Canada Supreme Court Broadens Internet "Luring" Offense 596
An anonymous reader points out this report that a Canadian Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of an existing law designed to punish adults who attempt to meet children online for criminal purposes; under the court's interpretation, says the article, that would now "include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child — even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim." The story quotes Mark Hecht, of the organization Beyond Borders, thus: "If you're an adult and if you're having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren't sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you're doing is potentially a crime."
But... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Discussion of the inconsistencies of the bible, the nature of evolution, the age and origin of the universe, why its wrong to kill all infidels, anything rational. All of these things are deemed "not appropriate" by someone.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people with the shrillest voices, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you ever talk to anyone on the internet about movies (or drugs, but I figure movies is more likely), without first getting incontrovertible proof of their age? If not, how can you know for certain that noone involved in conversation was an 8 year old girl?
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
And therein lies the problem. If you're going on the Mickey Mouse Chat Group and talking up little kids, then yeah, I think the accusation of luring might make some sense. But Ch-rist, I mean, how do I know that by responding to you that I'm not talking to a thirteen year old? I've contributed to various forums and newsgroups over the years where people we know are kids have come on. I remember about ten years ago when I was posting on talk.origins, that we had someone who claimed to be fifteen or sixteen asking questions about biology. If that were to happen now would I, as a Canadian citizen, be potentially put in a legally compromised position because I replied to 16 year old's query about the evolution of cellular organelles.
What pisses me off is just how much people have freaked themselves out, and how willfully certain groups like the police and now the courts have contributed to that paranoia. They would have us all believe that every chatroom and forum is bubbling with child molesters, and I'm sorry, I just don't believe it.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
So being nice to a minor would be an offense.
But being hostile is OK?
Sounds dumb to me, but what do I know.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the law is changed to say that it is.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
It is in Canada evidently....
Although it also is in the US, UK, AUS, and a fair few other places thanks to insanely broad anti-terrorism laws. If you talk to a "terrorist" even if you don't know they're a terrorist and have no intention of conducting terrorism you can be breaking the law.
But then again owning a standard middle school science book is also technically illegal depending on how you read the anti-terrorism act(s). So really it is just a thought crime. If they associate you with it they will nab you for it with or without evidence.
It is the same in this case... They want to make paedophilia a thought crime and thus if you are associated with it by anyone then you are breaking a law...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the phenomenon I like to describe as "doing the wrong thing for the right reason". Trotting out "it's for the good of the children" is a great way to make bad legislation sound good to the average joe, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still bad legislation.
Going after people who push drugs on children? That is great, nobody would be against that. A law that would make it potentially illegal to talk to children in general? That is a terrible law and any freedom respecting individual should be against that.
The US already has laws concerning "the corruption of minors" and I'm sure Canada does as well. We don't need poorly worded laws specific to the internet for acts that are already prosecutable.
Changing the law to fit the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the case seems to be that the f*cked up by choosing the wrong charge, had it shot down because of such, and then chose to modify the conditions of the charge in the retrial to make it fit the "crime."
Apparently the perp in question - though he hadn't actually scheduled to meet the underage girl - had discussed with her the things he wanted to do, including oral sex etc. As he hadn't asked to meet her, the initial judge tossed the luring charge.
The second judge greatly expanded the scope of what "luring" is, thus allowing that charge to stick. Now it's *WAY* too broad.
It seems to me that the initial screw-up was charging the guy with luring in the first place. There are appropriate charges for an adult having "dirty talk" (as opposed to just talking about sex, i.e. like a Social Studies or Science class) with a minor. Unfortunately I don't have the exact name of such, but they do exist, and it seems they would have been more appropriate for this scenario than massively broadening the existing law.
Now it seems I'll have to "card" everyone I meet online. And don't forget that this might not just apply to a chatroom. You've got bulletin boards, and even game lobbies/chats etc. So the next time you tell some opponent "I'm going to f*ck you up", and he turns out to be a 14-15 year old, maybe you'll get a visit from the police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every bit of this law smacks of more totalitarian molestation of justice. If you TRULY feel that this vague law is protecting anything but some politicians unwarranted self importance then you are s
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
While we are on the terrorism thing -- I would like to point out that we would be better off passing anti-bee legislation, as significantly more people are killed by bees than terrorists. Again, the whole thing seems completely absurd.
So Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm playing an MMO and strike up a text chat with another character, not having any idea that this person is LEGALLY a "child" (IE: Under 18 years of age) and the conversation turns to drinking, then I could be ARRESTED in Canada?
WTF Canadians? I thought you people were nice and sensible!?
Re:So Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
doesn't matter... if someone that is under aged sneaks into a 21+ venue, then it "picked up" by another person, the other person is now guilty of statutory rape, even though the under aged person shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Re:So Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
3. Eligibility.
You represent that you are an adult in your country of residence. You agree to these Terms of Use on behalf of yourself and, at your discretion, for one (1) minor child for whom you are a parent or guardian and whom you have authorized to use the account you create on the Service.
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html [worldofwarcraft.com]
So, you are wrong. You can talk to children on WoW.
Bring out your mind readers. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S., there is no defense against such crimes. If a girl uses a fake ID, for example, to make you think that she's 18, they will still haul your ass to jail for statutory rape if you meet her in an adults-only club and have sex with her later that night. That's one of the big complaints people have about our laws. You do have to be a mind reader.
Here in Georgia not too long ago, we had a case of a 17-year-old girl and her 18-year-old boyfriend having consensual sex. I think it was her parents that found out about it, reported him to the police, and he had to spend the next three years of his life in jail and register as a sex offender because of it. Yes, he probably knew that she was only 17, but the point is that when it comes to "protecting" children, never underestimate the stupidity of politicians trying to pick up votes for being "tough on crime."
I call BS (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Mistake of Fact is a defense in a criminal case. It has to be reasonable. Meeting a girl in a restricted-access adult club, it is reasonable to assume that she is of-age. It's not iron-clad, it's an imperfect defense; if she acts younger, raises doubt, etc, prosecution can certainly raise those issues. But it becomes a question for the jury, rather than the set-in-stone determination you would have us believe. Mistake of Law, on the other hand, is very very rarely a defense. You pretty much have to have a personal letter from the attorney general telling you what he thinks the law is, you follow his advice, and he be wrong, before mistake of Law is a defense.
Secondly, I question the case you talk about in Georgia, since the age of consent there is 16. Are you referring to the tragic case of the 17 year old boy who had (supposedly consensual) sex with a 14 year old girl at a party and ended up receiving 10 years in jail for a felony statutory rape charge? It's tragic and stupid, but not as cut and dry as you mentioned. It and similar cases also elicited a change in the law, because it was so stupid. It's now a misdemeanor in Georgia.
Yes, I AM an attorney. And posting anonymously because I am reading slashdot at work....
More at 11. (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking to children online ruled illegal;
A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
And just to drive the point home, discussing anything that the state or the parents don't want you to discuss with the child is "inappropriate". That means, for example, LGBT issues. This is just another form of child abuse; At least in the USA, children are not even really allowed to own property. You are a non-person until you reach majority.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoah, hold on there cowboy. Since when is it "child abuse" to NOT expose a child to sexually charged issues, PARTICULARLY without the parent's consent?
"Sexually charged issues"? Is that what you're calling it these days? I understand your viewpoint, but I reject it. Preventing children from getting access to actual pornography is one thing. Preventing them from getting good information is entirely another. In between there lies an enormous grey area which yes, often requires assistance from the courts to untangle. But the simple reality is that there are a lot of kids out there who are trapped in situations out of their control who need access to informat
Re:More at 11. (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point we should probably just keep all children in locked boxes until they reach 18. Not for their protection, but for ours.
Re: (Score:3)
A worldwide shift back to the "Seen, but not heard," philosophy ruins childhood for everyone.
ruins it for children.
the rest of us REJOICE in the new-found silence.
Re:More at 11. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, wait, wait. No court has ruled that talking to children online is illegal, the story summary is incorrect. They've interpreted luring to include sexual conversations with children. That's not an unreasonable step.
The article states that "Beyond Borders," a dedicated "think of the children" organization were the ones who said that any conversation with children online would be illegal. Lucky for everyone, Beyond Borders doesn't set precedent, the courts do. The precedent that was set pertains to a particular case in which someone had sexually explicit conversations with a 12 year old. I think inciting an inappropriate conversation like that is an example of luring and absolutely should be illegal.
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls" to their opponents in a Call of Duty multiplayer match only to find out they're underage, even though the kids shouldn't legally be playing the game in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that something you're likely to say?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
so... (Score:2)
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
And just how is someone to know if it's a child one is chatting with?
Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)
And just how is someone to know if it's a child one is chatting with?
If you want to talk about the impact Quantum Mechanics is having on Theology, and she keeps trying to switch the subject back to "Twilight," that's your first clue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I never thought she was a child, honest! I thought she was an FBI agent!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You never know, I was talking to my 12 year old cousin just a week ago.
She wasn't very interested in Twilight, however, she kept constantly asking me questions about string theory, black holes and quantum physics.
I was so proud! She is definitely a future slashdotter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like a rather typical conversation between me and my fianceé...
You might be a pedophile if...
Take the full step (Score:4, Funny)
ban children from internet altogether!
Re:Take the full step (Score:4, Informative)
Private net (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't see anyone this hurts but pedophiles. I'd feel a lot safer, as a 22 year old, knowing that the people I discuss linux with aren't underage. We all know linux is a euphism for sex.
Re:Private net (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's suppose for a minute that this was technically feasible and that enforcement wasn't a problem (i.e. no adults on the "Kid Internet" pretending to be 14 year olds). Those are big assumptions, but we'll ignore them for a second. What is appropriate for a child of 6 years is different than what is appropriate for a child of 10 years or a "child" of 15 years. (By that point, I'd argue, they aren't quite children anymore, but the "think of the children" movement loves to lumps them all together.)
So we w
why would an adult talk to another child? (Score:2)
other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids. why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know it's a child? Am I a child?
Re:why would an adult talk to another child? (Score:4, Insightful)
other than situations where they answer the phone and you ask to speak to their parents or they are visiting your kids. why would an adult need to communicate with someone else's child over the internet?
For the same reason we talk to other adults? Because we share interests?
The music I enjoy, computer games I play, sports I watch.. plenty of those have an audience that is not exclusively for adults or children. We mix at the physical concerts and stadiums, so why not in on-line discussions? I've talked to plenty of tweens and teenagers who had more intelligent things to discuss than quite a few adults. Since most laws don't distinguish between adolescents and toddlers, should those "children" be off-limits to talk to as well?
That said, I agree there's probably not much adults have in common with pre-teens nor would there often be a reason to communicate with them.
Re:why would an adult talk to another child? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, this will probably be taken as a point for the other side, BUT:
In my WoW guid, we have a few members under the age of 18. Mostly, they're the kids of "real" members and their participation is a matter of humoring them. However, we've got at least one kid (14 at present) who is really quite mature for his age. Specifically, he's got three end-game geared characters, and he's capable of being a very effective main tank on what is currently some of the most difficult content in Warcraft.
(translation, this 14 year old kid plays his characters as well as any adult member, and better than some).
We've also got a Ventrillo server (voice chat) to help us communicate during raids and to coordinate other guild activities (as well as being a social space)
So, although you may disagree about the merits of a kid's participation in WoW, I can tell you that I've actually heard our raid leader (A Canadian citizen and ironically, an eighth grade teacher) ask this young raider if he's done his homework before a raid. In some ways, the majority of us adults treat him as a little brother most of the time, and as an equal colleague when raiding.
Where does that leave our raid leader? What about our other Canadian members? How long before the US enacts the "me too" version of this law, potentially exposing us to criminal/civil liability just for letting this kid into our lives?
Anyway, in answer to that question, there are many legitimate and wholly innocent reasons. I know that I interact with this particular kind IN SPITE OF HIS AGE, not because of it.
probably no need to worry (Score:2)
...unless the local DA (or Canada's equivalent) has a bone to pick with you.
Re:probably no need to worry (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't sound needlessly vague. (Score:2, Funny)
Defendant "Your honor, all I was doing was talking about which blue cheese tastes best as a pasta sauce."
Judge "Well, that may be the case, but you were on a technical forum. 2 years in Federal Pound You in the Ass Prison."
How about... (Score:2)
It probably won't protect more children (Score:5, Insightful)
A society which genuinely wanted to protect children would do things like reduce speed limits in built up areas to 10mph and imprison people who drive while talking on mobile phones - because the proponents of the legislation claim that any level of intrusion is justified if "a single child is saved".
Interestingly, the hysteria is driven by tabloid newspapers who, on other pages, will be moaning about the "Nanny State" - but this Canadian case seems to be about "the evil scum didn't commit an offence! We must create one so that in future similar evil scum can be charged with something!"
Re:It probably won't protect more children (Score:5, Informative)
I read the ruling. There is an actual offence which was committed. It is against the law (a law passed by parliament) to communicate with a child under 14 (at the time this offence took place the law said 14) for the purposes of facilitating a secondary crime such as abduction or a sex crime or a child porn crime.
The accused admits to have had sexual conversations with the child who had represented herself as 13 (she was 12). The accused admits that he stated a desire to have oral sex with the girl. He denies any desire to actually meet the girl or to actually have sex with her or to actually abduct her or to actually get dirty pictures of her or whatever.
The trial court ruled that since he didn't want to meet her he wasn't facilitating a crime.
The supreme court ruled that "facilitating" means, among other things, "making easier" or "making possible" or "making more possible" the acts in question. So there is a question about whether or not he "facilitated" under the terms of the law.
Thus the accused will receive a new trial.
So there WAS a law and it sounds like he did break it. This is not a new law. This is a clarification of the wording of the old law. The sticky point seems to be that facilitating merely involves gaining the trust of a child, so any talk which gains the trust of a child could be facilitating. However it would require a strong burden of evidence to prove that such talk was for facilitating the crime.
A message (Score:4, Funny)
to Canadas youth: Stop ruining the internet for us adults. Seriously, go fuck yours---------CARRIER LOST
Back in the day (Score:5, Insightful)
Back before AOL violated their own TOS by monitoring private chats, back when IM was new, back when IRC was for nerds (It still is, right?), one of the things I, an adult, loved to do was talk to other people online.
Different races, different cultures, different ages, too, provided new perspectives on life. Talking to a Californian and the O.J. case, talked to a German about the fall of the wall, talking to someone in South Africa about relationships, and even talking to kids about music (or anything else for which I found their fresh, sometimes naive perspective eye-opening) were activities I loved because they gave me a different way of looking at things. I consider polite conversation with as many people who are as different from me as possible to be an essential part of the lifelong process of self-education that we should all relish.
Yes, that means I talked to kids online.
I don't do that any more. I don't even try to talk to new people online anymore. So many of the old haunts were slowly invaded by LEOs blundering their way through silly entrapment schemes ("Hi, I'm 14/f/California. I love cheerleading and gymnastics. Do you want to talk to me? I've been having problems with my boyfriend cuz he wants to sex me and I'd like to know what an older guy thinks" was typical, although I didn't misspell nearly enough words.) that all the fun was sucked out of it.
Now, I talk on forums where the whole world can read what I say. That way, no one can accuse me of grooming. When I made the decision to eschew private conversations with strangers, I thought I was being too paranoid but withdrew, anyway, just to be on the safe side.
It seems I wasn't paranoid at all. There really are people out there who think that if an adult says "Hi" to a kid they don't know, said adult must be up to no good.
Sad.
Really, really sad.
Re:Back in the day (Score:5, Insightful)
I, too, have stopped trying to talk to people I don't already know. It's fucking depressing. There are just too many idiots and risks out there to bother. Every single time in the last year or so that I've been contacted by someone I didn't already know, I went completely stealth. In environments where I had to be accommodating to people I hadn't known for years, I did as little as possible and never engaged them as if they were anything except text or the occasional sound file.
The internet of the mid-to-late-90s was like an image with 16 bits of chroma resolution. With so much gray, it was easy not being black or white.
The MAFIAA, ACTA, and Governments worldwide are turning it bi-level, and it's a disgrace. Nobody cares. We're insignificant, and we're losing.
Hunter S. Thompson said something profound about 9/11 and its effects on American politics, but it's equally as relevant here: 'The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed.' Children born today will never know what they missed. And they missed something worthwhile.
Ten, fifteen years ago I'd sometimes spend all day finding places and people I had never interacted with, and diving headfirst in. I learned more from those amazingly diverse communities than I have from anything else in my life. It truly was like some kind of renaissance, and I miss it every second of every day. My family and my mind are about the only things I wouldn't give to go back. While there may have been "less" to the internet back then, what was there made up for what we lack today, by and large. And I'm not that old, either. But I sure do feel it.
All that's dead now, of course. Jack Valenti stabbed it in the neck, the cops raided the funeral, an evangelical domestic terrorist stole the headstone, it decomposed, and the bones are in the process of turning to dust. Nowadays we fawn over iTunes and Wikipedia and count ourselves lucky that at least in the west the government doesn't ADMIT to being China, even though they are. Everyone's paranoid, like we're in some besieged city, brimming with spies, and if you're not careful the spies will kill you. Or the government will, for being near the spy. Or a bomb will fall on your house, and end it all before you know what happened. And when you're not thinking about these things, you think about the invasion that's around the corner. Your natural inclination might be to go on an orgiastic hedonistic frenzy to end all frenzies, but everyone else is mentally dead. Lump of horsemeat, etc.
I know I'm supposed to care about net neutrality, but I can't bring myself to give a shit. So, my ISP might start microtransactioning me to death and blocking swaths of the web? Big deal, they already overcharge me for shit service and one misclick can be fatal. What's there to lose anymore? Access to DRM'd content that'll break at the drop of a hat, and completely corporate censored 'mainstream' websites? Hell, even if they blocked SSH to the communal server I use, we'd probably just end up running it over the phone, while that still exists, and mailing each other DVDs, while they still allow private ownership of archival media. What do you need it for, anyway? After all, the cloud just works so quickly and so well, why not.
Fuck it all. They can have this fucking mess. Take your facebook, ad networks, media stores, and twitter and fucking choke on it.
Dear trolls who will flame me about 'hurf durf you're taking this shit too seriously obviously you're a predator of some kind' or 'hurf durf tell us about walking both ways in the snow': This law's concept is essentially the straw that broke my camel's back on the state of the internet, which has been stressed ever since the Napster shutdown. I'd ask you to look at things with an open mind, but it's pointless. I'm typing words for no reason except to soothe my useless ego. Ignore me, I'm pointless. But, the thing is, so are you.
AC because every letter you type under a name you gave yourself is at risk of datamining. This is risky enough. I'm tired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wish Slashdot had a "nominate for best" button. This post is one of the best examples of what we've lost over the years that I've seen in a while. Kudos.
Double jeopardy (Score:5, Interesting)
I RTFA.
I didn't realize they didn't have double jeopardy in Canada.
How many times can a person be tried for the same offense in Canada? Is there a limit? Do prosecutors and courts just keep changing the rules and re-filing charges until they get a conviction?
I'm not being intentionally obtuse, here. I'm legitimately curious.
Re:Double jeopardy (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, if you are found not guilty during the original trial the verdict cannot be appealed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't suggest Canadians don't care about their rights otherwise they wouldn't have fought the war of 1812 which came shortly after the Constitution. Things swung the other way for the U.S.A. when Americans started giving up their rights and freedoms in the name of fighting "the war on terror" and unquestioned war, while Canadians still vehemently continue to defend their rights as they always have. Not only did you n
Braindead justice (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people are going to be arrested for asking children about their "personal interests or other innocuous topics" on the grounds that the person asking the questions might perhaps turn out to be a pedophile?
How do you establish the adult's intentions unless the adult has expressed a desire to commit an offense against the child, thus not requiring the broader interpretation of the law? The way the judge's decision is described, it would seem it isn't necessary to establish criminal intent, thus making people liable for conversations that are truly innocent.
There's often been an air of paranoia around many of the laws that are supposed to address the online victimization of children, but this one is about the most ridiculous I've seen. Idiots at the helm is all I can say.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure the actual law has some more rigorous definitions (not necessarily any less ridiculous mind you) of what a conversation consists of.
Now what I'm wondering is, how can I know what age someone I'm talking to is?
Do they have to announce their age before I have to stop talking to them, or am I supposed to find other means?
Bearing in mind that just about any way of finding out someone's age would probably be a bit suspicious: asking for photo, asking for a webcam session, asking for a voice chat, or eve
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
A/S/L/Scan of government issued id?
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Fake ID's are easy for kids to get, so it would be best to get a scan of credit cards, checks, bank statements, etc. That way when you start talking to them, you know that they're a great identity theft target in addition to not being a child.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do we know you're not a child? Or the poster for that matter! Merely answering a slashdot story could be a potential offense.
Methinks we're going to see less Canadians around here for a while...
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious legislative solution to this problem is to ban kids from using the internet until they are at least 18 years of age.
Much like children aren't allowed in bars, children should not be allowed on the internet.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
You might as well ban them from libraries, in case they read age-inappropriate books.
And if you're their parent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Could I then be arrested as a kiddie predator (or whatever) under Canadian law? If so, then I agree: ban kids from the net, at least in Canada.
[*] Actually, I use IM for communications like that, but no doubt the same laws would be misapplied.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
>The obvious legislative solution to this problem is to ban kids from using the internet until they are at least 18 years of age.
And so the more likely approach they would take would be to ban adults from the internet, forever.
The people who make these laws are unable to think through the issues they're dealing with or the consequences of the laws they make. It's their job, but they repeatedly show themsleves incabable (sorry I have a cold) of it, incompetent at it and unqualified to craft, legislate or oversee well-thought-out laws that are properly balanced and take into account a wide view of the society they're effecting and the implications such 'rules written down in paper and backed up by violent force' have.
The UK's approach to this wave of 'protect the children & finance our own political capital through villifying adults' moral panic, has been to wedge itself between adults and children as a gatekeeper. Where an adult has employment where any regular (read: not that frequent even) contact with children occurs, the adult is deemed a potential threat and must submit him or herself for scrutiny by the state as to his or her fitness to come into contact with said children. Rumours are allowed in the database which a potential pedophile (formerly 'adult') must be checked against and this can bar them from any profession, permanently as far as I'm aware, where such contact occurs or may occur, forever.
What the state is doing int hese cases is labelling all adults as threats to children and portraying itself as the saviour of children against these bad adults. It is devisive in the extreme and a fundemental attack on a healthy and normal society where children and adults get along, pretty much for the most part, in a caring and loving environment. It's a social evil of the most extreme kind, IMO, to drive a wedge between the population of adults and their children for the sake of the state's own glorification and political standing (in the eyes of certain punitive-minded and ignorant voters).
It is a horrific attack on one of the most fundemental aspects of a species: the relationship between the adults and their young, where a third party defines the adults as a threat and seeks to portray itself as the only true protector the offspring could have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could see the humour behind your comment, which unfortunately the moderators who marked it insightful couldn't. The internet is more akin to walking down the street - I certainly wouldn't be seen dead talking to children I don't know in the street. The internet differs in that others can't see with whom you're talking, or if you're even using it if you're in the privacy of your own home. For some reason, the apparent anonymity of the internet seems to remove some people's inhibitions to doing things th
Shun strange children. (Score:5, Insightful)
I ignore any child that I do not personally already know. The 'sex offender' laws and the shrill cries of helicopter parents have caused this. I'm not getting accused of being sex offender (which will stick with me even if exonerated on court) because someone's un-minded child said hello to me. Likewise, I'm not helping any child I don't know if they appear to be in trouble. I will call 911 and watch, but I'm not getting involved. It's the only safe way to be an adult male in US society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So decency dies: from the fear for one's reputation.
Re:Shun strange children. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shun strange children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So decency dies: from the fear for one's reputation."
I'll trade decency for not getting spitroasted in prison.
Ain't my brat, ain't my business.
Re:Shun strange children. (Score:5, Interesting)
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
No worries. there's actually a pretty good chance you would commit suicide before the trial was over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Much like children aren't allowed in bars, children should not be allowed on the internet.
There are THREE ways to of getting something done: Pay someone to do it, do it yourself or forbid your children from doing it...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok Miss Teenager... Dont you dare figure out how to break the speed of light! I'm warning you. Dont do it. It's a law of physics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, just banning children from the Supreme Court would have fixed this problem.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if he's being sarcastic or not, but I would prefer his suggestion to some poorly written, non-objective law that can be twisted into a Kafkaesque nightmare by some overly ambitious prosecutor.
I, for one, have no wish to live under a giant, child-proof cap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
That applied long before computers came about. Unless you're going to shoot children in the head before they reach five, there is always some chance of a nasty end, or of them doing bad things. It's the nature of the beast. Some people seem to want a level of safety for their offspring that is impossible to deliver, but can lead to unintended consequences which are toxic to a free society. I hate to say it, because it sounds cold and harsh, but our liberties, and just as importantly, a rational and objective legal structure, are indeed more important than the odd child's, or more expansively, odd person's life. Shutting down chunks of the Internet and making laws so broad that a good deal of innocent activity could potentially put one at risk of legal repurcussions will save only a handful of the children lured by predators online or otherwise (and these make up only a small fraction of all the children in the industrialized world to begin with).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, banning children from the internet is unenforceable and preposterous.
The idea here is that instead of understanding the technology and applying the old laws to the new medium, legislators feel the need to write overly broad laws that make every Canadian who's ever participated in a flamewar on youtube a potential sex offender / felon.
At the very least, passing a law like this would make parents responsible for whatever distress/harm came to their unaccompanied children while they surfed the net, so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently told my wife that I was going to teach our (future) children to not be afraid of strangers; needless to say she was appalled. I pointed out that if our 3 year old got seperated from us at the mall and went up to the first person they saw and said "I lost my parents, can you help me?" the odds are 99.9999% that the situation would end favorably. If our kid was so terrified that they went and hid from everyone it would be orders of magnitude harder to find them.
Teach your kids how to solve problems because they won't be able to avoid them (or hide behind you) forever. And if you teach your kids how to solve even the simplest of problems (getting lost at the mall) you'll find that they are more capable of solving the big problems later in life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have the right idea. Kids are not dumb; they're just lacking experience and it's our job to give them that experience.
I have no kids but hang-out with my nieces/nephews a lot, and I treat them as if they were adults (up to a point). For example my niece asked me to get some cake and I responded, "Couldn't you get it yourself?" She frowned, said "no", and then changed her mind and cut the cake herself. She was happy with her accomplishment and I said, "See? I knew you could do it." That made her s
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm - I remember when CP laws started to go overboard, seeing people like the OP say something like, "You know, as vague as these laws are, someday, some teenage girl is going to take a picture of herself and post it on the internet and get arrested for peddling CP." People like you said, "Teenage girls are not the target of the law and you know it. Don't blow this up into something more than it is." Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm looking at her bebo profile.
What can you see? Can you see anything?
Nothing...there's nothing. Wait...there are markings.
It's some form of l33t speak...I can't read it.
There are few who can...the language is that of 13 year old girls, which I will not utter here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tea Bagging (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you'd read the article, "inappropriate" is apparently synonymous with "any," now.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have anything you'd like to tell the children before we go?
Yes... ...conform,consume obeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!
Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between humans and other animals is that humans are able to see beyond their biological instincts and consider things as they actually are. Perhaps humans are still too primitive to prevent their rational minds from being co-opted by irrational instinctive impulses, which is something I don't see as a sign of strength. Growth lies in the opposite direction, where factual concerns trump irrational and often harmful thoughts such as "let's assume adults who talk to children are all up to no good".
"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A society that concerns itself with real threats and doesn't waste time on irrational ones will be much better of than a paranoid society. The idea that humans will become extinct for not freaking out is itself irrational, and false.
Re:completely wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
We cannot altogether avoid our instincts, but we are certainly capable of doing better than our instincts in most situations. Policies borne out of paranoia aren't harmless, and besides are generally less effective than policies that are well thought out. "Think of the children" policies are usually knee-jerk reactions that are out of proportion to the actual threat. We shall not face the extinction of mankind for abandoning policies that address mostly imagined threats, but we are at risk of suffering serious negative side effects whenever people's irrational fears are allowed to influence the law to such a degree as is happening here.
This is not about standing proud in front of a charging lion (which both instinct and reason agree is a terrible idea), but about accepting and embracing the power of the mind to distinguish between real and imagined threats despite what our primitive instincts might tell us. Humans are capable of that to a significant degree, and it's actually a step forward in terms of evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you do not, in fact, disagree with Adrian Lopez, or you are committing the naturalistic fallacy.
You seem to be arguing why things are the way they are, while Adrian is arguing how things should be in a rational society. These positions are not in conflict, contrary to your tone, unless you intend to argue an "ought" from an "is."
Re:go and walk near a nest of crocodile eggs (Score:4, Insightful)
Since this hysteria has only been around in its current form for a decade or so, I'm finding it difficult to accept that it is all that "natural" a reaction, on the part of individuals or society.
The truth is that the "think of the children" mentality is about as natural as racist and sexist thinking and about as damaging to society overall. It needs to be ridiculed, condemned and stamped out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why has it only had such a detrimental effect on our society and its laws in the last 10 years?