Shade: Protecting the Kids? Debates Over Internet Content

Shade presents in interesting look about how protection of children over the internet is a much more complicated issue than one may lead. Shade performs the study of multiple shareholders and comes out with some depression results. She provides a few suggestions for the readers to ponder below:

"Suggestions for improving coverage of the Internet as it relates to children and families
include the following. Coverage should be extended to include more critical analysis of
the role of Internet technology in the everyday lives of children and young people.
Newspapers should more critically assess the commercialization of Web content that is
directed towards children. Privacy issues should be examined more critically, especially
online marketing practices that secure personal information on children. More youth,
educators, and public interest groups should be consulted on stories about the Internet
and children. " (Shade, 2002)

Shade is wondering why pornography is receiving the bulk of the atttention when they are other things to worry about (Shade documents this about a Neo-Nazi website targeted for children in their recruitment practices).


"Why, then, has pornography received the bulk of attention as the content area that
most threatens children and young people? Could its obvious visible nature (rather
than the medium that carries it) explain why debates rage amongst and between free
speech advocates, feminists, and the Christian right? Lessig (1999) points out that in
real space (contrasted to cyberspace), pornography is extensively regulated–through
legislation, law, and social norms. Social norms, for example, include age restrictions
related to the purchase of magazines and videos, and venders must position
pornographic magazines so that children and youth cannot easily access them. In other
words, as Lessig argues, an architecture regulates access to pornography.
The Internet is different, however, as its technical architecture allows for anonymity
(users can create multiple identities), deception (users can lie about their ages, race,
ethnicity, and gender), and bypassing (information can be sent through multiple
channels, in multiple formats, and via different routes). An architecture that zones
speech (in this case, pornography) could demand a “Kids-ID” or an “Adults-ID.”
Browser profiles or the establishment of digital certification are other zoning solutions
(Lessig, pp. 176-177), but in both instances, the adult bears the burden to prove that
he or she is validated to receive “adult speech.” (Shade, 2002)

Shade brings up a very ineteresting point that could be discussed in class: What should be the balance between child protection and freedom of expression.