a newsgroup discussion
Vanessa:
A few months back I was watching a show on tv where they got a computer/internet literate man to go onto a chat and pretend to be a 13 year old girl. Almost as soon as "she" came on, "she" was offered cyber-sex by a couple of older males. Older meaning 30-40 year old men (or so they said they were). One man even offered to send "her" a picture of a naked man and before "she" could reply, it was showing up on her computer screen.
After seeing this program, I became curious and decided to try this out for myself. I logged on as a 12 year old girl named Chrissy. I asked if anyone wanted to chat with a 12 year old girl and I got several replies, mostly from older men - one was even from a 19 year old female who asked me if I had ever had lesbian sex and if I wanted to act it out with her. Not all of the men offered cyber-sex but a majority did.
Personally, I was disgusted by some of the things that "Chrissy" was offered. One man asked her if she was still a virgin. She replied "yes" and he "offered" to take it away from her... as if he was doing her a great deed.
I think that children should be monitored very carefully while they are on the internet. There are too many "sick" people out there who they should not have to deal with.
What do you think?
Jean:
I was wondering where you logged on. Was this just one specific chat group or did you try several places? Was it a specific time of day? How long did it take you to get replies?
Vanessa:
It was on a chat called "Broadcast" that used to be called "Talker." I haven't tried it on any other chats. I did this immediately after watching the television program in the afternoon. I got replies immediately after I asked if anyone wanted to chat.
Curtis:
The internet is terrible for child pornography! The newsgroups especially. I think that the police should crack down on these pedophiles. We all hear too bloody much about them. Recently, in the US, a guy whose name is actually Ronald McDonald was charged with the sexual assault of a child. This guy was a volunteer Santa Claus. I think anyone who sexually assaults a child should be shot!
Heather:
I really agree with you on that point. Unfortunately the "system" that we have created through knowledge is really lacking in many ways.
If the internet can bring this type of person (even a few) out into the open, where they can be put behind bars - it's a start. We'll just have to think of another way to entice these types of people out into the open - and get a fairer justice system!
Sandra:
I agree. I see the internet as being one of the most useful aids in catching these people ever. It is unfortunate that these people are so eager to victimize youngsters on the net. However it is their eagerness that will also enable the police, posing as youngsters, to snare them in the "net".
Catherine:
When I was doing my research assignment on censorship on the internet, I came across cases where people were caught and convicted for child pornography. Investigators had posed as children on the net and had enticed pedophiles out of the woodwork. It was successful on some occasions to the point where the pedophile would agree to meet the child for sex, and fortunately this was enough evidence to convict the suspect.
Tanya:
I think teeneagers are old enough to search the web without supervision. The web is not unlike the real world--eventually you will come in contact with creeps. It will be good experience for teens to learn how to handle themselves around these people.
Jean:
Would you allow your girl (or boy) to be all alone with someone who is trying to seduce her in real life? Would you allow a creep into your home in order to teach your child how to deal with it? This is what you would be doing if you allowed them unsupervised time on the net!
Marsh:
This is a fascinating idea: if we allow neo-nazis and pedophiles to communicate on the web are we creating an ideal opportunity to learn about them, maybe to understand them more fully, maybe to prepare ourselves for an increasingly complex moral climate. I find this an appealing argument on the question of censorship. However, I'd like to hear more about Jean's analogy between inviting someone into the home and allowing the child access to ideas. Tanya is suggesting that it is safer to allow a person to learn about the world in a simulated, or at least isolated, position. I'm not sure that it is the same to learn about ideas through the remove of the virtual as it is to learn about them face-to-face. The obvious threat of the dangerous person is removed by the technology. On the other hand, Jean may be referring to the danger of the idea or vision, as opposed to the physical danger of the person. An "immoral" idea is just as dangerous when you read about it as when you hear about it.
Anyone have any thoughts on this distinction?
Tom:
Yes. If the distinction is between the IDEA, and the talking and/or hearing or writing of same which, if we believe in free speech rather than censorship, ought to be not only tolerated but encouraged, and the ACT, which is illegal as well as morally repugnant if we're talking about pedophilia, THEN I agree wholeheartedly with: If we allow...pedophiles to communicate on the web, we are creating an ideal opportunity to learn about them maybe to understand them more fully, maybe to prepare..." not only for "an increasingly complex moral climate" but to literally prepare children of whatever age for dealing with these 'ideas' through the use of the very medium under discussion which allows the pedophile an opportunity to express him/herself - the internet itself. Turn it around by discussing the disgusting.
I can see an "advanced" version/class of this tuning in on a pedophile and engaging him/her in a discussion, in front of the children. Surely children are better off confronting in a controlled and supervised, safe if artificial virtual situation these thoughts and tactics and feelings of pedophiles rather than hoping the pedophile will just go away, or simply getting morally indignant. Better in the class than not I say. I dare say the environment would be digitally electric and no one would be bored in such a class which might more resemble a kind of cyberOprah show than what we normally think of as "education." But I think it's obvious that a direct assault on this issue is more important than twelve year after year every year of math (no offense please to teachers or lovers of mathematics).
Marsh:
For me this suggestion opens up exciting educational possibilities, though I imagine that such learning would meet considerable resistance from parents and teachers. The teachers involved in such an experiment would have to be sensitive to any possibility of traumatizing their students (in the case of pedophiles, for example). But maybe this process would help us to desist in the demonization of society's new incarnation of evil. Does anyone out there know a pedophile personally? I'm getting the haunting feeling that we're discussing pedophiles as if they were witches, and history has taught us to be more cautious when we're ready to burn someone at the stake.
Maybe as a class of mature adults, we could take a look at this pedophile story and ease the way for a K to 12 examination.
Apart from this particular topic, Tom, your suggestion could be applied to an examination of different types of online behaviour, not just the troubling ones.
O-Man:
I've been reading all the postings; maybe it's just me, but I'm fed up with being told that we should worry about all sorts of horrible things happening no matter where you are, including "cyberspace." What I mean is there will always be something sad, sick, horrible, etc. going on in the world. From pedophiles to abuse, there will always be something to worry about. Don't get me wrong (of course we should care), I would never want anything like this to happen to someone I love but we have to realize that these things do happen and there will never be a perfect utopia. I don't think I'm being pessimistic, but realistic. It is easy to fear and denounce all "evil" as much as we like, but we must learn to understand that bad things happen and bad people exist. There may not be solutions to everything, but we can't go around living our lives in anticipation of something horrible about to happen. Referring back to our newgroup, many of us have posted messages describing different sites where pedophiles or deranged people go. But let's not go overboard with this issue--we're all talking about a small percentage of people here in comparison to the hundreds of million "normal" people there are on the internet.
Now I'll be the first to admit that parents' jobs are becoming more difficult by the day but that should go as evidence of the fact that more time should be dedicated to children. Times change but values shouldn't. Instead of worrying and becoming paranoid we should accept the fact ( no matter how difficult) that "crazy" things happen and adjust our way of life accordingly. If that means more education and taking more responsibility over ourselves and our children, so be it.
I hope you all understand where I'm coming from here.
Jason:
Yeah. I think I can agree with you on that. The internet is a vast meeting place. I don't think that evil spawns and propagates on the net, it's just that since so many people use the damn thing, that just about every view under the sun is represented. Seeing as humanity has its share of nasty character flaws, it's not hard to think of one, and go looking for it. More than likely, you'll find whatever evil perversion you care to look for. 'Evil' isn't a trait of the internet; it's a trait of humanity.
MZ0:
If we are to explore the "evils" of the net, please give, if not equal time, at least recognition that it has far greater good than evil. The media attacks on the net may have to be examined for sensationalism more than content. The 30 second bite we have become accustomed to tends to stroke our emotions far more than it does intellect. If we are to draw any conclusions on the impact of the net, the mass media is one of the poorer sources of info. In order to have an informed opinion we would be in need of controlled studies that have well defined parameters and controls. The media tends to use sensational abberations to make their arguments; most of these presentations present a slippery slope argument geared to creating a gut reaction. Beware of being manipulated by such tacky tactics.
Diny:
Bravo. I agree wholeheartedly. Let's not get paranoid over the "evil" on the internet. However, we really haven't had time to study the impact and effects of this technology on children, and I guess that is where the greatest concern lies. We're still trying to understand the effects of television programming on children. Although there have been numerous studies on that particular topic, there are still no clear results.
Comments have been excerpted by the editors of the Westcoast CyberCave from a newsgroup discussion at news:mala.medi113.f9701 held by students of Media Studies 113 (Emerging Digital Communications) in October and November 1997.