Who is responsible for child censorship?

13 January, 2010

• censorship
• clean feed
• freedom of speech
• government

Michelle Jennins

Category: General Business

A major criticism following the Australian Government's announcement to filter 'inappropriate' websites in an attempt to protect children from viewing sexual or violent content, is the lack of clear definitions of what the proposal entails.

What are the consequences of censorship?

The Courier Mail goes on to explain, "[the] danger with this type of censorship is the ability of regulators, once it is in place, to extend the parameters of what is unacceptable and deserving of a ban - a creeping cancer of government censorship in the worse-case scenario."

An article on theage.com.au parallels this point; "The fear is that well-meaning filtering... opens the door to blanket blocks on all manner of subjects deemed disagreeable by governments."

Examples, both subtle and extreme, include French law banning search engines results of Holocaust-denial websites to Saudi Arabia blocking all websites relating to women's rights and free speech.

For Australia's 'Clean Feed', it appears the prohibited content may also include "sites on which victims of sexual abuse detail their experiences, sites that provide educational information about drug use and academic sites that describe the motivation and behaviour of terrorists." (The Age).

A comment from the Facebook group blog makes note that "most sexually abused children are assaulted by a relative or close family friend, not by someone they met online." The point I see here is blocking the avenues abused children may seek indirect support through online resources is cutting off a potential lifeline.

A potential solution

The Young Liberal Movement of Australia has rejected "compulsory internet censorship as an unnecessary curtailment of freedom of speech and unwarranted government intrusion", and have suggested that parental responsibility and monitoring is a far superior way of protecting children.

Who is responsible for our children?

So the question posed here is who is responsible for child censorship? As a former teacher, I feel culture is constantly pushing forward the notion that society as a whole are the parents, suggesting our mums and dads of today should have little responsibility to the moral and developmental welfare of their children.

The negative consequences of failing to entrust parents with the responsibility of their own children are too easy to see. With everyone putting in their two cents it seems there are too many conflicting viewpoints and expectations often resulting in increased violence, little to no respect for others and property, and no clear boundaries.

Children seek to define their surroundings and reality by testing new behaviours and evaluating the response of those around them. Undeniably, social expectations and regulations need to be in place to protect lifestyle and human rights. However, the most valued, intrinsic and inherent lessons are those taught to us by those we love, trust and respect, rather than bureaucratic dictations from nameless faces.

Of course, parents and guardians are not the only significant influencers in their children's life, and whilst others involved with children, especially teachers, share a responsibility to care and nurture for the intellectual, emotional and physical well-being of children, the primary responsibility lies with those bringing up the child.

My opinion?

Parents have a responsibility to protect their children; the government has a responsibility to protect civil liberties including freedom of speech and our first world privilege of access to information and services.