Writer's Block: Old enough!?!

[velvetpage]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

The people setting the limits should be those most able to enforce them - i.e. the parents.

I don't generally like age limits for a lot of things.  I'd rather teach my children that alcohol is something to be used with caution, than have them grow up with the taboo they're ready to flaunt as soon as they can get away with it.  It's the same with the internet.  A gradual release of responsibility, from complete supervision where the parent is the keeper of the passwords to complete autonomy, is a process to be followed a bit differently for every family.

It's not LJ's job to decide how I should teach my kids about the internet.

Comments

[firesign10.livejournal.com]

I concur.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

I think I'm inclined to agree, especially since age limits hurt the kids who need the Internet most--those who are being abused or cannot find companionship in their offline lives. I definitely don't want the limits tightened up any further--if the minimum age for signing up for forums without a parent's say-so is ever raised, a lot of kids who need the Internet to survive emotionally and whose parents don't understand the importance of their online lives (probably most LGBTQ kids in the American South, for instance) will be screwed.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

The Internet is good - for Porn ~ Avenue Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc&feature=related

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes :D. I saw that play in NYC two weeks ago.

[amyura.livejournal.com]

I agree, with a BIG caveat. Someone needs to have the final legal responsibility for what kids are doing on social networking sites. Since I, like you, think that the parents should have the ultimate responsibility, I think that in the event of libel or internet bullying, the parents should be held legally responsible for their kids' actions. There have been too many cases recently in my neck of the woods where internet bullying got so out of control that someone committed suicide. The courts were initially finding that no laws had been broken by the kids' actions, for example upholding a group of middle-school girls' right to make and post a mean YouTube video under the First Amendment. Which is fine, but that doesn't mean YouTube needs to host it, or that the parents aren't responsible for allowing it in the first place.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I think legal responsibility for that should start at about the same age and to about the same level as legal responsibility for other stuff. Around here, you cannot be charged with a crime until you're at least twelve. That seems reasonable to me, and I can't imagine myself not allowing my kids some internet freedoms at that age.

[amyura.livejournal.com]

That seems reasonable to me.....as long as it's not a circle-jerk of passing the buck, which is what happened in the YouTube case.