what to think?
while fiddling around on the internet today, i found this article and i find myself amused and infuriated all at once.
in case the link breaks, here's the text
Free internet access and the homosexual agenda
perspective: pro-family
from the 'Media and Culture' topic
15-Mar-2003
Source: ATM
Author: True Seaborn
Abstract:
Some stories reveal more than their authors intend.
[ send this article to a friend ]
Some stories reveal more than their authors intend. Consider the March 5 story "Government, librarians face off over computer access" by Bill Mears of CNN's Washington Bureau, covering the impending Supreme Court decision on a federal law intended to protect children from internet porn on library computers (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/04/scotus.library.smut/).
Mears' discussion covers various approaches adopted by libraries to address the problem. Some libraries make no restrictions on computer use at all; others depend on local parental involvement; yet others employ software filters or "smart cards," depending on budgetary constraints.
The story is scrupulous in its politically correct designation of certain key terms. For example, the expression "adult material" is enclosed in quotation marks, thereby distancing the writer from -- and implicitly casting doubt upon -- the values implicit in the ordinary usage of the term. Elsewhere the story refers to porn as "what some consider smut."
But it is the personal description of Emma Rood that forms the emotional framework of an otherwise dry discussion of constitutional rights and internet access. In 1999 at age 13, Emma visited her local library in Portland, Oregon "to do research, seeking resources prior to [her] coming out" as a lesbian. These resources -- presumably lesbian chat rooms and websites -- were not easily accessible from her home computer because, as she put it, "I was not ready to talk about this with my parents." She persuaded the Multnomah County Library to disable the filtering software so she could visit the desired websites. Eventually she was able to form relationships via email with other teens who were attempting to deal with similar problems -- and who presumably reinforced the decisions she was reaching about herself. Writer Bill Mears characterizes Emma's internet searches as "a very important, but very personal, journey of self-discovery." He says nothing about the internet's ability to release the individuual from traditional social constraints, or to locate communities of kindred spirits that share deviant appetites.
Evidently Mears made no attempt to probe Emma's unstated assumption that her parents could have had no worthwhile influence on her decision -- a decision bound to have far-reaching life consequences. Of course it is possible that their input would have been irrelevant in this case. On the other hand the default condition, which the story implicitly supports, is that an internet chat room or a lesbian website is an appropriate source of counseling on sexual issues for a 13-year-old.
Today, Emma Rood is a 17-year-old college sophomore who has misgivings about the proposed new law restricting internet access for children and teens because, she says, teens in her circumstances face difficult problems, including fear and isolation: "For many of us, there was an acute sense of isolation. It was a big secret, you can't tell anyone, and you fear being harassed," she says. But the great unasked question in the CNN story is how to help responsible parents reach their teens and pre-teens whose sexual identities may be confused or uncertain, to ensure that they have clear, healthy models of male and female behavior.
it's odd to be refered to in the third person by someone who has never met me, and has no idea what I might be like. I'm furious at the implication that my mother somehow failed in raising me. and I certainly don't want to be held up as an example of why their point of view is correct. and WHAT, may I ask, is wrong with locating "communities of kindred spirits that share deviant appetites?"
on the other hand, it's not as offensive as I assumed it would be at first glance. so it's odd.
in case the link breaks, here's the text
Free internet access and the homosexual agenda
perspective: pro-family
from the 'Media and Culture' topic
15-Mar-2003
Source: ATM
Author: True Seaborn
Abstract:
Some stories reveal more than their authors intend.
[ send this article to a friend ]
Some stories reveal more than their authors intend. Consider the March 5 story "Government, librarians face off over computer access" by Bill Mears of CNN's Washington Bureau, covering the impending Supreme Court decision on a federal law intended to protect children from internet porn on library computers (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/04/scotus.library.smut/).
Mears' discussion covers various approaches adopted by libraries to address the problem. Some libraries make no restrictions on computer use at all; others depend on local parental involvement; yet others employ software filters or "smart cards," depending on budgetary constraints.
The story is scrupulous in its politically correct designation of certain key terms. For example, the expression "adult material" is enclosed in quotation marks, thereby distancing the writer from -- and implicitly casting doubt upon -- the values implicit in the ordinary usage of the term. Elsewhere the story refers to porn as "what some consider smut."
But it is the personal description of Emma Rood that forms the emotional framework of an otherwise dry discussion of constitutional rights and internet access. In 1999 at age 13, Emma visited her local library in Portland, Oregon "to do research, seeking resources prior to [her] coming out" as a lesbian. These resources -- presumably lesbian chat rooms and websites -- were not easily accessible from her home computer because, as she put it, "I was not ready to talk about this with my parents." She persuaded the Multnomah County Library to disable the filtering software so she could visit the desired websites. Eventually she was able to form relationships via email with other teens who were attempting to deal with similar problems -- and who presumably reinforced the decisions she was reaching about herself. Writer Bill Mears characterizes Emma's internet searches as "a very important, but very personal, journey of self-discovery." He says nothing about the internet's ability to release the individuual from traditional social constraints, or to locate communities of kindred spirits that share deviant appetites.
Evidently Mears made no attempt to probe Emma's unstated assumption that her parents could have had no worthwhile influence on her decision -- a decision bound to have far-reaching life consequences. Of course it is possible that their input would have been irrelevant in this case. On the other hand the default condition, which the story implicitly supports, is that an internet chat room or a lesbian website is an appropriate source of counseling on sexual issues for a 13-year-old.
Today, Emma Rood is a 17-year-old college sophomore who has misgivings about the proposed new law restricting internet access for children and teens because, she says, teens in her circumstances face difficult problems, including fear and isolation: "For many of us, there was an acute sense of isolation. It was a big secret, you can't tell anyone, and you fear being harassed," she says. But the great unasked question in the CNN story is how to help responsible parents reach their teens and pre-teens whose sexual identities may be confused or uncertain, to ensure that they have clear, healthy models of male and female behavior.
it's odd to be refered to in the third person by someone who has never met me, and has no idea what I might be like. I'm furious at the implication that my mother somehow failed in raising me. and I certainly don't want to be held up as an example of why their point of view is correct. and WHAT, may I ask, is wrong with locating "communities of kindred spirits that share deviant appetites?"
on the other hand, it's not as offensive as I assumed it would be at first glance. so it's odd.