Call to ban children from Facebook

[AdrianF (Adrian)]

Education is the key.

Adrian

[TrevorW]

child (tʃaɪld) http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...on_default.gif
— n , pl children 1. a. a boy or girl between birth and puberty
b. ( as modifier ): child labour 2. a baby or infant 3. an unborn babyRelated: paedo- 4. with child another term for pregnant 5. a human offspring; a son or daughterRelated: filial 6. a childish or immature person 7. a member of a family or tribe; descendant: a child of Israel 8. a person or thing regarded as the product of an influence or environment: a child of nature or


Child definition:

A young individual who is under the legal age of majority, or who is the natural offspring of another. Related Terms: Age of Majority, Young Offender, Minor, Adult, Parent

A minor; an individual who is not yet an adult or who has not reached the age of majority.
Most jurisdictions have defined child in terms of a specified age of majority. But where statute law is silent on the point, the common law applies.
For centuries, until age of majority statutes began appearing and taking over the law in regard to the legal definition of the term child, the common law had provided for the extraction from the ominous shadow of law, the concept of a child; someone too young to manage, wield or otherwise possess the full gamut of legal rights and responsibilities, or be subjected to the sometimes harsh punishments thereof.
In this context, Justice Southin of the British Columbia Court of Appeal wrote in R v Sharpe:

"In this judgment, when I myself use the word child, in contradistinction to when I am quoting someone else’s words, I mean those below the age of puberty. At common law, these ages were deemed to be twelve for a girl and fourteen for a boy. As, however, fourteen is the age of consent in Canada and has been, for girls, for over one hundred years (see the 1892 Criminal Code (of Canada), §269), I define a child as anyone under the age of fourteen years."

Or in the 1901 British case, R v Cockerton in which Justice Wills noted that statute law, at that time, deferred still to the common law boundaries of what was a child:

"No definition (in the statute) has been given of a child. It is impossible to lay down any definite boundary as separating children from young men or young women or any other description by which an advance beyond childhood may be indicated. Pratically, I suppose that at somewhere between 16 and 17 at the highest, an age has arrived at which no one would ordinarily call childhood."

But in Ogg-Moss, the then-chief justice of Canada's Supreme Court, Brian Dickson described child more thoroughly:

"Both in common parlance and as a legal concept the term child has two primary meanings. One refers to chronological age and is the converse of the term adult; the other refers to lineage and is the reciprocal of the term parent. A child in the first sense was defined at common law as a person under the age of fourteen. This definition may be modified by statutory provision.... No statutory modification, however, fixes an age higher than the age of majority which, in Ontario, pursuant to the Age of Majority and Accountability Act, R.S.O. 1980 ... is 18 years. A child in the second sense was defined at common law as the legitimate offspring of a parent, but in most jurisdictions this definition has been amended by statute to constitute all offspring, whether legitimate or not, as the children of their natural or adoptive parents ...."

In the context of family law, the term is usually used to circumscribe those young individuals for whom another, as a parent, is responsible. For example, the 2009 version of Ontario's Family Law Act defines a child as:

"Child includes a person whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody."

Or Chapter 18, §46b-212a of the General Statutes of Connecticut:

"Child means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority, who is or is alleged to be owed a duty of support by the individual's parent or who is or is alleged to be the beneficiary of a support order directed to the parent."

I think in Australian it would probaly be classed as anyone under the legal age of consent

[Sylvain (Jon)]

I totally agree with Marc:
1. Prevention not possible, and probably not a good idea as they'll always find a way around it: it's better to let them do it while fixing some ground rules (such as a defined time per day) and being able to monitor at least part of what they do.
2. Keep them busy with alternatives is the key: it takes efforts, but the rewards are greater for everyone.

[gbeal]

I'm with Zaps, what the dickens is FaceBook? Never been there.
Gary

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by gbeal

I'm with Zaps, what the dickens is FaceBook? Never been there.
Gary

It is the end of the world as we knew it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

It has a contagious virus built in, whereas you leave a message for your friend. All the friends of that friend can read your message and it explodes from there.
It is a message virus.

It has its positive benefits though.
If you want some news spread worldwide very fast it is perfect

but it also spreads bad stuff just as fast and as far.

[gbeal]

Ah, thanks Ken, now I understand why I haven't come into contact with it, nor had the need for it, No-Mates, LOL.
I like to keep myself to myself, and anyone that needs to know where/what I am doing already knows.
Indeed the end of the world.
Gary

Sorry Trevor, hijacking your thread to poke the brown stuff at social networking, I'll pull my head in now.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

It has a contagious virus built in, whereas you leave a message for your friend. All the friends of that friend can read your message and it explodes from there.
It is a message virus.

Depends on your settings. I only allow people I have directly selected as friends to see my wall or my photo's, not even friends of friends can see it. This setting, can of course be changed to allow friends of friends to see, or to be completely open and allow anyone to see.

One thing I agree on is that in general it is like a virus, so many idiots just repost crap thinking it is true.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by gbeal

Ah, thanks Ken, now I understand why I haven't come into contact with it, nor had the need for it, No-Mates, LOL.
I like to keep myself to myself, and anyone that needs to know where/what I am doing already knows.
Indeed the end of the world.
Gary

Maybe you need facebook to find some friends. There are many anonymous people on there that go searching for souls that dont have friends.

I have a policy with those social media sites, I will accept your friendship but I will not ask for it. I just collect friends

My kids havent found it yet they are too young, but our policy is the computer stays in the loungeroom, no hidden access.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

My kids are allowed to use FB. But they don't go on it much.
I like that I can keep an eye on them from my computer and yes I have pulled them up on occasion.

[mangrovedutch (Dutch)]

At my place it is a priviledge that is earned and lost. I expect respect from my kids which includes 100% honesty and they know that if the tow the line, do their work and are respectful that I will give them the same in return and that includes access to what now is a normal form of communication for their generation. I let them go for about an hour and call it quits. I've never heard a moan from them yet.
As parents we have a duty to teach, lead and encourage respect, boundaries and priviledges. I can be a Dad as well as a friend and it is working for me. My answer is No, you shouldn't ban them, control them.

I remember when mobiles came out, and come hell or high water, I was never ever getting one. Since then it has become an essential tool in our day to day lives, and I am sure that I have paid for many a Telstra executive's holiday. They call it progress , unfortunately, but I can't stop it.

Ol' Fuddy Duddy Dutch

[michaellxv (Michael)]

Banning it is not the answer. Supervision and education is the answer. This applies to adults as well as children, i've seen stuff posted by adults that really make to wonder.

My kids haven't really asked yet, although I have more or less said no. But if they really wanted it we would talk about it and probably allow it.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by michaellxv

Banning it is not the answer. Supervision and education is the answer. This applies to adults as well as children, i've seen stuff posted by adults that really make to wonder.

My kids haven't really asked yet, although I have more or less said no. But if they really wanted it we would talk about it and probably allow it.

My wife uses FB, and from my wifes XP she occasionally sees pornographic content on site. There is no regulation and anything put on will take a while to remove. The bigger the site the worse it gets.

Really important a site that easily contain child abuse or other normally prohibited blogs, and other despicable acts need regulation. Site need rating as does DVD's we purchase or rent and any site should be regulated in the same manner.

Can you image your children able to retrieve "R" rated DVD's without your consent. That is the current state of the internet. No management software is perfect either.

[michaellxv (Michael)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

My wife uses FB, and from my wifes XP she occasionally sees pornographic content on site. There is no regulation and anything put on will take a while to remove. The bigger the site the worse it gets.

Really important a site that easily contain child abuse or other normally prohibited blogs, and other despicable acts need regulation. Site need rating as does DVD's we purchase or rent and any site should be regulated in the same manner.

Can you image your children able to retrieve "R" rated DVD's without your consent. That is the current state of the internet. No management software is perfect either.

Which is why supervision is required for ALL Internet use. The Internet is not about to go away so we need to teach kids to use it responsibly. No different to making any life choices really.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

If you ban them, who am I going to make fun of ???

[rally]

Banning - its like prohibition !

On this basis
- Playground and Schools are places where bullying and the exchange of unsavoury information occurs - not sure if we should simply ban them both or just ban our kids from going there ?

- The internet is clearly an evil place, between Web pages and email - Porn at ever corner, scam emails, pirated software, MA15+++ sites, shady sites, rip offs and cons in the form of fraudulent shopping sites, Bots that collect your personal info, viruses, trojans and worms
So Yep - better Ban the internet

Noticed JB HiFi and Harvey Norman have some very mature DVDs and some very offensive CDs, my kids can walk past them all and read the covers - better ban all shops that sell this adult stuff and while we are at it ban the R rated bands, movie makers and maybe we should ban the medium all together - yes no more CDs DVDs, BRs that'll do it

Oh my goodness - went into the newsagent and there wrapped in plastic were some porn mags next to S&T - thats it, ban the newsagents and the porn mags - my kids could easily be offended.

Now they are safe !?

Well nearly - just realised the TV is playing a lot of MA+ movies after 8.30 and my kids can use the TV controller.
They show us quick flicks and crops of the gruesome scenes of CSI etc in ads during family evening viewing time every day - surely that shouldn't be right.

When I think about it - electricity is the real problem - if we ban electricity we would be safe from all of this - wouldn't we ?
Plus we already know its very dangerous.
And bikes and pools, and Playstation and even the Wii . . .

Supervision, a bit of regulation, education, common sense, love and caring and offering quality alternatives seems like a more balanced way of dealing with the world we live in.

My sarcasm on the matter !

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by rally

The internet is clearly an evil place

The internet is a place where anonimity reigns but it is merely a mirror image of our society. As long as anyone will be able to go online without a clear trace whether it is a dedicated IP or unique assigned login or any other mean of identification it won't change. Maybe one day we will be able to have everyone online acountable for their actions or at least know who's who. Then the internet will become the formidable tool that it's always meant to be. Sharing resources and knowlegde without the (unknown) riff raff.

[casstony]

You softies are getting too hung up on the word 'banning'.

If there's something I don't want my kids to have access to until a certain age, then they don't get it. As a parent it's ok to say 'no'.

Anyway, as of now meanies rule 17 to 16 in favour of blowing up Facebook . Who's in favour of blowing up DS's, playstations and mobile phones too?

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by casstony

You softies are getting too hung up on the word 'banning'.

If there's something I don't want my kids to have access to until a certain age, then they don't get it. As a parent it's ok to say 'no'.

Anyway, as of now meanies rule 17 to 16 in favour of blowing up Facebook . Who's in favour of blowing up DS's, playstations and mobile phones too?

Are we starting name calling now you can't put the GENIE back in the bottle and in all reality do we really want to. There is a name for anti anything new what was that word again I think it came from this guy NED LUDD

[casstony]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Are we starting name calling now you can't put the GENIE back in the bottle and in all reality do we really want to. There is a name for anti anything new what was that word again I think it came from this guy NED LUDD

I'll plow my fields and milk my cows if I want to

A perfect example of what's good for kids:

Yesterday my 11yo daughter had a bad day at school from being teased - she was in a foul/teary mood when I picked her up.
At 5.30 I took her to Tae Kwon Do where she got to muck around with a different bunch of kids before class; during class she was selected to demonstrate the flying side kick because she's the best at that, which boosted her ego, and flying through the air doing the Bruce Lee thing then smacking into a pad is great for getting rid of aggression. When we got home she bounced into the house all smiles.

Filling the kids time with Face to face socializing with different groups of kids built around healthy activities is far better than electronic communication and games. They learn to socialize properly, they get fit, they learn new skills and they end up happier.

Tonight they go swimming with another group of friends (and go to Macdonalds afterwards) Macdonalds should be banned too.

[mangrovedutch (Dutch)]

Originally Posted by casstony

You softies are getting too hung up on the word 'banning'.

If there's something I don't want my kids to have access to until a certain age, then they don't get it. As a parent it's ok to say 'no'.

Anyway, as of now meanies rule 17 to 16 in favour of blowing up Facebook . Who's in favour of blowing up DS's, playstations and mobile phones too?