Are Websites to be Age Restricted?

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Are Websites to be Age Restricted?

To all those that thought it was just Australia, think again. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/88331-Australia-Looking-To-Filter-BitTorrent] UK Culture Secretary Andy Burnham suggests websites should carry film-style restrictions, to better "safeguard" our children (and our children's children) against unacceptable content.

The UK government is said to be looking into new safeguards after some content, such as clips of beheading on YouTube, was easily accessible by children. Burnham(pictured) is also looking to negotiate international guidelines with the US for English language websites to provide new standards of decency.

Burnham, father of three young children, has said "I think we do need to have a debate now about clearer signposting and labeling online because it can be quite a confusing world, particularly for parents who are trying to ensure their children are only accessing appropriate stuff."

Whilst we can all agree that there are certain websites that we really wouldn't want kids looking at, even the NSPCC [http://www.nspcc.org.uk/] (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) is calling for heavy handed measures such as computer retailers to install security software as standard.

Diana Sutton, Policy/Public Affairs head of the NSPCC said "It's one thing to have a political commitment, but it's much harder to actually enforce it. We want these ideas to have teeth."

British Telecom [http://www.bt.com/], at least, has said it'd have to have a look at Burnham's plan to see if it was feasible. Personally I'd love to see how Mr. Burnham is going to implement the PG rating, perhaps web cams to sense the Parent/Guardian is watching?

Source: BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7800846.stm]

Permalink

 

[zachatree]

even if they do put age restrictions on websites (which they shouldn't) it wont stop kids from getting on them. Just take porn websites as an example millions of kids get on them who, age wise, shouldn't.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Just another waste of time. Age Gates don't work, and even though I'm 19 I still just scroll the year down to 1935 or something and then fill in the other 2 slots because it's quicker than finding my birth date by scrolling through 3 different drop menus. Call me lazy but 3 quick clicks to get past some bullshit censorship is fine by me.

It amazes me that parental controls aren't enough anymore. I expect government issued Robot Nannies soon.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

I always just my birthday to Jan 1, 1901 when a website asks.

 

[Fenring]

This should be a poll. and no.

 

[xitel]

Hooray for lying on the internet!

This should be a poll. and no.

It's a news story headline, not an actual question.

 

[Nimbus]

People like this need to be told how many websites there are on the internet. I think they would be suprised.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Ooh, I know what parents can do to ensure that their kids are only accessing appropriate stuff: PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR KIDS. Or even, better yet, don't get them their own laptop and game console and cell phone and television with cable.

"Sorry, sweetie, but you can have your own electronics when it's no longer against the law for you to post pictures of yourself in a bikini."

If you're going to decide that it's someone else's job to parent your kids by demanding that they take responsibility for guiding your children's access, it's only right that they have the right to show your kids whatever they want. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. The fact that you have the right to control what your kids see means that you have the responsibility to do it *yourself*.

 

[Aardvark]

Here's an idea. Don't have children. Radical, I know. Almost blasphemous, considering the holy books of the world order people to have lots of children. But here's the thing. If you don't have children, you don't need to worry about the evils of the world corrupting their fragile little minds! If your not prepared to sacrifice your career and social life to ensure that your spawn are indoctrinated with your own personal brand of morality, then why are you having children? You're creating them, then abandoning them to the evils of the world. For shame!

 

[Glerken]

Ya, people will find a way to get through to any website they want to see... It's not hard to say your 18+ over the internet..

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

People like this need to be told how many websites there are on the internet. I think they would be suprised.

Wait till they see the tubes....

 

[xitel]

"Sorry, sweetie, but you can have your own electronics when it's no longer against the law for you to post pictures of yourself in a bikini."

That should be the official parent's motto. I mean, yeah, don't stop them from using the internet completely, but don't buy them everything they need. Make them ASK you to use it. That's what my parents did.

 

[paketep]

Wow.

To Andy Burnham, father of three young children: how about you do your job as a parent and leave the rest of us alone?

 

[Jack and Calumon]

If they age restrict websites then they should also age restrict real life. It should be up to the parents, not the government.


I remember see something like this not too long ago. It was the government blocking Wikipedia from showing a scorpions Album with a picture of a naked 14 year old girl on there. Then they gone into uproar because you could still view it on google images. Pointless.

 

[Brokkr]

This is just another way to make it so that the parents don't need to watch their children. That way they don't have to do any real parenting.

 

[MosDes]

I've always believed that porn sites should be put under the domain ".xxx" instead of .com, .org, etc... I've also always thought being able to block a said domain to be easier than age enforcement.

I do not, however, believe it will do any good for them to do anything at all, aside from the

government issued Robot Nannies

that they will likely make to be evil to little kids (as opposed to those robots depicted in Bicentennial Man).

 

[Rochnan]

Here's an idea. Don't have children. Radical, I know. Almost blasphemous, considering the holy books of the world order people to have lots of children.

But no sex, 'cause sex be bad. And you don't want to get the bad kind of afterlife, now do you?
Anyway, not having kids saves you a lot of money and time too. And you can brag how your generation was the last generation of humans. Like 'Damn yeah! I was there when we got extinct!'.

And I'll go back to the topic now, before someone reports me...
I don't have much faith in rating systems as long as there's someone in the house who can legally buy anything unsuitable for children.
I believe that it's a parents responsibility to be there when your child may do something they shouldn't. And stop them before things go wrong.
Apparently, with modern parents lacking that interest in their children, we might as well become extinct.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Rather than legislate, wouldnt it be easier for said concerned parents to, ya know, go into their control panel & edit the parental controls of their child's computer profile? Of course this would assume that said parents know what the control panel is, which still seems to be a staggering minority of people given how many use the things.