| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSBackers tout the "Social Networking Website Access Restriction Act" as a measure that will protect kids from predators. It's hard to see how. Whether parents consent to their children being online or not, predators can still approach them. And, even in the unlikely event that every parent in Illinois successfully prevented their children from accessing social networking sites, predators could still target kids elsewhere.
State legislatures around the country frequently seem to forget that people under 18 have First Amendment rights. State after state has tried to pass laws banning or restricting the sales of some video games to minors, only to have courts invalidate those laws. Even laws that don't ban the sale of games, but only require that parents to consent to their purchase, have been nixed, as happened in Michigan in 2003.
What's more, the act arguably does away with people's ability to create anonymous profiles because it would require social networking sites to use age verification measures. In other words, adults as well as minors would have to provide accurate personally identifiable information before using social networking sites - a potential infringement on people's long-established First Amendment right to use pseudonyms.
While many users of Facebook and MySpace already use their real names, the act's definition of social networking sites seems broad enough to encompass just about any site with social networking functionality.
The good news is, the current version of the bill probably won't pass before Friday, the deadline for the House to take action this session. But the bad news is just yesterday three new sponsors signed on, bringing to 24 the total number of Illinois lawmakers who like this law so much they're willing to sponsor it.
Even more bad news: The backers intend to try to refine the bill over the summer and reintroduce it. It's hard to envision any refinements that would salvage this measure.
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
Kids face real dangers online. Not just from sexual predators, but also from identity thieves and scam artists. The problem is, when these people do their miserable deeds online, it tends to pass under the radars of more parents than when they're working in real life. Parent sees their kid on the laptop, assumes he or she is doing homework or chatting with friends, and doesn't ask questions. They don't know their kids have gotten themselves into trouble until it's too late.
I don't think that parental consent is workable by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe age verification is a good thing. And remember, these sites don't have to collect your PII themselves... the most logical solution is a third-party age verification service (or government-sponsored agency) that takes your details, confirms your age and identity, and then assigns you a passcode to use on social networking sites... then the sites would only know that you were of age, nothing more and nothing less.
As for predators targeting kids elsewhere if parents prevent their kids from getting online, it's true... they will target kids elsewhere. But I believe that's a lot like saying, "Underage kids are going to drink anyway, so we should just go ahead and allow them into bars."
Prevention is prevention. If the measure keeps one 14-year-old kid from getting raped or killed, it's worth it in my opinion regardless of how many ad dollars are lost.
These social networking sites can be extremely adult-oriented, as well. I've seen my younger nieces and nephews (all ages 12-16, roughly) read comments on MySpace that I would find offensive if I heard in a bar!
Just my two cents... possibly worth a little less than that in current economic conditions! :-p
Note to legislators: How about no new laws until you have the ship of state righted?
Jim Courtright Chicago