OT - MySpace users, anyone?

On 2006-08-03, penned:

Please don't over-analyze what I wrote. If it's important to anyone,
I think children are the most precious resource on this earth, and
their protection and education should come first and foremost above
their "rights" to idle chat on the internet. Second, a child's name
should not be published as the victim of the predator; nor their
parents, nor their address. It's not necessary, that's information
no one needs to know, and only compounds tenfold the problems the
victim is already facing. The story would have the same impact to
warn without it. I'm not arguing any of the above points; they are
my opinion and that won't change. Sherry

I think it's more like, I didn't understand your position, or fully
consider what's involved in publicizing these cases. I can't disagree
with anything you've just said.

(I think it's entirely appropriate when parents and schools make
decisions about what is or isn't appropriate material for their kids;
that's their job, after all. I worry when things go more in the
direction of "this sort of site shouldn't exist because some bad people
will use it.")

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-08-03, Cheryl Perkins penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I've been hearing about this stuff for years. Why wouldn't the
press touch something like this? It's so juicy and compelling.

What, sexual assault, particularly of a child? It's not so long ago
that the press often wouldn't touch that kind of story, or would do
so without identifying the victim because of the stigma associated
with it. No one wanted a child going through life identified as
'that kid who was raped' - or, worse, 'that kid they *said* was
raped'.

People also thought that the victims would have a better chance of
recovery if every detail of their harrowing experiences weren't
presented to them and everyone they know again and again in the
media, with, of course, all kinds of speculation attached.

Now, it's 'right to know' and 'if it bleeds, it leads'.

Ah.

Can't argue with anything you've said. I was thinking more in general
terms like "there are bad people out there who will hurt kids," not in
specifics like "little girl suzie smith was raped brutally at the
playground, stay tuned for details." The article that someone (Jill?)
posted upthread was about publicizing a sting operation, not
publicizing a victim.

True, but there was no "victim" since it was a sting operation. If victims
are minors they don't always say who they are, but sometimes they do.
Sometimes there is speculation as to whether or not the child or teen will
be testifying at trial. The details they give out are often astonishing.

Earlier this year there was a hubub across the street from my apartment
complex - I may have mentioned it here. I walked across the street to see
what was up. There was a huge banner about a convicted sex offender moving
back into the neighborhood and petitions to force the guy to move. The
teen-daughter of the woman organizing the campaign had been raped by this
guy who lived two houses down. He was being released after a ridiculously
short sentence. I don't remember if they specifically mentioned her by name
but they were reporting from right outside her house, for crying out loud!
Anyone familiar with the area could figure out who she was.

Jill

Cheryl Perkins wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-08-03, jmcquown penned:

I *agree* parents should be teaching their kids about this stuff and
monitoring internet access. But it wasn't so very long ago the
press wouldn't even touch a story like this. It was the old
bury-your-head-in-the-sand mentality, as if by not acknowledging the
problem publicly it couldn't possibly exist.

I've been hearing about this stuff for years. Why wouldn't the press
touch something like this? It's so juicy and compelling.

What, sexual assault, particularly of a child? It's not so long ago
that the press often wouldn't touch that kind of story, or would do
so without identifying the victim because of the stigma associated
with it. No one wanted a child going through life identified as 'that
kid who was raped' - or, worse, 'that kid they *said* was raped'.

Heh... it also wasn't so long ago there were no reports of teen pregnancy
statistics or birth control, either. A teen or young woman "in the family
way" but not married was often quietly whisked out of town ("staying with
relatives") until after the baby was born (and generally put up for
adoption). Times have changed quite a bit in the last 50 years and so have
the things talked about openly, let alone reported in the news.

Jill

wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-08-03, penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

As far as I know, the only "bad press" is from people who shrill
"Protect the children!" at the drop of a hat. Sexual predators are
everywhere. MySpace doesn't facilitate this; it's just one of many
online and "RL" places where strangers can meet.

I'd like to see more people shrill "protect the children" at the
drop of a hat. Bad press does serve one purpose-it tends to make
parents aware that they need to supervise their kids online.

That would be fine if "protect the children" didn't often mean "let's
legislate against the technology being used."

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

I just now read the proposed legislation. I'm tending to agree more
with Joyce that the federal government doesn't need to get involved.
The schools *should* ban myspace, IMO; but that should be left to the
respective school boards. If you had a young teenager that you were
charged to raise and protect, I suspect you would feel differently.

Sherry

And my comment wasn't about federal legislation but regarding a vote by the
local school boards. I definitely agree the federal government doesn't need
to get their fingers involved.

Jill