Safer Internet (Double)Plus
Perhaps someone is tempted to imagine (or even assert) that I suggested the story about the EU's attempts to protect children while they use the Internet to make an argument for filtering along these lines:
- liberals in the U.S. typically consider EU countries to be more enlightened in their policies than the U.S.;
- the EU thinks it's a good idea to filter children's Internet use, and is planning to do so;
- therefore, liberals in the U.S. should approve of filtering children's Internet use.
Perhaps there is no such Someone, but if there is, that someone would of course be wrong.
For one thing, the EU does not rank high on my list of folks I would trust to make decisions on what my child should and shouldn't see on the Internet, or elsewhere. For another, I regard Internet filtering as problematic because it puts the state in loco parentis, and as I've said elsewhere, I don't want the state there. (Note that I'm not asserting that this is a decisive argument against filtering, but it's one that all parents who believe themselves responsible for their children's education should consider very thoroughly.)
I suggested this story firstly because I know that LISNews readers are interested in questions of filtering and censorship. Secondly, the list of people who think they are entitled to decide what others should read and see is by no means limited to religious extremists and malodorous drippy-nosed perverts (as some define them). In fact, I hope to post several more stories EU and UN attempts to regulate Internet content and use. LISNnewsters will, I think, find them of interest.