From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 17:12:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
Message-ID: <199607210701.AAA00292@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


David Sternlight (david@SternBot.com) writes:

 > There are many others who have come to similar conclusions
 > about the formation of independent judgement in children,
 > and lots of non-Piaget experiments. Your comments are
 > diversionary and in fact by the end of your post you come to
 > agree with my basic point.

Every doctrine has its followers, and I will admit "Piaget-Speak"
is still quite popular in certain circles, and its buzzwords are
often heard in arguments promoting child inferiority and
dismissing childrens' concerns.

That hardly means I agree with your basic point, which is that
parents should be able to do whatever they want in controlling
their childrens' information sources without their children
having any recourse against them.

 > That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in
 > loco parentis,

This, of course, varies with local statutes, as does the legal
definition of "In Loco Parentis." Generally it applies to
teachers, people hired to care for children, and some relatives,
such as grandparents.  I am not familar with any locale where
librarians are specifically mentioned, and most librarians will
be more than happy to explain to you that a library is not a free
babysitting service, and that they are not caregivers.

 > and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials
 > young children are exposed to and what is more, are
 > responsive to community pressure in the matter since most
 > libraries are community-based.

Most libraries let "young adults" (read anyone who has hit their
teenage years) read pretty much anything they want.  "Parents on
the warpath" have managed to apply pressure in recent years, and
libraries are a bit less free than they used to be, but I think
the American Library Association has done a pretty good job in
standing its ground against agitators and pressure groups.

 > So after trying to refute my point, you come to agree with
 > it and want to shift the issue to the question of at what
 > age....

No - I stated in my original message that young children do need
some reasonable constraints to guard them from exposure to
material which might cause them emotional pain.

This is far different from your assertion that minors (everyone
under 18) should have no access to any information that their
parents do not pre-approve.

 > I'm not competent to assess that nor, I assert, are you; I
 > suggest it varies with the child and it's up to the
 > individual parent to make those subtle distinctions, issue
 > by issue, child by child.

Nothing subtle about it David.  Once young people have passed
through early childhood, the burden of proof is on anyone who
suggests that they should be insulated from social and political
reality to provide a convincing reason why. Parental
capriciousness doesn't qualify.

 > As I parse the above sentence it says limiting is often
 > justified but it might not be.

Parse the sentence again.  What it says is that although
"protecting children" is often the excuse used to limit older
childrens' access to controversial material, the reality is that
it is usually an effort to control their thinking on certain
issues by making sure they have only one viewpoint, that of their
parents.

 > If so, it's up to the parents to figure ou where THEIR kid
 > is on the scale--nobody else has as much time, motivation,
 > or opportunity to observe.

As is usual with Statists, the argument is seen as a debate over
who should be doing the controlling, the notion that everyone
needs to be controlled being a foregone conclusion.

Perhaps it's time to take Perry's pledge. :)

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $