Is it a good idea to censor kids from certain things?

[poulice]

I've being reading a few books about this subject and it has me interested. I've read the book Fahrenheit 451 and it seems to be applicable today, even if it's set in the future.

What i'm wondering is:
Should we really censur violence and drugs from kids these days? I mean to hide them from the thrut that is the world. I think that kids should not be deprived of these the things like violence, drugs and things like that. I think that they should be thaught to children for their effect on television. If we show them things on television with violence, kids are going to see how bad it is. I mean today, all the sleezy people that go to schools to explain why violence is bad just don't work anymore. On television, they can see for themselves why things are bad. They can see first hand what the damage of their actions are going to do before they do them.

If someone remains ignorant on the subject, then they could be more tempted to try it becose of curiosity, or for other reasons. Also, censuring things should not be done becose it deprives us of knoledge. Even if that knowledge might be "bad", it's there for a reason.

The fact is that most violent shows try to show people that violence is either bad, or they use it to teach a lesson.

So do you guys think that we should keep censuring television for kids or let them watch whatever violent or drug filled show they want?

[devonin]

As a piece of advice, you really ought to run these posts through a spellchecker before you post them. I count about 9 spelling mistakes, and it makes it a little jarring to read.

That aside, I can read into what you said to get at what you mean, but when you say something like "I think that kids should not be deprived of these the things like violence, drugs and things like that" it kind of suggests that we ought to make kids experience violence and drug use which I think isn't a great idea.

However, I don't think there actually is a move to censor what kids see with respect to violence, especially on television. There are all kinds of public service announcements and similar things on TV trying to educate kids about drugs, alcohol, bullying, abuse etc.

What they -are- occasionally being censored from seeing is television with unnecessary, or gratuitous violence, sex and drug use. Things that portray them in a glamourous light, or that show people doing such things consequence free, and I'm not entirely sure that it is a -bad- idea to keep kids, especially younger kids from seeing such things.

You describe it as "hiding them from the world" but I don't see how making a 6 year old watch a rape and murder, or someone sticking up a liquor store to get money for crack is going to make their world a better place.

There is a difference between preparing them for life, and scaring the crap out of them for no good reason.

[x6tence]

yes indeed.
but there comes a time when you have to tell/show them the truth so that when they are mature they can handle the situations these subjects of the matter bring up.

[lumphoboextreme]

No we shouldn't censor them from those things. When they figure out the truth they'll be more tempted to do those types of bad things. If they know about it at an early age it wouldn't be anything really new or cool

[devonin]

I'm not sure I'm willing to buy that "Make it seem like it is perfectly normal, and thus not something they'd be tempted to do to rebel" is remotely the best way to go about that.

It should not be the case that doing drugs, and being violent are just "meh" concepts to kids so when they feel like doing something rebellious they won't be "new" or "cool"

Wouldn't it make -much- more sense to simply teach children what things are, how they work and why they should or shouldn't be involved in them?

Making something so it isn't "new or cool" also has the effect of making it so that they won't see any reason to think long or hard about doing them if the choice is presented, since it's no longer a big step.

[Bynary Fission]

You should certainly be careful of what a child sees. Depending on age, different levels of censorship should be applied. Also, take into account how it is displayed. For example, if a video shows a woman being raped, but in a [somewhat] positive way (As in she enjoys it, etc), the child may actually want to commit these deeds, unaware of their true consequences.

Pertaining to what devonin said previously, a 5 year old child should not be exposed to a graphic depiction of, say, murder. All you will do is scar the child emotionally for what may be his whole life. But a 16 year old, who has gained more life experiences and knowledge under his wing, will understand what he is seeing, and thus will be less likely to misinterpret it, and therefore understand it.

But I do agree that America, the Land of the Prude and the home of the Corrupt, should not censor things so radically. My school district passed a legislature saying that no PG-13 movies may ever been shown in class. Period. I have seen some movies that are educational and exude good moral lessons, yet are rated PG-13, even R. I think it's stupid, they make a blanket statement that all movies of such a rating are inappropriate, and therefore may not be shown. How stupid is that?

All I am saying is, deal with it on a case-by-case basis. An 11-year old may be mature enough to watch an R rated movie, but a 13 year old might need to be restricted to PG and G movies only. But when concerning real-life issues, take precaution, and know the child(ren) well. If they can handle it, show it. Otherwise, wait until they grow up a little more.


~Bynary Fission

[Corbin Wells]

Age does play a factor, the first few years, they should be shielded from it, but as soon as they hit closer to 10 and up, it's time to slowly reveal the mess behind that pretty curtain and show them the world bit by bit. Talk to them, give them your views on things You're the parent, you have to take charge.

[devonin]

My family subscribed to the idea that is one I also support, namely that if a child is able to ask you, clearly and blatantly, what their question is, you owe it to them to give them a complete and honest answer.

That's the hallmark of when a child is mature enough to hear the full and unvarnished truth of the situation. Take, as an example, sex ed. When a kid is at the stage that they can't use the proper words without giggling uncontrollably, they aren't at a stage to hear the actual answers to their questions.

You graduate from storks to eggs and sperm to penises and vaginas as you can actually formulate mature questions about each.

[Custommadeboy]

Certain things should be censored to kids but not everything.
When kids know at an early age they'll be more mature about it in the future and know more about the subject then most kids their age.

Exceptions to this is as devonin put out there, when kids get tought about sex ed they'll only understand until they relize its reality and not just giggles and laughter.

[videogamedude123]

Uh.... Usually, I'm one of those "Let them get used to it when they are little, because they will eventually find out what it is later in life" kinda people. But in this case, I say that we should, yet we shouldn't. It really boils down to what you believe is right. If you don't do something, and they watch what they want at a young age, they are going to think "Hey, this is cool, let's go kill people and we can get away with it!". If you do do something *snickers*, such as censoring it, or telling them that it's bad at a young age, they will be more likely to say "Hey, they shouldn't be doing that, it's bad." When I was growing up, My parents were somewhat lax on what I watched. That was, untill I stumbled upon one of my dad's asian pron movies. Heh, I got an ass-whipping bigger than hell, but learned my lesson, and that was: "Porn is bad, watch Hentai instead." Well, It didn't turn out QUITE like that, but now I just see it "Oh wow, 20 people going at it? What's new?" Anyways, It should be left to the parent's descision as to what their children can and can't watch. If you have always wondered why there are so many stupid people in the world, there is one universal answer, and that's the parents. Blame them for thier children becoming stupid f-ups.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by devonin

That's the hallmark of when a child is mature enough to hear the full and unvarnished truth of the situation. Take, as an example, sex ed. When a kid is at the stage that they can't use the proper words without giggling uncontrollably, they aren't at a stage to hear the actual answers to their questions.

About the giggling uncontrollably, I think that has more to do with the fact that we, as a culture, view sex, and the naked human body as something that is extremely taboo. And that is reflected onto our children by telling them that babies come from storks. It's not because the child is immature, rather, that the parents are immature. If you raised your kid not to think of the human body and human bodily functions as a taboo subject, then perhaps they won't laugh uncontrollably.

Rather, the laughing uncontrollably at the mention of sex is environmentally conditioned, not genetically.

But there is a difference between lying to a kid, and not exposing them to certain images or situations that they wouldn't, or couldn't understand given their intellect. Graphic violence is not something I believe children under the age of 13 should be exposed to (or rather, thirteen is a pretty good age to start corrupting your children).

Also, there are certain things that children just need to learn on their own...such as: fire is hot...or knives are sharp. Children do need to burn and cut themselves, children need to make mistakes so that they can learn from them (children heal fast, too). Children need to get into trouble, they need to learn discipline and that their are consequences for certain actions. They need to learn real life problem solving skills and they need to learn to think for themselves, which can be accomplished through communication and gradual exposure to the world around them. Let us not forget that it is from birth to about the age of 12 that children's brains are like sponges and that is the greatest time of information retention.

Children shouldn't be watching TV anyway. They should be outside exploring the world around them, discovering the painful truth of inertia and gravity.

[devonin]

But there is a difference between lying to a kid, and not exposing them to certain images or situations that they wouldn't, or couldn't understand given their intellect.

The term for this that I've come across that I'm really a fan of is "lies-to-children" Part of me seems to think this was a Terry Pratchett invention but I could be entirely wrong.

Lies-to-children are what we tell children who ask questions that we are positive they won't understand the proper answer to, so we give them an answer that resembles correctness without going way over their head.

The difference between lies-to-children and misconceptions/lying is that we are telling them things that are true for certain cases, because being precisely correct would be too complicated.

There's actually a wiki page for lies-to-children now (confirming my memory that it was Pratchett who came up with it yay) and they show a good case example of the progression of lies-to-children:

One particular progression of "lies" or simplifications, each of which are debunked or unraveled as one progresses deeper into a subject (in this case, physics), runs as follows: [1]

Weight is constant. Everybody agrees on how much something weighs.

Children in primary school learn that the weight of something doesn't change if the shape is changed, or if someone else uses the scale to weigh it, instead of them.

Weight is not constant. What is actually constant is mass. Everybody agrees on how much mass something has.

In secondary school, teenagers often learn that on the moon or on Mars, an object's weight will be different, because gravity in those places is different, but the mass will stay the same.

If two people are moving relative to each other, they disagree on how much mass something has. What they'd agree on is a derived property called invariant mass.

In university, students may learn special relativity, which says that if you try to measure the mass of a moving object, that measurement may be different for the same object at different speeds s. But if you calculate the quantity , this quantity will be the same no matter what s is.

[afronova1127]

Ive always found censoring things as something that really isn't necessary just because when I was ten if i came into mature content I handled it well. however kids arent like me and after accidently playing GTA for a while they end up stealing a car next week. I have concluded that censoring is something to be decided by parents on an individual basis. But i dont support super-censoring, it is irrational, like not letting a kid see a pg13 movie because theyre 12 and then when theyre finally 13 they cant go by themselves. I have seen this done before and it drove me nuts. I grew up with free living parents and when i saw how my friends couldnt go to the movies without a parent at 13/14 it made me see how much they missed out. I hope i didnt go too off topic but i consider all that i said in relation to censorship

[ddr_f4n]

My opinion is that censoring certain stuff is not really good for the children. It's like lying and protecting them from the truth, and when they are finally face it, they will not be able to handle it properly.

Sure, we may censor certain things if it's against our nature, beliefs or rights, but how about some shows on TV that uses, let's say, sexual intercourse in a movie. If they use it in an inexcusable manner, as in rape or pleasure, this is something we may censor due to the fact that children may want to try it out one day, but doing so will not show kids the reality of our lives and what we deal with everyday. On the other hand, if sex was used in a good manner, as in they REALLY love eachother and do it to show it, that may be something kids may see to see what it is really meant for.

All I'm saying is that censors can only be used to a certain extent where kids can understand what is going on and that kids will not abuse some things that can lead to terrible consequences without any kind of knowledge about it.

[devonin]

I think the issue isn't one of whether or not children are going to go out and copycat things, so when they are good things, lets show them and when they are bad things lets hide them.

I think it comes down just as much to whether or not the child is capable of properly comprehending what is even going on. I mean it takes a while for a lot of cognitive processes we take for granted to become ingrained in the psyche.

There's an age before which children can't properly comprehend a lot of concepts. For example, if you took a tall thin glass full of water, and poured it into a short wide glass, up until a surprisingly old age, children pretty much would universally claim that there's less water in the second glass even though they -watched- you pour it from one into the other.

it is an issue of exposing kids to something they can't understand properly, in my opinion. Trying to explain the sociopolitical ramifications of middle eastern suni and shi'a conflict resulting in suicide bombings and terrorism is just not something a 6 year old is going to understand. That's the reason to censor them from news coming out of the middle east, for example, more than just "Kids shouldn't see violence" is.

Put more simply: Exposing a child to something that they won't understand if you try to explain it to them is where the problem is, not that certain kinds of things are just "bad" for kids.

[tsugomaru]

In the end, it wouldn't really matter how hard we try to censor things from kids because they will end up finding out about it some way or another eventually. The easy accessibility to computers is making it even more hard to censor things that we don't want children to see.

Also, children are very impressionable, even if they don't comprehend it, they will absorb it. Little girls, although they don't know why older girls wear short skirts, high heels, and low-cut tops, will want to wear the same clothes just because the older girls are wearing them.

~Tsugomaru

[Rubin0]

When I was in preschool I heard another class mate say a word that begins with F and ends with CK. I went home telling my whole family to go **** themselves. My parents calmy explained to me that this was not a nice word and that I shouldn't say it. I didn't again. I didn't know it was wrong, but when I was taught otherwise I didn't make the same mistake again.

However, nobody is going to kindly explain to a six year old that he shouldn't have shot Susie in the head with his father's pistol.

The point I am trying to make is that children learn right from wrong at a certain age. Before they become morally aware of their actions, their surroundings should be censored. If they can't comprehend that a person doesn't come back after they die, then they shouldn't be pretending to kill people with their toy guns. But at the same time a child is not born knowing these things. That's what you learn at home.

You need to find a healthy medium. I'm not a parent, so I can't say that I know for sure where this line should be drawn. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.

[Solitary Seraph]

Censorship is a sub par substitution for teaching children right from wrong, and enables lazy parents to skirt tough issues.

Children should be taught right from wrong, sat down and explained why something isn't right, rather than plunked in front of a tv and not allowed to see things.

I can understand lies-to-children. That's a solid form of explanation, something that isn't too in depth, but still informative. What I despise is that most people don't even bother anymore. They want the TV to raise their children, and god help the tv stations if something comes on that is too much like "real life."

I can understand people not wanting their children to see things like Skinimax, but when it gets to the point when they won't release old school Sesame Street because "Bert and Ernie shared a bedroom, Big Bird was delusional and Cookie Monster was on the fast track to obesity because not only was scoffing cookies bad for him but that milk looked dangerously whole." You think I'm lying? http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=49963

Censorship is basically the judgement that people are unable to make rational decisions. This really grates on my nerves when people tell me that if I do x, or y, then I end up on x,y and there's nothing I can do about it.

I like to think that I'm a rational person, and that my children will be able to handle moral decisions without popping someone in the face with a gun, unless I censor everything until there's nothing dangerous there for them...until they reach the real world, that is.

[Jokee]

There is a "reforme" that has been voted by the minister of education in Quebec (where I live) Basically they review the entire way students learn ar school. This is serious ****, I saw a teacher doing a puppet show.... in high school...
And also teachers and parents overprotect their kids and as a result, they stay kids much longer. I mean, they are really immature it's horrible. (good thing, this new program is for 7th to 9th grade at the moment and i'm in 10th grade :P

So I think it is not good to overprotect kids. GIVE THEM DRUUUUUUUUUUUGS

[rzr]

To an extent. It would obviously suck for some people i.e. the minors that are worthy of reviewing content deamed explicit but are still immature. What is stupid is hos certain sites refrain from allowing anyone younger than the ageof 21 to join them. You can't sign up to drink online and that's the only time place to prohibit it (space bar is broke, sorry for any inconviences).