|
Children’s brains relating to Freedom of Information
Children are our future, but I am talking about any particular child’s future. When media is as accessible as it is to intelligent individuals who are willing to look, we run the risk of any child with a developing brain having their hardwire tampered with, relating to the lack of censorship of graphic images in the news, on movies, or even youtube.
WikiLeaks is the perfect example of how public perception can staple an idea together as a whole. From Napster, to there being countless sites to watch movies or listen to music on, information has become more and more readily available to anyone at the click of a button. It is my mission statement with this typing right now that it needs to be tightened up somehow. I don’t know the logistics of how this could be done properly, but are we not sacrificing individual lives to feed the masses?
Think about America post 9/11, and relate the mourning, sadness, and tragedy of that experience to a child’s brain after a traumatic experience. If Cellphone calls to crying relatives are the neurons of that child’s brain, something is at risk of getting shut off when they see someone get decapitated on youtube at the hands of a militant extremist. We are incapable of fixing the bigger problem but why should that child have to suffer, and have that image ingrained into their head for the rest of their life possibly ruining their life all because of some imaginary pushing of freedom onto them.
Where do we draw the line? When kids hear, or see cuss words, they’re more apt to repeat them. When kids see violence, or have violence unwillingly inflicted upon their young, developing minds, they are more apt to repeat that violence theirselves. One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Has the International Right to Privacy been infringed by Freedom of the Press when it comes to underaged individuals? Are kids brains not being assaulted by content? You be the judge.
  
|
You must be a fan of the current regime in Egypt. They're doing such a fine job of protecting the children from being assaulted by content produced by the evil press.
|
As a soon to be parent (due date was the 14th... still waiting!) I think a lot of responsibility falls to the parents. I agree that there's a lot that can condition a very malleable mind. I feel it's my responsibility to guide that mind. I don't know exactly how I'm going to do that, but I don't think blanket censorship is the right way. Many might not agree with ideas like this ("my parents didn't let me watch X show, listen to Y band or play Z video game"). I see why my parents did some of that and I also know it only made me want to do those things more (and I did). I'd rather monitor and discuss the content that my soon to be son digests and help him process things. I'll probably adhere to some media rating guidelines and utilize some parental controls online but I know he's still going to absorb things out of my control and it's up to me to make sure how he handles it.
|
Canada10681 Posts
On January 16 2016 18:13 Bill Murray wrote:
When kids hear, or see cuss words, they’re more apt to repeat them. When kids see violence, or have violence unwillingly inflicted upon their young, developing minds, they are more apt to repeat that violence theirselves.
Give sources for your wild assertions please. This is the exact same argument that people use to go after gaming. Violent games are bad because violence on a computer screen or on a television makes kids violent.
The entire problem with your rhetoric is that you try to generalize what fundamentally is the business of individuals. "Think of the children" is ridiculous. At the end of the day, it's a parent's job to make sure that their kid doesn't have access to whatever content of our reality they don't want them to see. It used to be playboy magazines under the bed, now it's decapitation videos on youtube. There are technologies to limit access to reality. High shelves for porn magazines, software for internet content.
The ill effects of seeing our ugly reality are very debatable. Would you be willing to limit the freedom I, a 26 year old man, have to information, in order to limit the access some child in another household may have to whatever footage may traumatize him or her due to their parent's negligent attitude regarding the internet. The "Freedom of information" needs to be expanded if anything, not limited because of some imagined problems you perceive with it.
Forgive me if this is excessively critical of your reasoning, but to me, this approach betrays a glaring flaw in your problem-solving aptitudes. If you argue that X causes problem with Y, don't expect me to outright believe you.
1- First you must prove that there actually is a problem and you must define it. Is it even true that children are disturbed by this? Isn't it actually beneficial depending on context and beyond a certain age for young people to actually see the world as it is (to a degree certainly). I ask this because some people still believe that seeing a pair of breasts on television will break a kid's psyche forever, when in reality it's more likely that it's the parent's reaction to sexuality that stigmatizes tits.
2- Second, understand that even if you do successfully defend the idea that X (freedom of information) does cause issues with Y (kids), it does not necessarily follow that the solution to the problem is to fiddle with X and undermine it, because doing so has other consequences. There's a variety of mediums on the way that may be more appropriate to manage this issue (real or perceived). There are parents, who should obviously manage what their kids have access to, and there are distributors of information who can play a limited role in limiting children's exposure to this kind of content. Either way I don't think that my access to information should be limited because of negligent soccer moms across the world who can't get their shit together.
|
yeah my girlfriend is expecting so perhaps it's me that's changing
i would give the metaphor of esports casting cussing and being more crass vs mainstream news casting that they would get fired for the same thing
this is the difference in children and adults.
but yeah it primarily falls on the parents to monitor but a lot of millenials arent there and have to be working.
|
and no i would rather there be more of an enforcement of content relating to social security numbers or something so that we could limit the graphic nature of things children can see
at least put a parental guidance of TV-MA type thing on it like EVERY OTHER FORM OF MEDIA USES
|
It's true that popular culture affects children (as well as everyone else). It's good you're concerning yourself about these things but be careful about some of the conclusions you draw. You seem a bit stressed out about this, it's difficult to be level-headed and reason about these things properly if you're stressed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
