parental control and privacy-related settings are often quite “sticky.” Where safety and privacy defaults are set out of the gates is usually where they stay for many people.

A lot of people would like to find a way to change that—potentially through regulation—because they do not approve of the initial defaults offered by various online sites, service, or devices.

Generally speaking, there are two sets of hard questions here. First should we default to the most restrictive setting, the least restrictive, or should we force the consumer to make the choice before using the site, service, or device? Second, who makes that call? Private or public actors?

So, here’s my real provocation: We are better served as a society when these defaults evolve organically and are not imposed from above. Trial and error experimentation with varying defaults help us better understand the relative value of online safety and privacy to various users. That experimentation also sends important signals to other players in the marketplace and encourages them to offer innovative alternative or approaches to these issues. [Here’s a longer paper I penned on this issue explain why mandatory and highly restrictive defaults usually aren’t a good idea.]

The obvious objection to my position is that, if companies are the ones setting the defaults, then only their values get heard and their preferred defaults will always prevail. In reality, however, defaults often do evolve from where they are initially set. (Think of how browsers and social networking sites have added and changed privacy and security controls over just the past few years.) Press exposure and social pressure—especially from average parents and advocacy groups—typically help make sure service providers are responsive to needs of their communities.

Importantly, just because some the preferred defaults of some child safety or privacy advocates do not prevail, that doesn’t constitute “market failure.” There are many competing values at work here. First off, we must never forget that only 32% of all U.S. households have children present in them at any given time. And of that 32%, a small subset might need parental controls or enhanced privacy settings. Many others won’t need any. We live in a diverse nation with a wide spectrum of values and approaches when it comes to rearing our children and protection their safety and privacy. Some parents will never use any parental control or privacy tools. Others will layer them on. Others will use a mix of tools and strategies as outlined above.

In the end, we should expect that experimentation with varying defaults will continue and that there will always be some who are cranky about their preferred defaults not prevailing. But I think we are better off if we allow experiments to continue.

After I offered these initial provocations at the FOSI event, we had a terrific conversation among a diverse group of attendees. I took notes and tried to distill the key takeaways from the conversation, which was off the record. Here are 5 themes that I kept hearing coming up again and again from participants:

1. There is no single tool or silver-bullet solution that can solve all these problems; many tools and solutions are needed for the various concerns that are out there today
2. The term “parental controls” is too narrow since it just implies tools. We need a broader term or paradigm that incorporates education, awareness, empowerment, household media rules, etc.
3. Whether we are talking about tools or awareness efforts, there is remains a trade-off between sophistication and usability.  Many people and policymakers say they want more sophisticated tools but then turn around and complain about complexity of those solutions later. Stated differently, there will never be a “Goldilocks formula” that gets it just right precisely because needs and values evolve.
4. There are shifting concerns among parents from old days. In the early days of the Net, the concern tended to be focused more on content consumption (mostly adult material). Today, the concern seems to have shifted strongly toward content creation (ex: user-generated content on social networking sites, Twitter, SMS, etc.)
5. Kids are getting online at a younger age despite regulatory prohibitions such as COPPA and we’re going to have to grapple with that reality and whether we’ll allow it.

The Supreme Court wasn’t playing games with the First Amendment today. With its 7-2 decision in Brown v. EMA, the Court has protected video game creators and players from unconstitutional restrictions on what we can produce and play.

Today’s decision ensures that video games have First Amendment protection on par with books, film, music and other forms of entertainment and will help block other regulatory efforts that are justified by blindly alluding to the rationale that “it’s for the children.” The decision fits nicely alongside an impressive and growing string of recent First Amendment cases from the Court that significantly raise the bar against legislative efforts to regulate freedom of speech and expression.

Quick background: In May 2010, the Supreme Court announced that it would review a California law regulating the sale of violently-themed video games to minors. The case was Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, but the name of the case changed to after Jerry Brown became governor of California.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down a California law which prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, but California appealed and the SCOTUS took up the issue.  [Note: When we were still with the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Berin Szoka and I filed a big amicus brief with the Court in the case along with some folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.]  By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court backed the Ninth Circuit and overturned the California law. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented.

The crucial holdings in the decision are as follows:

1. Video games are protected speech deserving strict First Amendment scrutiny. The Court held: “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection.  Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium.  And ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech… do not vary’ with a new and different communication medium.”
2. Depictions of violence in video games cannot be treated as obscenity and regulated as such. The Court concluded flatly: “speech about violence is not obscene” and held that “a legislature cannot  create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social  costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.” It continues on: “the State of California wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.  That is unprecedented and mistaken.  This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access  to depictions  of violence.”
3. The social science literature on the impact of violent games is inconclusive. The Court found that: “Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act  aggressively.  Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.”
4. Concerns about children cannot be used as an excuse for sweeping content regulation (especially when less-restrictive means exist of dealing with access to objectionable content.) Government cannot excuse censorship by pointing to fears about children’s access to violent depictions of media. The Court noted that, “California’s effort to regulate violent video games is the latest episode in a long series of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors,” but that, “even where the protection of children is the object, the  constitutional limits on governmental action apply.” Violently-themed media is as old as literature itself, the Court noted. As has been the case with previous forms of violent content, parental responsibility is the better way to regulate access to potentially objectionable media. And the Court noted that tools and ratings exist to help parents do so.

This is the proper approach for a society that cherishes free speech, freedom of expression, and personal responsiblity. The Court did a great thing here today. Honestly, I was expecting a loss and had a long essay ready to go that reflected my disappointment.  Never have I been so pleased to tear up something I had spent so much time on!

A great day for the First Amendment.

P.S. As if often the case, best line in the decision came in a footnote: “Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are  not  constitutional ones.  Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less  forms of speech than The Divine Comedy,” Justice Scalia wrote.

Additional TLF Reading on Video Games:

• Again, Most Video Games Are Not Violent
• <a title="Permanent link to Thoughts on Oral Arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Video Game Case” href=”../2010/11/04/thoughts-on-oral-arguments-in-schwarzenegger-v-ema-video-game-case/”>Thoughts on Oral Arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Video Game Case
• <a title="Permanent link to EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case” href=”../2010/09/18/eff-pff-amicus-brief-in-schwarzenegger-v-ema-supreme-court-videogame-violence-case/”>EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
• If We Ban Violent Video Games, Why Not Violent Theme Park Attractions?
• Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis
• More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime
• Will the Supreme Court Protect Kitten-Crushing Videos & Virtual Kid Porn but Not Video Games?
• Video Games, Free Speech & the Lunacy of “Ecogenerism”
• Like the Terminator, Video Game Censorship Efforts Just Won’t Die
• Video Games and “Moral Panic”
• Kids, Video Games, Fantasy, & Imagination
• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Dear Gov. Patterson… Regarding that Video Game Bill You Are About to Sign
• Do video games create cop killers?
• review: Dr. Kourosh Dini’s “Video Game Play & Addiction”
• review: Kutner & Olson’s “Grand Theft Childhood”
• presentation at PSU’s conference on future of video games
• Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?
• First Amendment & Video Games [Updated] Score: Gamers 11, Censors 0
• Sen. Rockefeller Gives Up on Parenting at Senate Violence Hearing
• Can Government Improve Video Game Ratings?
• An Indecency Regime for Video Games?
• Let’s Consider the Facts Before We Call In Government to Regulate Video Games

I’m still digesting the transcript from Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the important First Amendment video game case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA. [Full transcript is here.]  I thought I would post just a couple of quick thoughts here. [Reminder: here is the amicus brief that Berin Szoka and I filed in the case, and here is some analysis of the case by Larry Downes.]

On Defining “Deviant Violence”

Much of the discussion during oral arguments was preoccupied with defining the contours of the term “deviant violence.”  I was pleased to see the Justices asking some sharp questions about the interpretation of that term for regulatory purposes. In particular, I enjoyed Justice Scalia’s remarks and questions to California Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, who argued the case on behalf of the state. Scalia said:

I am not just concerned with the vagueness. I am concerned with the vagueness, but I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. You are asking us to create…  a whole new prohibition which the American people never — never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment.  They knew they were — you know, obscenity was — was bad, but — what’s next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Movies that show smoking can’t be shown to children? Does — will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will.  But is — is that — are — are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why — why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay? (p. 15-16)

Indeed, that’s what is at stake in this case: The beginning of a new class of exceptions to the First Amendment based upon concerns about children’s exposure to depictions of “excessive” or “deviant” violence.”  Once you open up this can of worms, the sky is likely the limit in terms of how far governments might go to regulate speech in the name of “protecting children.”

If a majority of the Justices choose to side with the State of California and open the floodgates to a new era of speech regulation, I very much looking forward to seeing how they reconcile that with their decision last term in the controversial case of United States v. Stevens. In Stevens, the Court struck down a federal law that criminalized the creation or sale of videos showing animal cruelty. The law that the Court overturned was particularly concerned with “crush videos,” which, according to the Court, “feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish.” As I pointed out in this earlier essay, it would seem rather peculiar that the Court would allow the dissemination of videos of real kittens having their heads crushed by naked women in high heels, which kids might be able to see on the Internet, but then hold here in the Schwarzenegger case that allowing a minor to buy an M-rated video game with depictions of violence is verboten.  Hard to find the logic in that!

But the Court is going to have an even harder time reconciling regulation of depictions of violence with obscenity law and then delineating the boundaries of what governments can and cannot censor or control the sale of.  At least with obscenity, we have one bright-line test: Is sexual penetration shown?  Of course, things get pretty pretty murky after that.  Regardless, what is the equivalent test for violence in video games, movies, or television? Is it decapitation or exploding heads?  What if it’s a zombie head?  What if it’s just a ear that gets blown off a zombie’s head? What if you beat the zombie over the head with a baseball bat to kill him but his head never comes off? Or, as Justice Sotomayor asked, “what happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle. Is that covered by your act? Because they haven’t been maimed and killed forever. Just temporarily.” (p. 58)

You get the point: A lot of line-drawing is going to need to be done if the Court goes down this path.

On Juries & “Community Standards”

So, let’s drill a little deeper into the line-drawing issue and the enforcement of such regulatory ordinances. During oral arguments, there was an interesting exchange regarding how the State of California, or any other local government, might go about enforcing more speech-limiting ordinances on this front. Justice Ginsburg asked Assistant AG  Morazzini: “does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there — is there any kind of opinion that the — that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can’t?”  A terrific question and one followed up by Justice Scalia, who joked (I think): “You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship. It would judge each of these videos one by one.”

In response, Mr. Morazzini defaulted to the old obscenity playbook and argued that:

California’s not doing that here. The standard is quite similar to that in the sexual material realm. California is not acting as a censor. It is telling manufacturers and distributors to look at your material and to judge for yourselves whether or not the level of violent content meets the prongs of this definition. (p. 24)

Thus, Mr. Morazzini wants to dismiss the entire inquiry with the retort: “we ask juries to judge sexual material and its appropriateness for minors as well.”  But that doesn’t necessarily make such regulation any less offensive in the eyes of the First Amendment.  If the state empowers juries to censor, well, it’s still censorship. It’s just censorship with a slightly more democratic face!

Of course, in the field of First Amendment jurisprudence, this is all filed under the banner of “community standards” regulation. As Mr. Morazzini suggests, these is, indeed, a history of it in this country when it comes to obscenity law, although its increasingly rare.  Regardless, I have argued that the time has come to think differently about the appropriateness of “community standards” regulation.  Here’s how I put it in some remarks I made at the Oxford University Internet Institute last year:

It is my hope and belief that we are now in a position to more fully empower parents such that government regulation of content and communications will be increasingly unnecessary. In the past, it was thought to be too difficult for families to enforce their own “household standard” for acceptable content. Thus, many believed government needed to step in and create a baseline “community standard” for the entire citizenry.  Unfortunately, those “community standards” were quite amorphous and sometimes completely arbitrary when enforced through regulatory edicts.  Worse yet, those regulatory standards treated all households as if they had the same tastes or values—which is clearly not the case in most pluralistic societies. If it is the case that families now have the ability to effectively tailor media consumption and communications choices to their own preferences—that is, to craft their own “household standard”—then the regulatory equation can and should change.  Regulation can no longer be premised on the supposed helplessness of households to deal with content flows if families have been empowered and educated to make content determinations for themselves.  Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. Going forward, our goal should be to ensure that parents or guardians have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Optimally, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families. In my work, I refer to this as the “household empowerment vision.”

What we have with the Schwarzenegger case is the perfect test case for which direction the Court wants to take us.  Will the Court hold on to the past and the old vision of “community standards” regulation that the State of California wants to extend?  Or will the Court recognize that that standard was really a second-best surrogate for more direct parental and household-based standards of control?  The latter position is the one more consistent with a free, diverse society.  As I argued in my old book on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection:

Decisions about acceptable media content are extraordinarily personal; no two people or families will have the same set of values, especially in a nation as diverse as ours. Consequently, it would be optimal if public policy decisions in this field took into account the extraordinary diversity of citizen and household tastes and left the ultimate decision about acceptable content to them. That’s especially the case in light of the fact that most U.S. households are made up entirely of adults.

The ideal state of affairs, therefore, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. Specifically, parents or guardians would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block  objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

On The Role of Parental Controls in First Amendment Jurisprudence

Finally, let’s talk about those parental controls for a moment and the role they play in debates over First Amendment jurisprudence.  At one point during the oral arguments on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted video game industry lawyer Paul M. Smith of Jenner & Block to say that, “any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about 5 minutes.”  In response, Mr. Smith correctly noted that “That is one element of about five different elements” and cited a couple of other things such as the information conveyed by the video game’s excellent ratings system, as well as household-level controls / restrictions and the “power of the purse” that parents can exercise when junior asks for $50-$60 bucks to buy one of these games.

What Mr. Smith was getting at here is that today we have access to what I have called “a mosaic of parental control tools and methods” and what is really essential for First Amendment jurisprudence is that the Court not pin everything on just one of those tool or method.  Yes, some kids can evade parental controls, ignore household rules, steal money from Mom or Dad’s wallet to buy a game, etc.  But the combination of these many layers of control constitute what the court has repeatedly called “the less restrictive means” of dealing with these concerns compared to the sweeping nature of government content controls.

Importantly, we should recall what the Supreme Court said about the less restrictive means test in its 2000 decision in U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000), which echoed its earlier holding in Reno v. ACLU.  Specifically, in the Playboy case, the Court held that:

[T]argeted blocking [by parents] enables the government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners — listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests.

Moreover, the Court held that:

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.

This is an extraordinarily high bar the Supreme Court has set for policymakers wishing to regulate modern media content.  As constitutional law scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago School of Law has noted:

The bottom line, then, is that even in dealing with material that is “obscene for minors,” the government cannot directly regulate such material… Rather, it must focus on empowering parents and other adults to block out such material at their own discretion, by ensuring that content-neutral means exist that enable individuals to exclude constitutionally protected material they themselves want to exclude. Any more direct regulation of such material would unnecessarily impair the First Amendment rights of adults.

This is why parental control tools and methods are more important than ever before. The courts have largely foreclosed government censorship and placed responsibility over what enters the home squarely in the hands of parents.  But will the Supreme Court reverse this jurisprudential trend with its decision in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA decision?  I hope not.  If they do, it will undo about 15 years of really excellent case law on this front.

David Burt, who runs the “GetParentalControls.org,”  is one of America’s leading experts on parental control technologies, and he has just released the Parental Controls Product Guide: 2010 Edition. It’s an absolutely amazing resource for parents and academic researchers alike. I’ve spent a lot of time researching this marketplace and authored an ongoing report on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection, and I have served on several child safety task forces, including the new Online Safety Technology Working Group (OSTWG). So I’m quite familiar with the research in this field and I can say that this is one of the most important and useful resources I have come across in the past several years.  Well done, David!

Parental Controls Product Guide 2010 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

The website ProCon.org has a new debate online laying out the different perspectives about the question: “Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?” It includes citations for a wide variety of studies that come down on both sides of the question. Simply put, there’s a study for everyone out there. Do you want to find a study suggesting that there’s a strong correlation between violently-themed media and aggression? You can find plenty. Or do you want to hear that there’s no correlation between these things? Well, there’s plenty of studies suggesting that, too.

As someone who briefly flirted with a degree in psychology, I find this an interesting intellectual debate. But here’s the thing I can’t get away from — lab studies by psychology professors and students are not the real-world. I am consistently shocked and disappointed at the lack of scrutiny these studies receive when they are little more than artificial constructions of reality.

So, how can we determine whether watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs? Well, how about looking at the real world! Whatever lab experiments might suggest, the evidence of a link between depictions of violence in media and the real-world equivalent just does not show up in the data. The FBI produces ongoing Crime in the United States reports that document violent crimes trends. Here’s what the data tells us about overall violent crime, forcible rape, and juvenile violent crime rates over the past two decades: They have all fallen. Perhaps most impressively, the juvenile crime rate has fallen an astonishing 36% since 1995 (and the juvenile murder rate has plummeted by 62%).

Now, let me be perfectly clear about something. When analyzing such things it is vitally important to recall one of the first rules of statistical analysis: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This works in both directions. Even if an increase in real-world violence was closely tracking depictions of violence on television or in video games, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there is a connection. But it would also be wrong to state that, on its own, an inverse correlation (with the trends moving in opposite directions) meant that there was absolutely no connection between these things.

At the margin, I believe that some media can have negative impacts on some people. Certainly, in heavy enough doses, watching non-stop depictions of sex or violence probably would have some sort of negative effect on some people — loss of sleep, if nothing else. Perhaps more.

Then again, it is impossible to ignore the real-world evidence being so starkly at odds with the “monkey see, monkey do” theories bandied about by some researchers or regulatory proponents. At a minimum, the real-world evidence should at least call into question the “world-is-going-to-hell” sort of generalizations made by proponents of increased media regulation, who all too often make casual inferences about the relationship between media exposure and various social indicators. Such a causal relationship is even more dubious today since all Americans, especially youngsters, are surrounded by a much wider variety of media than ever before. Even though television viewing has gone down slightly in recent years, it has been due to the rise of other media substitutes that command the attention of children, including the Internet, cell phones and video games. Overall, therefore, it appears that children are “consuming” as much, if not more, media than ever before. One would think that if depictions of violence in media really were leading to increased aggression among youth it would start showing up in some of these indicators at some point. But that’s just not occurring. [If you’re interested, I’ve discussed all these issues at much greater detail here, here, here, here, and here.]

Another argument I often hear is: ‘Well, the numbers would be even better if not for media violence!’ But there’s just no way to prove that one way or the other. Would the juvenile crime rate be down 46% instead of the 36% decrease we’ve actually since 1995? I don’t know. Nobody can know. But I certainly hope that media critics and regulatory proponents aren’t so foolish as to suggest that the crime rate would drop to zero if we just forced everybody to watch “Mary Poppins” all day long.

Finally, let’s keep in mind that, whatever the evidence suggests, there are many other ways society can deal with objectionable media content without resorting to government censorship. There are plenty of excellent parental control tools and methods out there today which give individuals and families, all of which have different needs and values, the ability to craft their own “household media standard.” There are also ways to put pressure on media providers, distributors, and advertisers to self-regulate content, or better control when and where it appears.  And educational and media literacy strategies can help assimilate youth into a media-saturated culture. To me, that’s the best approach. If you accept the fact that media — including violently-themed media — has always been with us and is never going away, then you understand the importance of talking to kids about these things in an open, understanding, and loving fashion. We should be doing this in schools, at home, and throughout society.

In the meantime, don’t buy into the hype about artificial lab studies, regardless of what they say. The kids are alright.

Additional Reading:

• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Does TV Cause Violence Against Women? PTC’s “Women in Peril” Report
• Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?
• Are All Video Games Violent?
• Do video games create cop killers?
• Let’s Consider the Facts Before We Call In Government to Regulate Video Games
• review: Kutner & Olson’s “Grand Theft Childhood”
• review: Dr. Kourosh Dini’s “Video Game Play & Addiction”
• Jenkins on new Pew report about “Teens, Video Games, and Civics”

I’ve been meaning to say something about this new paper by Renee Newman Knake of Michigan State University College of Law, which calls for a new paradigm to analyze, and then likely regulate, video game content. Knake’s paper is entitled, “From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to Negative Effects of Mass Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Game Regulations.” In it, she proposes to extend an emerging legal philosophy known as “ecogenerism” to the field of video games and the First Amendment treatment thereof. “Ecogenerism” is largely the creation of Barbara Bennett Woodhouse and the theory argues that we should apply lessons or legal frameworks from the field of environmental law to the area of media and children. “Under an ecogenerist model,” states Knake, “media harm decisions should prioritize concern about the level of ‘toxic’ media which children are exposed over free speech interests.”  Simply stated, we should treat “toxic media” like toxic chemicals.

There have been other efforts to get courts to relax the legal scrutiny applied to video game content from “strict” to something more relaxed or intermediate in character. For example, there is the “violence as obscenity” approach proposed by Kevin Saunders, who, like Knake, is also with the Michigan State University College of Law. But whereas Saunders has proposed applying an adjacent legal theory or framework (obscenity law) to legal analysis of the constitutionality of regulation of video game content, Woodhouse and now Knake propose a much broader, and more radical, reformulation of First Amendment law along the lines of entirely different body of jurisprudence — again, environment law and regulation.

Of course, this is nuts. The notion that words or images are as “toxic” as chemicals is preposterous, and yet that is exactly what Knake and Woodhouse want us to accept. We can determine with a great deal of certainly the physiological impact of too much mercury or lead on the development of the human brain or body. Generally speaking, we know what dose would kill or deform. The same cannot possibly be said of media, and the very allusion to toxic materials or chemicals is ludicrous to begin with since words and images have never directly killed anyone. EVER!

Another problem with the analogy: Video game content, like many other forms of content, can also have profound societal value even when it is of a sexual or violent nature.  Even heavy “doses” of such media can be entirely acceptable (even beneficial) for some even if they are not for others. The same would not be said of toxic chemicals. Too much of a dose would be lethal to all.  In his latest “Law of the Game on Joystiq” column, Mark Methenitis does a nice job picking apart this paper in more detail and he really nails what’s wrong with this analogy between games and harmful chemicals, dangerous diseases, or potential deadly weapons:

A video game is not meningitis or AIDS, where occasional, isolated, or incidental exposure can lead to serious injury or death. Nor is a video game anything like a handgun, where exposure can lead to someone being seriously wounded, maimed or killed. Spending an hour with Halo or Borderlands at a friend’s house isn’t even in the same galaxy of potential harm as a kid having a gun or a serious illness at school.

Indeed, he rightly points out that many of the video games most likely to be regulated under an ecogenerist approach, like “Grand Theft Auto” or “Metal Gear Solid 4,”  have “a significant storyline with the same kind of political statement as the average Scorsese film.” Thus, he notes, “these [ecogenerist] restrictions would be impacting political speech, which is the most sacred and the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment.”  He also takes the authors of these theories to task for failing to seriously investigate the content they seek to censor.  “It is this lack of a true knowledge of the content that continually appears in so many arguments for video game regulation,” he notes.  Quite right.

Finally, we have better ways of dealing with objectionable media content, including video games, than to ban them outright or have regulators curtail content they don’t like. There is a rich mosaic of parental control tools and methods available to parents and guardians to deal with content they find unacceptable, and video game ratings and parental control tools are among the very best of any of those tools and rating systems.  As I have pointed out here far too many times to mention, we are at the stage now where our traditional reliance upon “community standards” regulation can give way to a “household standard” approach when it comes to “regulating” content.  Here’s how I put it in a recent paper I presented at Oxford University:

If it is the case that families now have the ability to effectively tailor media consumption and communications choices to their own preferences—that is, to craft their own “household standard”—then the regulatory equation can and should change.  Regulation can no longer be premised on the supposed helplessness of households to deal with content flows if families have been empowered and educated to make content determinations for themselves.  Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. Going forward, our goal should be to ensure that parents or guardians have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information.  Optimally, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

And, luckily, that’s the direction most free speech jurisprudence has been turning in the U.S. in recent years. It’s the right approach for a nation that values freedom of speech and expression.  The ecogenerist approach, by contrast, would open the floodgates to unprecedented censorship of speech in this country.  It would leave lawmakers and regulators free to play the role of national nanny and censor any sort of content they found personally objectionable by equating it with toxic chemicals or dangerous weapons.  That’s lunacy and it must be rejected as antithetical to our nation’s rich First Amendment history.

[Below is an old slide show presentation I did at Penn State University about “Video Games & Public Policy.” Thought it made sense to repost it here.]

Berin has already done a fine job tearing apart this latest effort by 10 activist groups to break the Internet by imposing burdensome regulation or punishing legal liability on Internet operators for the crime of trying to deliver relevant advertising to users that can actually pay for the content and services given away to users for free. To that, I would add my deep disappointment that the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) choose to join this cabal.  After all, the other members of the coalition are frequently heard calling for regulation of one variety or another. But EFF always prides itself on supposedly avoiding online regulatory schemes.  That’s what makes it so surprising that they chose to jump on this bandwagon for an Internet industrial policy in the name of “protecting privacy.”

EFF’s embrace of regulation is particularly inconsistent given their excellent filing in the FCC’s “Child Safe Viewing Act” proceeding this summer.  As I’ve previously noted, this proceeding raises the specter of “convergence-era content regulation” with Congress authorizing the FCC to look into “advanced blocking controls” for “wired, wireless, and Internet” platforms.  EFF’s comments rightly stressed dangers of expanded content controls or Internet regulation, and noted the many “less-restrictive means” available to the public that provide compelling alternatives to government regulation:  “Blocking technologies are widely available in the market and do not require further government support.”  And EFF has been instrumental throughout the years of making the case in courts for applying the less-restrictive means test and strict scrutiny when it comes to government efforts to regulate speech.

Why, then, does EFF take the diametrically opposite position when privacy concerns enter the picture? Berin and I appreciate the concerns some people have about their online privacy, just as we appreciate the concerns others have about media content or online child safety. But the only really important question here from a legal perspective is: Do people have tools and methods at their disposal to handle these concerns for themselves, or must government intervene and play Big Momma for them?

Berin and I have argued that citizens have more tools and methods at their disposal than ever before that enable them to make decisions for themselves and their families—both for parental controls and privacy-protecting technologies. In fact, we believe a good case can be made that privacy controls are actually superior to parental controls in terms of providing protection against the concerns at issue. That doesn’t mean privacy controls are perfect, but when properly configured, they can actually do a better job protecting user privacy than parental controls can against objectionable content.

So then, if current-generation privacy controls represent superior “less-restrictive means” to current generation parental control technologies, why does EFF support government regulation for privacy but not for child safety? It doesn’t make any sense to me.  They should be consistent in their support for real Internet freedom.

The latest edition (Version 4.0) of my PFF special report on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now up.  For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education and media literacy efforts, and various other tools, methods, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety.  After evaluating that state of this market, I conclude: “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 constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”  Moreover, I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation.

Version 4.0 of the report is now over 250 pages long (up from 200 pages in Version 3.0) and it contains almost 70 exhibits (up from 50), 725 references (up from roughly 500), and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. Other new sections or appendices have also been added to the report, including:

• a new section examining how many households really need parental control tools;
• a new appendix on the downsides of mandatory parental controls and restrictive default settings;
• a new section on the dangers of “deputizing the online middleman” solution as an approach to solving child safety concerns;
• a new appendix reviewing the findings of 5 past online safety task forces;
• … and much more.

I issue major updates once a year and 1 or 2 minor tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety marketplace and debate. The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past couple of years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

In an earlier post, I mentioned an important new online child safety task force report that has just been released from the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” Blue Ribbon Working Group. It’s a great report and I encourage you to read the whole thing. It was my great pleasure to serve on this task force, and as we started finalizing our conclusions and recommendations, I started thinking about how much of what we were finding and recommending was consistent with what past online safety task forces had also concluded.

By way of background, over the past decade, five major online safety task forces or blue ribbon commissions have been convened to study online safety issues. Two of these task forces were convened in the United States and issued reports in 2000 (“COPA Commission”) and 2002 (“Thornburgh Commission“). Another was commissioned by the British government in 2007 and issued in a major report in March 2008 (“Byron Review“). Finally, two additional online safety task forces were formed in the U.S. in 2008 and concluded their work, respectively, in January (“Internet Safety Technical Task Force“) and July (“Point Smart. Click Safe.“) of 2009. [And yet another task force — the Online Safety Technology Working Group — was recently formed and has now gotten underway.]

In a new PFF white paper, ” Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer,” I walk through a chronological summary of each of these past task forces [click on covers of each report below to read them in their entirety] and highlight some of the similar themes and recommendations from them.

Altogether, these five task forces heard from hundreds of experts and produced thousands of pages of testimony and reports on a wide variety of issues related to online child safety. While each of these task forces had different origins and unique membership, what is striking about them is the general unanimity of their conclusions. Among the common themes or recommendations of these five task forces:

• Education is the primary solution to most online child safety concerns. These task forces consistently stressed the importance of media literacy, awareness-building efforts, public service announcements, targeted intervention techniques, and better mentoring and parenting strategies.
• There is no single “silver-bullet” solution or technological “quick-fix” to child safety concerns. That is especially the case in light of the rapid pace of change in the digital world.
• Empowering parents and guardians with a diverse array of tools, however, can help families, caretakers, and schools to exercise more control over online content and communications.
• Technological tools and parental controls are most effective as part of a “layered” approach to child safety that views them as one of many strategies or solutions.
• The best technical control measures are those that work in tandem with educational strategies and approaches to better guide and mentor children to make wise choices. Thus, technical solutions can supplement, but can never supplant, the educational and mentoring role.
• Industry should formulate best practices and self-regulatory systems to empower users with more information and tools so they can make appropriate decisions for themselves and their families. And those best practices, which often take the form of an industry code of conduct or default control settings, should constantly be refined to take into account new social concerns, cultural norms, and technological developments.
• Government should avoid inflexible, top-down technological mandates. Instead, policymakers should focus on encouraging collaborative, multifaceted, multi-stakeholder initiatives and approaches to enhance online safety. Additional resources for education and awareness-building efforts are also crucial. Finally, governments should ensure appropriate penalties are in place to punish serious crimes against children and also make sure law enforcement agencies have adequate resources to police crimes and punish wrong-doers.

The consistency of these findings from those five previous task forces is important and it should guide future discussions among policymakers, the press, and the general public regarding online child safety.  As I note in the paper, the findings are particularly relevant today since Congress and the Obama Administration — including 3 federal agencies (NTIA, FCC, & FTC) are actively studying these issues. So, in light of all that, I hope this short paper can shed some light on the collective wisdom of the past task forces. While more study of online child safety issues is always welcome — including additional task forces or working groups if policymakers deem them necessary — thanks to the work of these five task forces, we now have better vision of what is needed to address online safety concerns.

Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree [PFF – Adam Thierer] http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17181137&access_key=key-z6cxfgrjkqaqtxbix&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

Rebecca MacKinnon has an important piece in the Wall Street Journal today about China’s “Green Dam Youth Escort” filtering mandate and the danger of this model catching on with other governments. “More and more governments — including democracies like Britain, Australia and Germany — are trying to control public behavior online, especially by exerting pressure on Internet service providers,” she notes. “Green Dam has only exposed the next frontier in these efforts: the personal computer.”

She’s right, and that’s cause for serious concern.  Moreover, there’s the question of how corporations doing business in China should respond to demands and threats related to installing such filters. She notes:

In a world that includes child pornographers and violent hate groups, it is probably not reasonable to oppose all censorship in all situations. But if technical censorship systems are to be put in place, they must be sufficiently transparent and accountable so that they do not become opaque extensions of incumbent power — or get hijacked by politically influential interest groups without the public knowing exactly what is going on. Which brings us back to companies: the ones that build and run Internet and telecoms networks, host and publish speech, and that now make devices via which citizens can go online and create more speech. Companies have a duty as global citizens to do all they can to protect users’ universally recognized right to free expression, and to avoid becoming opaque extensions of incumbent power — be it in China or Britain.

I generally agree with all that but this is a difficult issue and one that I have struggled with personally. (See this “Friendly Conversation about Corporate High-Tech Engagement with China” that Jim Harper and I had three years ago).  But I do hope that more companies take a hard line with the Chinese as well as there own governemnts when it comes to filtering mandates or even restricitve parental control defaults and settings [an issue I wrote more about in this paper: “The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults.”]  On that note, kudos to the business groups that already signed on to a joint letter oppossing China’s new filtering mandate.

The first meeting of the Online Safety Technology Working Group (OSTWG) took place today and I just wanted to provide interested parties with relevant info and links in case they want to keep track of the task force’s work.  As I mentioned back in late April, this new task force was established by the “Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act,” (part of the ‘‘Broadband Data Improvement Act’,’ Pub. L. No. 110-385) and it will report to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

I’m happy to be serving on this new working group and I am particularly honored to be serving as the chairman of 1 of the 4 subcommittees. The four subcommittees will address: data retention, child pornography, educational efforts, and parental controls technologies. I am chairing that last subcommittee on parental controls.  The task force has about 35 members and we have a year to conduct our research and report back to Congress.  Here are some relevant links from the NTIA website that provide additional details about this task force:

• Online Safety and Technology Working Group Background
• Meeting Webcast Archive (RealMedia)
• June 4, 2009, Public Meeting Agenda

Of course, this is certainly not the first task force to explore online safety issues.  There was the COPA Commission (2000), the “Thornburgh Commission” report (2002), the U.K. “Byron Commission” report (2008), the Harvard Berkman Center’s Internet Safety Technical Task Force (2008), and the NCTA-iKeepSafe-CommonSenseMedia “Point Smart, Click Safe” working group, which is due to issue its final report shortly.  [Full disclosure: I was a member of that last two task forces as well.]  I’m currently working on a short paper that attempts to summarize the remarkably similar findings of these important child safety working groups.  Generally speaking, they all concluded that education and empowerment, not regulation, were the real keys to moving forward and making our kids safer online.

As I mentioned in a post last month, dozens of comments were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of the agency’s “Child Safe Viewing Act” Notice of Inquiry.  Again, this proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  I filed 150+ pages worth of comments in this matter, and here’s my analysis of why this bill and the FCC’s proceeding are worth monitoring closely.

Anyway, this week saw many of the same groups that filed before (and some new ones) file reply comments about those earlier submissions.  To make things simple, I have collected most of the notable reply comments down below in case anyone is interested.

• Association of National Advertisers
• American Legislative Exchange Council
• Children’s Media Policy Coalition
• Coalition for Independent Ratings
• Comcast
• Consumer Electronic Association
• Digimarc
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Entertainment Software Association
• Funai Electric Co.
• ION Media Networks
• Microsoft
• Motorola
• NAB, NCTA, & MPAA
• Nintendo
• Parents Television Council
• Smart Television Alliance
• TiVo
• T-Mobile
• TV Guardian

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has just released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the matter of “Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming.” (MB Docket No. 09-26)  This NOI was required by S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last October and President Bush signed into law on December 2nd.  The measure requires the FCC to examine:

(1) the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or platforms; (2) methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and (3) the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market.

The Act defines the term “advanced blocking technologies” as “technologies that can improve or enhance the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent.”  Importantly, the Act also directs the agency to look into blocking technologies that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms” and which “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming.”   The Act requires that the FCC issue a report to Congress about these technologies no later than August 29, 2009.

When writing about the Child Safe Viewing Act shortly after its introduction in the summer of 2007, I noted that the measure potentially represented the beginning of “convergence-era content regulation” at the FCC.  Those two clauses highlighted above are of particular importance in that regard.  Congress has essentially invited the FCC to engage in unprecedented oversight of media platforms and ratings systems that the agency previously had very little ability to influence. 

First, the Act’s stipulation that the FCC examine advanced content blocking technologies that “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator,” seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption that suggests the FCC might be able to come up with better media ratings on its own. But the fact that the agency has been empowered to look into rating systems for media content outside its area of authority (ex: movies, mobile media, online video) means that the agency might now be potentially placing greater pressure on media providers and distributors in those fields to “clean up” their content that same way that the agency pressures TV and radio broadcasters.

Similarly, the Act’s requirement that the agency look into blocking technologies on “wired, wireless, and Internet platform” is an open-ended invitation for the FCC to oversee content on platforms and mediums that the agency previously had no control over.  This clause on page 4 of the FCC’s NOI is telling in that regard:

The Senate Report also explains that the Act requires the Commission to consider technologies that may be appropriate across a variety of content distribution platforms “[i]n recognition of the fact that television content is currently being made available over the Internet and over mobile devices.” This language suggests that Congress intended that we focus on television content and the variety of platforms over which such content can be displayed and consider technologies capable of blocking inappropriate audio or video content transmitted as part of such programming.

In some ways, this makes all the sense in the world. The fact that Congress and the FCC have long been engaged in the regulation of content by its means of transmission to the viewer or listener has always been a bit silly. Basing regulation on what Randy May has called “techno-functional constructs” has resulted in a jurisprudential Twilight Zone in terms of speech regulation: identical words and images transmitted over one medium end up being regulated different than when transmitted over another. (See my article “Why Regulate Broadcasting?” for more discussion.)  Traditionally, this has meant broadcasting drew the short straw when it came to First Amendment treatment, with their analog signals or digital bits being deemed worthy of less First Amendment protection than the signals or bits transmitted over cable, satellites, fiber, or even print media.

As lawmakers increasingly realize that an age of media abundance and technological convergence has made those silly techno-functional constructs even more preposterous, we can expect Congress to introduce more legislation like the Child Safe Viewing Act and encourage FCC scrutiny of content regardless of its means of transmittal.  But such proposals raise a number of interesting questions, including:

(1) Does the FCC have the statutory authority to be regulating (or even investigating) speech on those other platforms?  What are the First Amendment issues at stake here?

(2) Assuming it has some authority, if the FCC finds that “advanced blocking controls” are not present, or do not work effectively, what remedies would the agency pursue?  (Can you say “universal ratings”?)

(3) Just what sort of resources will be required to allow the FCC to police all “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms”?

I don’t want to go overboard here and suggest that the agency is going to jump right onto the censorship bandwagon and start regulating everything under the sun thanks to S. 602.  Again, to be clear, the Child Safety View Act only authorizes the agency to study to market for advanced blocking tools.  It’s hard to argue against “the study” of anything.  But what concerns me here is the specter of regulatory creep. As I concluded in an earlier essay about the measure:

We have to hope that the FCC doesn’t use this “study” as an excuse to undermine existing voluntary parental controls and private content rating efforts or, worse yet, embark on an effort to impose new speech controls or mandatory rating and labeling schemes on media content. If they follow that path, a serious First Amendment battle awaits.

Is that a valid concern, or am I over-stating things? Well, consider this.  Between pages 15-20 of the NOI, in a section on”Content Available over the Internet,” the agency poses dozens of questions about new digital technologies and services including: Hulu,YouTube, TiVo, iTunes and the iPhone, iPod and Mp3 players, peer-to-peer networks, wi-fi hot spots, Teen Second Life, and even video game consoles.  In fact, on page 16 of the NOI the agency asks: “What impact, if any, does the interface between video gaming systems and the Internet have on children’s online safety?”  It’s certainly a legitimate question for public debate, but is anyone else besides me uncomfortable with the fact that the Federal Communications Commission is asking it?  If, like me, you’ve spent you’re life fighting over-zealous FCC content regulation, then you might appreciate my concern.  Will the FCC soon be fielding complaints about the next installment of “Grand Theft Auto”?  Are uncensored “Saturday Night Live” clips on Hulu suddenly going to be subjected to broadcast TV-like indecency fines?  Is my iTunes podcast fair game for federal regulators?  Again, I hope none of this paranoia is justified, but I think there are reasons to be concerned.

The more constructive path forward for the FCC is to help highlight the useful tools and rating systems already on the market and encourage parents to take advantage of them if they feel so compelled. As FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein noted in his statement about the NOI, “Blocking technology strikes a balance beneficial to all parties involved: it allows us to protect our children while respecting the creative and expressive rights of content creators.”  Indeed, as I have argued in my book on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection:”

The ideal state of affairs, therefore, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. Specifically, parents or guardians would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

If the FCC can help build public awareness about such user-empowerment tools, that’s wonderful. I’m all for that. But it’s what the agency might do above and beyond that which has my spider sense tingling.

Anyway, you can read the bill and the NOI below and judge for yourself. [Note: The version of S. 602 below is the version passed by the Senate. The final version agreed to by the House stripped out Sec. 2, the findings section, and Sec. 3 became the new Sec. 2. For some reason, the GPO never produced a final PDF version of the bill as passed by the full Congress. If someone else has it, please forward it to me so I can post it here.]

S602 Child Safe Viewing Act http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12963165&access_key=key-1uqqvj45uwpa1z9qihzq&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

FCC NOI for Child Safe Viewing Act (MB 09-26) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12963105&access_key=key-12ctxrbeq6b7cuh98m6t&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

I’ve got a new PFF paper out today entitled, “Who Needs Parental Controls? Assessing the Relevant Market for Parental Control Technologies.” In this piece, I address the argument made by some media and Internet critics who say that government intervention (perhaps even censorship) may be necessary because parental control technologies are not widely utilized by most Americans. But, as I note in the paper, the question that these critics always fail to ask is: How many homes really need parental control technologies? The answer: Far fewer than you think. Indeed, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is actually quite limited.

I find that the percentage of homes that might need parental control technologies is certainly no greater than the 32% of U.S. households with children in them. Moreover, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is likely much less than that because households with very young children or older teens often have little need for parental control technologies. Finally, some households do not utilize parental control technologies because they rely on alternative methods of controlling media content and access in the home, such as household media rules. Consequently, policymakers should not premise regulatory proposals upon the limited overall “take-up” rate for parental control tools since only a small percentage of homes might actually need or want them.

If you don’t care to read the whole nerdy thing, I’ve created this short video summarizing the major findings of the paper.

And the document is embedded below the fold in a Scribd reader. Who Needs Parental Controls PFF http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12864194&access_key=key-4p1wl0cam0e5z4oxyfm&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

The Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF), which was formed a year ago to study online safety concerns and technologies, today issued its final report to the U.S. Attorneys General who authorized its creation. It was a great honor for me to serve as a member of the ISTTF and I believe this Task Force and its report represent a major step forward in the discussion about online child safety in this country.

The ISTTF was very ably chaired by John Palfrey, co-director of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and I just want to express my profound thanks here to John and his team at Harvard for doing a great job herding cats and overseeing a very challenging process. I encourage everyone to examine the full ISTTF report and all the submissions, presentations, and academic literature that we collected. [It’s all here.] It was a comprehensive undertaking that left no stone unturned.

Importantly, the ISTTF convened (1) a Research Advisory Board (RAB),which brought together some of the best and brightest academic researchers in the field of child safety and child development and (2) a Technical Advisory Board (TAB), which included some of America’s leading technologists, who reviewed child safety technologies submitted to the ISTTF. I strongly recommend you closely examine the RAB literature review and TAB assessment of technologies because those reports provide very detailed assessments of the issues. They both represent amazing achievements in their respective arenas.

There are a couple of key takeaways from the ISTTF’s research and final 278-page report that I want to highlight here. Most importantly, like past blue-ribbon commissions that have studied this issue, the ISTTF has generally concluded there is no silver-bullet technical solution to online child safety concerns. The better way forward is a “layered approach” to online child protection. Here’s how we put it on page 6 of the final report:

The Task Force remains optimistic about the development of technologies to enhance protections for minors online and to support institutions and individuals involved in protecting minors, but cautions against overreliance on technology in isolation or on a single technological approach. Technology can play a helpful role, but there is no one technological solution or specific combination of technological solutions to the problem of online safety for minors. Instead, a combination of technologies, in concert with parental oversight, education, social services, law enforcement, and sound policies by social network sites and service providers may assist in addressing specific problems that minors face online. All stakeholders must continue to work in a cooperative and collaborative manner, sharing information and ideas to achieve the common goal of making the Internet as safe as possible for minors.

In sum, education and empowerment are the real keys to keeping kids safer online. We all need to work harder to mentor our children and help them develop the skills and good old fashion common sense to make smart decisions online. Technical tools can supplement — but can never supplant — education, parental guidance, and better mentoring.

Still, this was a task force that primarily came about after state attorneys general (AGs) had been incessantly pressuring social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to adopt age verification technologies as a solution to online child safety concerns. Specifically, fears about online predators — driven largely by the moral panic whipped up by shows like NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” — prompted calls for mandatory age verification for social networking sites.

So, what did the final ISTTF report have to say about mandatory age verification. Answer: Probably not as much as the AGs were hoping for, and what we did say they may not like to hear.

First, the ISTTF’s Research Advisory Board conclusively proved the primary online safety issue today is peer-on-peer cyber-harassment, not adult predation. Mandatory age verification would do nothing to stop cyberbullying. Indeed, the lack of adult supervision may even exacerbate the problem.

Second, after reviewing various age verification solutions, the ISTTF’s Technical Advisory Board concluded:

Age verification and identity authentication technologies are appealing in concept but challenged in terms of effectiveness. Any system that relies on remote verification of information has potential for inaccuracies. For example, on the user side, it is never certain that the person attempting to verify an identity is using their own actual identity or someone else’s. Any system that relies on public records has a better likelihood of accurately verifying an adult than a minor due to extant records. Any system that focuses on third-party in-person verification would require significant political backing and social acceptance. Additionally, any central repository of this type of personal information would raise significant privacy concerns and security issues.

As a result, our final report concluded that:

The Task Force does not believe that the Attorneys General should endorse any one technology or set of technologies to protect minors online. Instead, the Attorneys General should continue to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in pursuing a multifaceted approach to enhance safety for minors online.

Then, on pages 28-31, we go into more detail about age verification, finding that:

[Age verification] approaches are less effective in the child safety context — in other words, at creating safe environments for minors — than in the context of completing financial transactions or regulating purchases, especially to the extent that identity authentication and age verification focus solely upon adults. The reasons for this include the fact that in the commercial and financial contexts, an adult typically wants to verify his or her identity correctly in order to purchase a product or get access to records. Moreover, when adults purchase regulated items (such as alcohol or tobacco) online, in some cases a second form of age verification occurs when the item is delivered.

The identity authentication and age verification solutions that authenticate or verify only adults could be and are already sometimes used to reduce minors’ access to adult-only sites. Because they do not authenticate or verify minors, however, they cannot be used to create environments for minors that require authentication or verification prior to access. To the extent that an adult nonetheless uses his or her own verifiable information when accessing an environment intended only for minors, these technologies could enhance the ability of Internet service providers and social network sites to exclude that adult. Of course, it seems unlikely that an adult with nefarious purposes would proceed in this manner. Thus, while these types of identity authentication and age verification technologies may be helpful for other purposes, they do not appear to offer substantial help in protecting minors from sexual solicitation.

And there’s far more detail following this passage from the final report, so please read that section for additional discussion.

Again, some AGs may not like to hear all this but these were near-consensus findings of the Task Force. And, if anything, the Task Force probably did not far enough to show why mandatory age verification will not work and how age verification will actually make kids less safe online. In my final statement to the Task Force, this is what I spent my time focusing on. I outlined the dangers of age verification as well as 10 questions about age verification that the AGs must answer if they persist in this pursuit of a technological Holy Grail. I have embedded my entire expanded final statement down below as a Scribd document, but here are the key reasons I believe mandatory age verification represents a dangerous solution to online child safety concerns:

Again, although the Task Force didn’t go quite as far as I would have liked in terms of making clear the dangers associated with mandatory age verification, I think our final report reflects the general skepticism among Task Force members about taking that path or relying too heavily on any single, silver-bullet technical approach to online child safety concerns. Again, this is real progress; a sensible step forward in the discussion about keeping our kids safe online.

I hope policymakers will take a close look at our conclusions and recommendations and take them seriously. We need to stop wasting so much time searching for silver bullets and start getting more serious about how to better mentor our kids so that they can be good — and safe — digital citizens. Education, not regulation, is the key.

Below I have linked to some background essays about the Internet Safety Technical Task Force as well as additional thoughts by fellow task force members or reporters. I’ll add to it as I see new things in coming days.

Additional thoughts / articles about the ISTTF:

• ISTTF director John Palfrey discusses the report on this short podcast with Larry Magid as well as this longer one from the Berkman Center
• ISTTF co-director danah boyd comments on the report on her blog
• ISTTF member Larry Magid of ConnectSafely.org: “Net Threat to Minors Less Than Feared,” CNet News.com
• ISTTF member Anne Collier of Net Family News: “Key Crossroads for Net Safety“
• ISTTF member Stephen Balkam of FOSI featured on an NPR podcast about our work
• ISTTF member John Morris of CDT: “Deconstructing Reaction to Net Safety Task Force Report“
• ISTTF member Marsali Hancock, President of iKeepSafe blog essay about the task force
• AGs respond to report in interview with Emily Steel of the Wall Street Journal: “The Case for Age Verification“
• New York Times article by Brad Stone: “Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown“
• Wall Street Journal article by Emily Steel: “No Easy Answer for Protecting Kids Online“
• Associated Press story by Anick Jesdanun: “Panel: Technology Alone Can’t Protect Kids Online“
• Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus blog entry by Tracy Mitrano, “Report Weighs the Benefits and Risks of Social Networks,”
• PC World article by Jaikumar Vijayan: “Study Accused of Exaggerating Kids Online Safety“
• PC World blog post by Jaikumar Vijayan: “Are Internet Child Safety Concerns Overblown or Understated?”

Background info:

• an old blog entry of mine about the formation of the task force
• an old paper of mine about the agreement between MySpace and AGs that led to the formation of the ISTTF
• an essay of mine from the ISTTF’s mid-point: “Age Verification Debate Continues; Schools Now at Center of Discussion“
• my big white paper on the dangers of mandatory age verification
• my book: “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods”
• my final ISTTF statement, which is also embedded below as a Scribd document…

Today’s USA Today features a debate between the editors and me on the question of the impact media has on children and what should be done about it. Their editorial argues that “Today’s mass media penetrate deeply and quietly, inflicting real damage on young children, an increasing body of research shows.” Specifically, they are referring to a new study commissioned by Common Sense Media (CSM), which claims that a review of 173 studies shows “that a strong correlation exists between greater exposure and adverse health outcomes.”

In my response entitled “Don’t Scapegoat Media,” which appears in its entirety down below the fold, I argue that “Media have long been a convenient scapegoat for the woes of the world,” and that we must be careful not to assume correlation equals causation when surveying the impact of media on kids. After all, I argue, “how do [those studies] account for the other variables that influence youth development, including broken homes, bad parents, socioeconomic status, troubled peer relations, poor schools and so on? And how is media exposure weighted relative to these other influences? Is a beer ad really as much of a negative influence as an alcoholic parent?” Again, read my entire response below. [Of course, even if one assumes some media has an impact on some kids, there are plenty of ways for parents and guardians to take control over the media in their lives, as I have shown in my big book on the subject.]

I was also quoted in this Washington Post article about the new CSM study on Tuesday.

Don’t Scapegoat Media by Adam Thierer 12/4/08

USA Today

Media have long been a convenient scapegoat for the woes of the world. In particular, fears about the influence media might have on our children have often prompted calls for “crackdowns” on speech and expression.

Typically, these fears fade as one generation’s media boogeyman becomes another’s treasured art form. That’s not to say media don’t have an impact on some children. Clearly, media are among many factors that influence culture and behavior.

But what about those other influences? Some studies summarized in the new Common Sense Media (CSM) report suggest a potential link between media exposure and certain social pathologies. But how do they account for the other variables that influence youth development, including broken homes, bad parents, socioeconomic status, troubled peer relations, poor schools and so on? And how is media exposure weighted relative to these other influences? Is a beer ad really as much of a negative influence as an alcoholic parent?

That’s why it’s important to recall a fundamental tenet of all social sciences: Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Human behavior is complicated and quite difficult to measure “scientifically.” Just defining “media exposure” and “negative health outcomes” is tricky enough; identifying root causes is even more challenging.

The sky hasn’t fallen the way some media critics feared. While childhood obesity is a growing problem, it’s important not to lose sight of the impressive gains we’ve made in other areas, such as falling juvenile violence, teen pregnancy, and youth drug and alcohol abuse. Moreover, even if some media negatively influence some children, that must be balanced against the many ways media inspire and empower.

The authors of the CSM survey are to be commended, however, for avoiding regulatory recommendations and instead focusing on the sensible steps parents, schools, industry and government can take to educate kids and empower families to take control over the media in their lives. More information, increased media options and better mentoring of our children are the prudent approaches.

Today, President Bush signed S. 602, “The Child Safe Viewing Act.”(CNet story here). The measure requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct an inquiry to examine the availability of, and methods of encouraging the use of, advanced blocking technologies that help parents protect their children from transmitted video and audio programming that the parents determine to be indecent or objectionable. The FCC has 270 days to complete the report.

I wrote about the measure more extensively when it passed the Senate back in October. As I noted in then, the measure was modified slightly when it passed through the Commerce Committee last year, but it still contains some provision that could be problematic. Specifically, as part of the FCC’s required study, the bill commands the FCC to “consider advanced blocking technologies” that:

• may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
• operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming.

Those two provisions are cause for concern since they raise the specter of what I referred to as “convergence-era content regulation” in a PFF paper about the bill last year. It does so in two ways. First, it opens the door to FCC bureaucrats investigating media content controls for wireless and Internet platforms, something it has never been empowered to do before. Second, by specifying that these new advanced content blocking technologies should “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator,” the law seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption that suggests the FCC might be able to come up with better media ratings on its own.

Of course, I could be overplaying these fears. The FCC might just stay true to its required role to act as an independent agency that can objectively evaluate the market and produce a balanced report on the issue. Then again, like so much else on this front, the entire endeavor could become a politicized mess and another exercise in media-bashing, complete with calls for greater regulation “for the children.”

Bottom line: We have to hope that the FCC doesn’t use this “study” as an excuse to undermine existing voluntary parental controls and private content rating efforts or, worse yet, embark on an effort to impose new speech controls or mandatory rating and labeling schemes on media content. If they follow that path, a serious First Amendment battle awaits.

P.S. If the FCC wants to save some time and some taxpayer dollars, I am happy to send over free copies of my big Parental Controls & Online Child Safety report to all FCC officials. Not to sound arrogant, but I believe my report already accomplishes most of what the bill requires. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the FCC to call.

[Note: The Washington Watch page for S. 602 is here.]

Yesterday, the Senate passed S. 602, “The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which was introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) in February 2007. The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the market for “advance blocking technologies” (i.e., parental controls and rating systems) that parents can use to protect their kids from inappropriate content from various sources and platforms. On the surface, the measure seems harmless enough, but in practice, it could have some troubling long-term free speech implications if it leads to more government meddling with parental controls and ratings systems.

The measure requires the FCC to initiate a notice of inquiry to consider measures to examine:

1. the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or platforms;
2. methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and
3. the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market.

That all sounds harmless enough. Indeed, such a study could produce some useful information about the state of the parental controls marketplace.  (Of course, I could save them some taxpayer dollars and just send copies of my big Parental Controls & Online Child Safety report to all FCC officials!)

But it’s what comes next in the bill that causes me some heartburn. As part of the review mandated by the bill, S. 602 commands the FCC to “consider advanced blocking technologies that”:

1. may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
2. may be appropriate across a wide variety of devices capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable set top boxes, satellite receivers, and wireless devices;
3. can filter language based upon information in closed captioning;
4. operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming; and;
5. may be effective in enhancing the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from indecent or objectionable programming, as determined by such parent.

I have highlighted the two provisions that are cause for concern since they raise the specter of what I referred to as “convergence-era content regulation” in a PFF paper about the bill last year.  Let me explain.

Regarding that first provision, here’s how I stated my concern in my old paper:

In demanding that regulators investigate and consider requiring blocking technologies for “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms,” the measure potentially opens the door to the beginning of convergence-era content regulation at the FCC. The agency currently has no authority to regulate content (or parental control technologies or rating systems) on most media or communications platforms outside of broadcasting, and its authority over broadcasting is limited. But S. 602 would potentially give regulators the ability to begin expanding the horizons of federal content regulation. One wonders what sort of resources the FCC would need to carry out this task. After all, we’re talking about numerous platforms and a potentially enormous volume of content. The FCC would likely need a small army of regulators to ensure that all “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms” were in compliance with the law. Will there be a specific team of FCC officials devoted to monitoring advanced blocking mechanisms for the official websites of major media operators? What about YouTube.com, MySpace.com and other major websites that host both user-generated content and professional media content? What about the new media platforms and content that mobile operators are offering? Many advanced blocking tools already exist to screen or filter online content, but whether other types of regulation could be required under S. 602 remains unclear. Moreover, the global reach of many of these online platforms raises other enforcement issues.

Second, regarding the second provision I highlighted above (about “independent ratings”), here again is how I stated my concern in my paper:

in specifying that these new advanced content blocking technologies should “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming,” S. 602 seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption. Existing rating and labeling systems, while not perfect, are well-established and comprehensive. It is simply unrealistic to expect that all new advanced content blocking technologies will operate independent of existing rating and labeling systems, such as the television rating system, the MPAA movie rating systems, and the video game industry’s ESRB rating system. It is important to realize that these systems rate and label almost all the entertainment content produced in their respective fields. While third-party rating systems can supplement these official industry rating schemes, it is unlikely those independent schemes will ever be as comprehensive as the official industry systems. More importantly, existing blocking tools on the market today, such as the V-Chip and cable and satellite set-top boxes, rely on those official rating and labeling systems, which most Americans are already familiar with. It is unrealistic to expect all new consumer media devices to employ alternative blocking schemes or be able to read independent rating systems. Thus, it remains unclear what that sponsors of S. 602 are hoping to accomplish by specifying that new blocking systems “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator.” Regardless, the real danger here is that that language could fuel a push for “universal” media ratings that would be imposed by the government or a third-party which has the government’s blessing. It goes without saying that such a proposal would raise serious First Amendment concerns. But, even setting aside the clear First Amendment concerns, there is no practical reason to believe that the government could actually do a better job of assigning ratings or creating parental control tools. If the government were responsible for assigning content ratings or labels, for example, five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC or some other regulatory agency would simply substitute their own values for those of the voluntary rating boards or other labeling organizations in existence today.

Importantly, however, the version of S. 602 that the Senate passed was amended before being voted out of the Senate Commerce Committee on August 2, 2007. The amended version made a few important wording changes to the original version of the bill. Specifically, the Senate Commerce Committee struck the phrase that specified the FCC would have the power ” to encourage or require” the use of advanced blocking technologies.  Needless to say, that’s a very important deletion since it means that S. 602 hasn’t granted the FCC sweeping new powers to require the creation of content controls or ratings systems.  It’s one thing for the FCC to study the marketplace of existing controls and ratings systems. It’s quite another for the agency to get actively involved in the business of mandating or regulating those controls or rating systems.

Sen. Pryor and his Senate colleagues are to be commended for avoiding direct content regulation and instead focusing on empowering families to make media consumption decisions on their own. Nonetheless, in an attempt to empower parents it is important that Congress not empower regulators instead.  S. 602 opens the door to an expansion of the FCC’s authority over media content on multiple platforms and threatens to undermine private, voluntary rating systems in the process.  There are better ways to help parents and protect kids.

Further reading / sources:

• The Senate-passed version of S. 602
• press release from Sen. Mark Pryor about Senate passage
• article by Ted Hearn of Multichannel News about Senate passage
• my PFF white paper on the earlier version of the bill: “Convergence-Era Content Regulation? S. 602, The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007“.

Just FYI, the latest update of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now live. The new version, Version 3.1, provides minor updates to all sections of the book and a new appendix of relevant research in the field. I issue major updates early each year and 1 or 2 tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety market and debate.

For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “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 constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past two years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

Over at Ars, Ben Kuchera has a review of Ask.com’s redesign of its web portal for kids, AskKids.com. It’s a great new addition to the growing list of safe seach tools and web portals geared toward younger surfers.

I’m also a big fan of KidZui, the new browser for kids that provides access to over 800,000 kid-friendly websites, videos, and pictures that have been pre-screened by over 200 trained teachers and parents. The company employs a rigorous 5-step “content selection process” to determine if it is acceptable for kids between 3-12 years of age. My kids, both under the age of 7, just love it, but I can’t see many kids older than 10 enjoying it because it is mostly geared toward the youngest web surfers.

Last year, as part of my 10-part series coinciding with “Internet Safety Month,” I wrote about the market for safe search tools and web portals for kids. I generally divide these sites and services into two groups:

(1) “Safe Search” Tools and Portals for Kids (2) Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites

Below I will describe each group and list the many sites and services currently available. I encourage readers to offer additional suggestions for sites that belong on the list. (I keep a running list of these sites and services in my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.”)

(1) “Safe Search” Tools and Portals for Kids: These sites help direct children to sites and information that are educational and enriching. Most major search engine providers offer “safe search” tools that provide filtered search results.

ALA’s Great Web Sites for Kids ( www.ala.org/greatsites)

AOL for Kids (U.S.) (http://kids.aol.com)

AOL for Kids (Canada) (http://canada.aol.com/aolforkids)

Ask Kids (www.askkids.com)

Awesome Library for Kids (www.awesomelibrary.org)

Diddabdoo ( www.dibdabdoo.com)

Education World ( www.education-world.com)

Fact Monster ( www.factmonster.com)

FirstGov for Kids ( www.kids.gov)

KidsClick (www.kidsclick.org)

Kid Zui (www.kidzui.com)

Noodle Net (www.noodlenet.com)

NetTrekker (www.nettrekker.com)

SearchEdu.com ( www.searchedu.com)

Surfing the Net with Kids (www.surfnetkids.com)

Surf Safely.com (www.surfsafely.com)

TekMom’s Search Tools for Students ( www.tekmom.com/search)

ThinkQuest Library ( www.thinkquest.org/library)

Yahoo! Kids (http://kids.yahoo.com)

(2) Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites: The child-friendly web portals discussed above generally direct children to informational and educational sites and resources. But there exist many other ways to tailor the web-surfing experience to a family’s specific needs and values. The Internet is full of wonderful sites dedicated to kids and teens. Many have an educational focus, whereas others offer enjoyable games and activities for children. Table 2 highlights some of the best of these websites, but this list just scratches the surface. If parents wanted, they could configure their web browsers to access only sites such as these and then block access to all other webpages.

Table 2: Child- and Teen-Oriented Websites

Candy Stand (www.candystand.com)

Clever Island (www.cleverisland.com)

Club Penguin (www.clubpenguin.com)

Disney’s Club Blast (http://disney.go.com/blast)

Disney’s DGamer (http://disney.go.com/dxd2/index.html?channel=68447)

Disney’s Playhouse (http://disney.go.com/playhouse/today/index.html)

Disney Toontown Online (http://play.toontown.com)

Habbo (www.habbo.com)

HBO Family XE “ HBO Family” Games (www.hbofamily.com/games)

Imbee (www.imbee.com)

Iland5 (www.iland5.com)

JuniorNet (www.juniornet.com)

Kaboose Family Network (www.kaboose.com)

Kaboose FunSchool (http://funschool.kaboose.com)

KidsClick (www.kidsclick.org)

KidsFirst (www.kidsfirst.org)

Microsoft At School (www.microsoft.com/education/atschool.mspx)

Net Smartz Kids (www.netsmartzkids.org)

Nickelodeon Games (www.nick.com/games)

Nick Jr. Games (www.nickjr.com)

Nicktropolis (www.nicktropolis.com)

Noggin XE “ Noggin” Games (www.noggin.com/games)

PBS Kids (http://pbskids.org/go)

Surfing the Net with Kids (www.surfnetkids.com)

Webkinz (www.webkinz.com)

Yahoo! Kids (http://kids.yahoo.com)

YoKidsYo (www.yokidsyo.com)

Zeeks (www.zeeks.com)

ZoeysRoom.com (www.zoeysroom.com)

Zoey’s Room and Club Penguin are two of the most popular of these sites. Here’s some screenshots:

Again, please let me know if you have suggested updates to these lists.

Along with my friends John Morris and Sophia Cope of the Center for Democracy & Technology, I have just submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the potentially historic free speech case FCC v. Fox, which will be heard in November.

[Reminder: The FCC v. Fox case is the indecency case involving the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives.” I wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision here. The full decision is here. By contrast, the so-called “Janet Jackson case” — CBS v. FCC — took place in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that court recently handed down a decision that also went against the FCC. I wrote about the Third Circuit’s decision here.]

The FCC v. Fox case could become the most important First Amendment-related Supreme Court case since FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which just turned 30 years old last month. Of course, it could be that the Supreme Court simply sticks to the procedural questions regarding whether the FCC moved too far, too fast in reversing it’s long-standing policy of restraint regarding “fleeting expletives.” That’s essentially what the Second Circuit did. On the other hand, the Supremes might reach the substantive First Amendment issues tied up in the Pacifica case. We just won’t know for sure until the case is handed down.

Regardless, in the joint CDT-PFF amicus brief filed today, we argue that the FCC has both gone too far procedurally and that “the time is rapidly approaching for this Court to find that broadcast, like the Internet and other means of mass communication, ‘is entitled to the highest protection from government intrusion’ and that there is no longer a factual ‘basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.'” Citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 863, 870.”

A more detailed summary of our argument follows below. Our brief contends that the “pervasiveness rationale,” which is the basis of the FCC’s authority to regulate broadcast programming, is being challenged by technological convergence, the proliferation of new media platforms, and the widespread availability of parental control technologies. Video content available over broadcast television is available over a variety of other platforms, such as the Internet and mobile devices, and an increasing number of households subscribe to satellite or cable video services. “With broadcast television being just one of the myriad of ways that people can access lawful content (including indecent content), it no longer makes sense from a constitutional or policy perspective to give broadcast speech less First Amendment protection,” we argue.

Parental controls, such as the V-Chip and set-top box controls, allow parents to block content they deem offensive or inappropriate. Better yet, the rise of VCRs, DVD recorders, video on demand, and digital video recorders means that parents can tailor media consumption to their specific needs and values. Those tools are widely available and provide a less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As a result, the FCC can no longer justify broadcast television content censorship on “pervasiveness” grounds. [I have written much more about that point here, here and here.]

Our joint brief also states that complaint data the FCC cites as justification for the expansion of indecency enforcement, has been inflated through accounting changes. These changes in the way the complaints are counted, which were only instituted for indecency complaints, are in violation of the APA. These complaints, mostly generated by a single advocacy group, cannot be a substitute for an analysis of “community standards” and essentially represent a “heckler’s veto” that violates the First Amendment rights of other viewers.

The brief also cites the Commission’s inconsistent analysis of what it deems “indecent” as a violation of both the First Amendment rights of broadcasters and the APA. The inconsistency in what the FCC finds as indecent has a chilling effect on the free expression of content providers and provides inadequate guidance to broadcasters, which is required under FCC statutes.

The CDT-PFF brief can be found online here and I have also embedded the document below via the Scribd reader. [And those interested in this case might also be interested my recent law review article: “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.”]

Incidentally, other briefs that have been filed in the matter can be found here. And, last month, I wrote about how personally troubled I was about the lack of support from liberals who have already filed in this case. See: “Liberals Abandoning the First Amendment, Part 3: The Fox Case.”

A few days ago I posted an open letter to New York Gov. David Patterson about a measure that recently passed through the New York legislature and was awaiting his signature. The bill proposes a new regulatory regime for video games that would include greater state-based oversight of video game labels and console controls as well as an advisory board to monitor the industry. Unfortunately—but quite unsurprisingly—Gov. Patterson signed the bill last night. And so I am certain that another legal battle will ensue regarding the constitutionality of the measure, and it will likely be struck down like every other measure on this front because it violates the First Amendment. Regardless, let’s talk a little more about what animates this specific legislative effort, because I think it is very important and foreshadows the heated debate to come over video games and all media in coming years.

The New York measure is notable in that, unlike most of the other state or local measures that had been stuck down in recent years that proposed penalties for the sale of games to youngsters which were labeled by the ESRB to be intended for an older audience, it simply proposed more “oversight” of the ratings process and parental control technologies by the state. Specifically, it mandated that all games be rated and that all consoles contain screening controls. The response to that proposal has generally been: “So what?” After all, all video games are rated already and all game consoles contain parental controls. The measure also mandated a 16-member oversight board to monitor the industry and this process. Again, that proposal was not regarded by many as a serious threat to the video games or free speech.

But I fear that many are missing the big picture here. The New York bill is actually far more important that many people suspect because of what it foreshadows: A day when politicians will claim that we can make rating systems more “scientific” by putting public health bureaucrats or university social scientists in charge of them. Indeed, last night on Bloomberg TV, this became the focus of a debate between me and Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center for Media and Child Health at the Harvard Medical School. After you watch the clip, I’ll have much more to say about this issue down below the fold.

As you heard in the clip, Dr. Rich favors a greater role for “science” and social scientists in the video game rating and labeling process. But let’s explore what that might mean in practice.

Over the past decade, I have heard many critics make the argument that media rating and labeling systems should be centralized in the hands of the government, some academic elites, a private (non-industry affiliated) rating organization, or some combination of all of the above. These critics often give lip service to private, voluntary rating systems but they then turn around and advocate that the entire process be run by people (usually closely resembling themselves!) who would somehow rate media according to more “scientific” criteria / variables.

The problem here is that media content is art, and art is fundamentally subjective. It’s not like there is some sort of Periodic Table of Media Elements that tells us what makes for good vs. bad art. Media ratings and labels, therefore, will always be based on judgments made by humans who all have somewhat different values. Those doing the rating are being asked to evaluate artistic expression and assign labels to it that provide the rest of us with some rough proxies about what is in that particular piece of art, or what age group should (or should not) be consuming it. In a sense, therefore, all rating systems will be inherently “flawed” since humans have different perspectives and values that they will use to label or classify content.

Thus, even if a bunch of social scientists at Harvard were running the show, the media rating and content-labeling process will never be an exact science; there will always be something fundamentally subjective about it. Incidentally, exactly which “social scientists” would get a say in the process? Psychologists? Sociologists? Political scientists? Criminologists? Hey, what about art historians! I can almost see a joke in the making here: “How many Harvard social scientists does it take to rate a video game?”

But Dr. Rich and others like him would likely argue that some forms of media or art have unique influences on the development of the mind—especially the minds of children. They would argue, for example, that exposure to certain forms of violent media content will breed aggressive behavior in youth, or at least make them more desensitized and fearful of the world around them.

For the sake of brevity, I am not going to go into my typical long-winded discussion here about “media effects” vs. “catharsis effect.” Instead I will just reference the latest of my many essays on the topic (“Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?”) and I also recommend that you read my review of the excellent new book, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, cofounders and directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media. (As you will see when you read the book, apparently not everyone at Harvard agrees with Dr. Rich! That also makes one wonder how much actual consensus there would be in the scientific community about the ratings and labels they would be imposing on artistic expression.)

OK, so let’s just imagine that those social scientists who espouse “monkey see, monkey do” theories of media effects somehow get a say in rating and labeling video games. Think about what that would mean in practice. Imagine how long it would take a game like “Halo,” “Gears of War,” or “Grand Theft Auto” to get through that review process. And imagine what the warning label on the box would look like once they were done! They’d probably affix a 10-page memo to each game carton and then a poison (skull-and-crossbones) logo for good measure. Or perhaps the label would come in form of a Surgeon General’s warning about the product being hazardous to one’s (mental) health?

In the end, the whole system would become an unworkable farce if mandated by government. Nothing would be getting rated and to market in a timely way. Game developers would be in open revolt against it. And industry lawsuits would be flying.

More importantly, few people would likely use it. Many media critics seem to forget that there is trade-off between convenience and comprehensiveness in terms of rating and labeling systems. As Kutner and Olson note in their book: “The more complicated a system becomes, the less likely busy parents are to understand it and to actually use it.” We have to be careful not to upset this balance. In my opinion, the current ESRB game rating system pushes the labeling process just about as far as it can go on the comprehensiveness scale, but does so using easy-to-comprehend ratings (7 of them) and content descriptors (over 30 of them). When media critics and social scientists say they want to make the system even more “comprehensive” and “scientific,” therefore, I really have to wonder if they have thought through the practical implications of such a move. Exactly how many more ratings and labels are we talking about? Exactly how much more detailed could it be than the ESRB’s existing system, which already has 12 different content descriptors for violent content alone (from “cartoon violence” to “sexual violence” and everything in between).

Another point: The argument that government or “ratings by social scientists” would provide more objective ratings is also undermined by the grim reality of special-interest politics. Government officials or government-appointed commissions would be more susceptible to various interest group pressures as they were repeatedly lobbied to change ratings or restrict content based on widely varying objectives and values. Inevitably, as has been the case with the broadcast indecency complaint process in recent years, a handful of particularly vociferous groups could gain undue influence over content decisions. That possible outcome raises what the Supreme Court has referred to as the “heckler’s veto” problem since a vocal minority’s preferences could trump those of the public at large.

Now let me be perfectly clear about one thing: I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with folks like Dr. Rich and his colleagues devising some sort of “scientific” rating or labeling scheme for video games and other forms media content. But the fundamental question in this debate is: should such a system should be the law of the land?

In my book on Parental Controls and Online Child Protection, I spend a great deal of time in Chapter 2 talking about the importance of third-party ratings and pressure and I heap a lot of praise on the various independent, third-party content rating and labeling systems out there today. In particular, my wife and I absolute love Common Sense Media and rely on its ratings every week when we are consider what media to allow our kids to consume in our home. It’s a great system that is highly informative; and the feedback from average parents and kids on the site is very helpful too. Other great 3rd party rating and labeling services just for video games include: What They Play, Gamer Dad, and Children’s Technology Review, all of which provide detailed video game reviews and information about the specific types of content that kids will see or hear in a game. [Incidentally, the ESRB has a section on its webpage that highlights all these independent sites.]

So here’s the question for Dr. Rich and the folks in the social science community: Why not just create your own “shadow” ratings process or collaborate with these other organizations to serve a worthy “watchdog” role over the existing rating and labeling process? That’s the win-win solution here.

It would be a huge mistake to throw out the existing ESRB system. It is working very effectively and it is already widely recognized by the vast majority of parents. Surveys by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveal that 89% of American parents of children who play video games are aware of the ESRB ratings and that 85% of them consult the ratings regularly when buying games for their families. That’s pretty impressive considering how young the ESRB rating system is.

Moreover, let’s not forget that every game console and computer system on the market today is geared to read the ESRB ratings metadata (digital tags) that are embedded in every game shipped to market. That’s how the parental controls are enabled. Should we toss all that work out the window and just start from scratch? I think that would be a huge mistake.

Again, there is nothing stopping Dr. Rich and his fellow social scientists from crafting their own system. In fact, I believe I speak for many parents when I say we would welcome it. But mandating it and asking that it serve as a replacement for the existing ratings and console controls is an completely different issue. It’s a non-starter in my opinion.

Now that the New York bill has passed, however, the door is open for this sort of proposal to see the light of day. If the measure is not struck down, watch to see who is appointed to the 16-member advisory committee and listen to hear which way they are going. I bet it ends up being something along the lines of what I have suggested above.

Each year the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the video game and computer game industry, produces a great little report entitled “Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry.” The 2008 edition is out and it has some interesting stats:

• 65 percent of American households play computer and video games;
• 38 percent of American homes have a video game console;
• The average game player is 35 years old;
• One out of four gamers are over age 50;
• Women age 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (33 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent); and,
• 41 percent of Americans expect to purchase one or more games this year.

Those findings make it clear that gaming really has gone mainstream. As I noted in an essay earlier this week, “gaming is now fully integrated into the fabric of my life and the lives of my children. It has become one of the most enjoyable media experiences for my generation and the generation of kids that we are raising.”

Some other important stats that have relevance for debates about public policy:

• 94 percent of parents are present when games are purchased or rented;
• 88 percent of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play; and,
• 63 percent of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives.

Those are impressive numbers, and it makes it clear, as I have argued before, that parents are parenting! (And that reflects what is going on for television as well).

To: Hon. David Patterson, Governor, State of New York From: Adam Thierer, life-long gamer and Senior Fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation Date: July 17, 2008 Re: That video game bill (A. 11717/ S. 6401) you have been asked to sign

Dear Gov. Patterson:

I write today to ask a few questions about a measure that is currently sitting on your desk awaiting your signature. The measure (A. 11717/ S. 6401), which recently passed through the New York legislature, proposes a new regulatory regime for video games. It would include greater state-based oversight of video game labels and console controls as well as an advisory board to monitor the industry.

As a life-long gamer—and now the parent of two young gamers—this is a subject I care deeply about. I also come at this topic from an academic perspective as someone who analyzes the intersection of child safety concerns and free speech issues surrounding various types of media and communications technologies. I am the author of a frequently-updated book, Parental Controls & Online Child Safety: A Survey of Tools & Methods, which provides a comprehensive look at the many tools and methods on the market today that can help parents deal with concerns about objectionable media content.

But mostly I write you today from the perspective of someone who just enjoys games. Actually, let me clarify that: I am utterly infatuated with video games. Gaming has been a life-long passion of mine and something I have enjoyed with friends and family since I owned my very first PONG and Atari 2600 systems in the 1970s. Since then, I have owned virtually every major video game console sold in the United States. Even today, as I approach 40 years of age, I find myself sitting down many nights to enjoy games with my son and daughter on the Xbox 360 and Sony PS3 consoles that we have in our home.

Like millions of other Americans, gaming is now fully integrated into the fabric of my life and the lives of my children. It has become one of the most enjoyable media experiences for my generation and the generation of kids that we are raising. And, although I am certain that the New York legislature had the best of intentions in mind when passing this bill, I believe I speak for a great number of those other American gamers when I say that the measure on your desk is somewhat of an insult to our intelligence. Let me explain by raising a few questions about this bill, which I will argue is unnecessary, unworkable, and unconstitutional: •
Why does this bill impose mandatory labeling requirements when all video games sold at retail are already clearly rated and labeled? The bill demands that every game bear labels describing its content, but such a labeling scheme already exists. As any parent or game buyer can tell you, every video game container has detailed content descriptors on the cover that clearly tell you what you can expect to see or hear in the game. These ratings and labels, which are created and enforced by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), are highly specialized. The ESRB applies seven different rating symbols and over 30 different content descriptors to every game it rates. Since the New York bill is particularly concerned about the labeling of violent content, you should be aware that the ESRB has over a dozen descriptors just for violent forms of content. That makes it perfectly clear to the parent if the game contains merely “mild violence” or “cartoon violence” or, at the other extreme, “intense violence” or “sexual violence.”

Does the New York legislature imagine that parents are unaware of these ratings or labels? Frankly, I don’t see how anyone could miss them. Again, they are on every game box and can be found online via the ESRB’s website or other gaming sites and media watchdog sites. And survey data shows that parents are aware of these labels. Surveys by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveal that 89% of American parents of children who play video games are aware of the ESRB ratings and that 85% consult the ratings regularly when buying games for their families. And those numbers have risen every year for the past decade. The Federal Trade Commission has also praised the industry for those ratings and descriptors and for the industry’s efforts to make the public more aware of them.

In light of these facts, why does the New York legislature believe any additional labeling requirements are necessary?

•
Why does this bill require mandatory parental controls when every gaming console already includes them? The bill also requires that every new video game console be equipped with technology that can allow parents to block access to certain video game content. Well, Governor, I have good news to report… those tools already exist! Every new console (Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony PS3, and Nintendo Wii) recognizes the ESRB’s digitally embedded ratings in games and offers blocking tools that allow parents to prevent games rated above a certain designation from being played on the system. These tools are quite sophisticated, and parents can even employ additional controls to block online purchases and interactive chat while their kids are gaming.

Again, does the New York legislature imagine that parents are unaware of these controls? That’s equally hard to fathom in light of how easy it is to find and set up these controls. Moreover, the industry has spent a great deal of time and money promoting these controls and making the public aware of them.

•
Isn’t the New York legislature aware of the fact that parents spend good money on consoles and games? In my book on Parental Controls & Online Child Safety, I note that the ultimate parental control tool is the “power of the purse” that parents can exercise when their kids come to them asking for money for new media titles or technologies. Although this isn’t a fact that the video game likes to advertise about itself, one of the reasons that its ratings and parental controls have been so much more effective than the systems that preceded them is because the price tag is so much higher than other media! New consoles cost hundreds of dollars, and most new game titles retail for $40 to $60.

Few parents would blindly hand their children that sort of money and leave their kids free to purchase whatever they desire. Thus, when kids ask for gaming consoles or game titles that cost that much, it creates a heightened sense of interest or concern by parents about what it is that their child is consuming. Again, in light of this fact, why does the New York legislature feel it must act in loco parentis?

•
Why an “advisory council” just for video games? The bill also calls for a 16-member “Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence” that would study whether there is a relationship between gaming and youth violence. It’s tough to be against anyone “studying” anything, but one wonders if the body would become a politicized mess with endless in-fighting about a topic that has already been exhaustively researched and debated in other venues. Moreover, if we are simply hoping for still more “study” of this issue, let’s not forget that some of the nation’s finest universities reside in the State of New York! Why not just let one of them convene events or task forces to study this issue?

More importantly, why is it that video games are being singled-out for oversight by a state-run commission when other media providers have no similar overseers? Why not an advisory council for books, for example? After all, they can be checked out of any library free-of-charge, and there are plenty of titles in most libraries that include violent themes.

Finally, what sort of authority does this advisory council possess? Will it become a taxpayer-supported platform for anti-gaming activism that is masqueraded as social science? Will it seek to compel game developers to self-censor content that many in the gaming public demand? Will the focus and powers of this advisory entity grow over time? What is to prevent that from happening?

•
Isn’t the New York legislature aware that federal oversight already takes place? For over a decade, the Federal Trade Commission has been monitoring the video game industry’s practices. The FTC has also issued a reoccurring report, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, which surveys the marketing and advertising practices of major media sectors. As mentioned, the video game industry has been praised by the FTC for its improved efforts to curb underage access to objectionable materials. Why, then, is state-level regulation necessary? And will New York’s effort spawn additional state-based “oversight” efforts leading to a patchwork of conflicting state standards or expectations about game content or game industry behavior?

•
Do we really need another constitutional catfight? This measure will almost certainly be litigated. A dozen federal courts have ruled that video game content represents constitutionally protected speech and that efforts to regulate that speech will be subjected to strict scrutiny. The concerns I have raised above each present an issue or angle that could be challenged in court. So, get ready for another lengthy, unnecessary legal battle. The state will likely lose and then also be on the hook for the industry’s attorney’s fees. Which begs a final question…

•
Aren’t there better ways to spend the money? Every dollar spent by both industry and government litigating these issues is a dollar that could have been spent on something else. Similarly, every dollar spent by the advisory council is a dollar that could have been spent elsewhere. Here’s an idea: Instead of wasting the money on litigation and advisory councils that will accomplish nothing, how about a commitment by both industry and government to redouble their efforts to make consumers more aware of the excellent parental controls and labeling system already at their disposal?

In recent years, the game industry has been partnering with federal and state lawmakers to run public service announcements of that variety. And the industry has also stepped up the production and dissemination of promotional materials to build awareness of parental control tools. The more of that the better. That is the constructive, constitutional solution. Education—not regulation—is the path forward.

Gov. Patterson, I do hope you will take these facts under consideration as you sit down to contemplate signing this measure. Countless gamers, and even gaming parents, are growing tired of the seemingly endless witch hunt surrounding video games. The moral panic and rush to regulate on this front is all too reminiscent of past battles over comic books, rock-and-roll music, cinema, and so on. If we learned anything from those episodes it is this: Moral panics and regulatory responses are never the best way to respond to concerns about objectionable content or child safety.

Instead, we must be willing to talk to our kids in an open, understanding and loving fashion about the realities of this world, including the distasteful bits. And, to the extent curbs on underage consumption of potentially objectionable media are necessary, that process should be driven by voluntary, not compulsory, efforts. That includes industry self-regulation, voluntary content labeling efforts, a variety of parental control tools, and education and awareness-building initiatives. Most importantly, we should trust parents to do the job of rearing their children and not expect the State of New York to serve as our national nanny.

Don’t judge a book by its cover (or its title, for that matter). I’m usually faithful to that maxim, but I must admit that when I first saw the title and cover of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Theft-Childhood-Surprising-Violent/dp/0743299515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208179493&sr=8-1″>Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, “here we go again.” I figured that I was in for another tedious anti-gaming screed full of myths and hysteria about games and gamers. Boy, was I wrong. Massively wrong.