Commentary
Illinois Mulls Parental Consent For Social Networking
- by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 1, 2009
Backers 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.
Wendy Davis is a Senior Writer at MediaPost. You can reach Wendy at wdavis@mediapost.com
With a $6 billion state deficit, another governor in jail, and a replacement governor attempting to tax us into prosperity, one would think Illinois legislators would have better things to do than try to pass laws that are unconstitutional to begin with, and do nothing more than attempt to replace a job better suited to parents.
Note to legislators: How about no new laws until you have the ship of state righted?
Jim Courtright
Chicago
Wendy, I value your opinion on this and understand where you are coming from, but as an online community administrator since 2000, I have to respectfully disagree.
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
Some Americans have very weird ideas. They let youngsters get hold of guns to kill each other because of some today totally out of date 18th century Right to Bear Arms nonsense yet supposedly want to stop kids talking to each other on the Net. Very bizarre. And the reason. Apparently predators might contact a child.
As if predators did not exist prior to the internet. Or predators cannot just walk down the street offering candy.
Fear stalks some American minds. If they can worry about commies or terrorists they want to worry about predators and other nonsenses. They don't mind killing children in Iraq or Afghanistan in the hundreds if not thousands. They dont not mind supplying the bombs and bullets that kill children in Gaza. They do not mind their government formenting the death of children across the world. But if little Hank uses the internet to contact little Bill Holly Molly stop it. Is this a sick joke or what> You guys should turf out these Illinois busy bodies. It looks like a witch hunt against the net from the country that is by far the largest producer of pornography in the world. Bizzare.
Timothy Locklear saved me the trouble. As much of a First Amendment advocate as I am, I must concur with his observations. Will the bill pass? Probably not. Is it a bad idea? It may be flawed, but it's on the right track. We need to do more to protect our children from online predators. Yes, I know safety begins at home, but it doesn't end there. Anyone who has raised children can attest to that sad fact.