Collage of pics from the Adelaide Against Internet Censorship rally:
Who’s really molesting and “sexualising” our children???? Arthur’s comment in the Spiked special on Oz internet censorship thread resonated with me. For some years, I’ve been repelled by the increasing spread of the idea that we should keep our children covered up. I’m almost beginning to wonder how long it will be before someone introduces the idea of a children’s burka! When my kids were young, they could run naked on the beach. Nowadays, that’s supposedly dangerous.
Six months ago, police raided Bill Henson’s photography exhibition and took it down because it displayed photos of naked kids. Rudd was in full support , maintaining that the photos were “revolting” and took away children’s “innocence”.
Excuse me!! Who’s sexualising children here? Who’s spreading the idea that naked children are sexually titillating? Are people like Rudd and Hamilton (who agreed that the exhibition shoud be taken down) titillated by naked children??? What’s going on?
I think that in our campaign against internet censorship we should turn the whole thing around and attack the deliberate spreading of the idea that kids are sexually titillating. The people destroying our children’s innocence are in fact these moral zealots who look at kids and see porn…
Arthur made a very good point about the importance of not adapting to, or adopting, enemy terminology such as “cleanfeed”, and “filtering”. To do so is to legitimize these concepts and what underlies them: the deliberate creation of a moral panic which can then be used to justify State censorship.
Do little kids need protection? Well of course they do. We don’t let them run across busy roads, poke screw drivers into power points, try out all the medicine in the medicine cabinet. We keep a close eye on them, while at the same time allowing them age-appropriate freedom to explore the world around them. That’s just common sense.
Do teenagers need protection? Yes they do, although I’d use terms such as ‘guidance’ and ‘mentoring’ with regard to this age group.
I’ve had enough of the idea that the internet (and modernity in general) has created a new and terrifying situation in which normal, adult leadership is inadequate. This is patronizing both to the young people themselves and to the adult population. It creates passivity, fearfulness and a sense of impending victimhood. At the same time, it undermines the development of both personal and group responsibility. (it gives people the idea that they aren’t really capable of coping in the modern world by taking responsibility for themselves)
In my view this is the real molestation that we’re facing.
David (youngmarxist) wrote in a comment in which he summed up his speech at the Brisbane rally (Spiked Special on Oz Internet Censorship thread):
“…we need to focus on arguments that are going to win the middle ground over, how we need to confront the Government’s dirty attempts to label opponents of censorship as pro-child-porn. I was surprised how well this went over – I got several cheers in this bit of my speech too, when I was half-expecting people to be resentful, to be thinking that just demanding more freedom of speech is all we need to do. I was wrong about that – people at the rally were very receptive to listening to a serious discussion about how we win the people in the middle ground and thus isolate the social conservatives who want Internet censorship. “
I agree that we need to win the people in the middle ground and isolate the social conservatives, however I don’t think we’ll do this if we pander at all to the campaign of fear and powerlessness launched by the social conservatives. We’d do far better by going in boots and all, and trying to unite people around a “hands off our kids“, “we can look after ourselves” approach.
In any case, there are plenty of people already putting forward the “basic” argument that filtering won’t be effective, will slow the internet etc. I think that there’s a huge need to make the issue of censorship/free speech quite central by coming right back at those who advocate reducing our freedom to run our own lives as responsible people and saying “now that’s molestation”.
I lke this post alot – although I don’t have time tonight to respond in any detail other than to say that the internet censorship issue and the general moral prurience of our pollies on things like photographic artist Bill Henson come out of the same stable. Will come back to this.when time permits.
People may find this paper by Amy Adler, a NY legal academic quite an interesting read. In it she argues that society is forced, by the ever expanding definition of child pornography, to adopt the perspective of the paedophile in order to detect transgressions of the law. She argues that this process itself is a major force in the sexualisation of children.I find the argument to be quite persuasive myself. A healthy society is one which can look upon a nude 15 year old and think: art.
A depraved society is one that looks at the picture of an innocent 3 year old in a sand pit and thinks: sex!. I think the argument can be made that hypersensitivity to the perspective of the paedophile in the law and in wider society – and from “leaders” like Kevin Rudd – is driving us towards the darker end of the spectrum when we should be striving to move in the exact opposite direction.Good work, fools. Particularly, you Kevin.
I suspect I will be expanding upon this idea in a future post on my own blog, but if someone else does it better first, perhaps I won’t :-)jon.
Jon, The Perverse Law of Child Pornography is a fascinating article! Thanks so much for the link.
It confirms my intuitive thoughts about the way in which the moral panic about paedophilia is itself a form of molestation of children.
This moral panic provides such an opportunity for the authorities to justify the most invasive surveillance of all sorts of things in the name of “protecting our children”.
I’m pretty keen to take this on, and up the ante somewhat, as I attempted to do in my blog piece. I know it’s confronting, but I think it’s really important not to let those who are pushing for censorship to assume the moral high ground and force us to conform to their terms of debate.
I know that some people feel that this could alienate us from “the middle class” (or whatever), but I’m not so sure about that. I’ve never found that adopting a lowest common denominator approach is especially good at mobilizing people. The best united fronts that I’ve seen have always succeeded by encouraging lively debate *within* the movement. That doesn’t mean trying to force a position on anybody, there should always be room for all views. However (and now I’m thinking back to the anti Vietnam war moratorium!), discussion of internal differences in outlook really lifts the level, provides energy and unleashes creative thought about tactics and strategy. In contrast, when everyone appears to be in smug agreement, there is a tendency toward boredom and stodginess.
“I suspect I will be expanding upon this idea in a future post on my own blog, but if someone else does it better first, perhaps I won’t 🙂”
please do write something….. the more the better!
kerry
I just did an interview with Dominic from The Brisbane Line, a current-affairs show on community/alternative radio 4ZZZ-FM.
I decided to try this line and see how it went. I said (roughly) “We have to ask ourselves what the Government thinks of us – do they think we all want to see child porn? That’s a pretty weird way to think of your fellow Australians”.
I don’t feel that “lowest common demoninator” arguments can be abandoned entirely. EG “This money would be better spent on the police who hunt down the real child predators online”.
Hi Kerry. Great post. Sorry I could not comment earlier – for some reason my home PC would not co-operate yesterday (I’m at work now, so I should keep it short!).Anyway, I take it that the AFP have not kicked your door in yet? 😉 No? Could it be because you haven’t actuially done anything wrong?
I agree wholeheartedly with the point you have made and with Adler’s article. Even before reading that, your post caused me to recall Foucault’s characterisation of the Victorian attitude to children and sexuality in The History of Sexuality Vol 1 (great book btw). And well done for baiting the censors-in-waiting. Within reason I’m very much in support of a “I dare you to filter me” movement amoungst Australian bloggers.
Jon, Ditto re Keza’s post, the article is excellent.
The idealized need for childhood to be seen as ‘innocent’, a variation on the tabula rasa idea, is problematic and diminishes children and childhood. Parents quickly come to understand that whatever may be going on in a young mind, it aint blank ,and this applies to their sexual identity too. It is up to the parents to manage this as the child matures (parenting 101).
Insisting that children be ‘innocent’ may keep certain parental fears and insecurities at bay but it also inverts responsibility – rather than the grown ups carrying the responsibility for dealing with the challenges and hurdles of a childs sexual development and maturation – here assuming that this process begins from birth – it is the child, or more generally children who, in being forced to accept this idealised view, are the ones, in effect, given primary responsibility. This is not molestation, but it gets my tick for interference. It’s also perverse.
Does anyone know if that Adler article has provoked responses or whether there has been followups?
Tom, when I refer to “molestation” of our children, I’m thinking in a very similar way to Jon Seymour who summed up my attitude almost exactly:
“A depraved society is one that looks at the picture of an innocent 3 year old in a sand pit and thinks: sex!. I think the argument can be made that hypersensitivity to the perspective of the paedophile in the law and in wider society – and from “leaders” like Kevin Rudd – is driving us towards the darker end of the spectrum when we should be striving to move in the exact opposite direction.Good work, fools. Particularly, you Kevin.”
And this has clearly struck a chord with Sam as well (see his full comment above).
“I agree wholeheartedly with the point you have made and with Adler’s article. Even before reading that, your post caused me to recall Foucault’s characterisation of the Victorian attitude to children and sexuality in The History of Sexuality Vol 1 (great book btw). And well done for baiting the censors-in-waiting. Within reason I’m very much in support of a “I dare you to filter me” movement amoungst Australian bloggers.”
I also think that a creative addition to rallies would be a very carefully thought out attempt to cause the censors to come after us. Let’s be cheeky about this!! I realise that some caution is required – there really is an enemy out there, and they have a bit of clout. I’m not talking directly of the Christian Right either. People like Hamilton, Rudd, Conroy (and also individuals in the Liberal Party use these people as pawns, when it suits them. On its own, the Christian Right can only froth.)
It’s time to turn things around and highlight who is really spreading warped sexual attitudes. I think that there’s room for a broad based movement here which crosses normal political lines.
PS I’ve just found Amy Adler’s email address….. will write to her later today and ask her about the response to her article and also if she can point me to any more material.
“I also think that a creative addition to rallies would be a very carefully thought out attempt to cause the censors to come after us”
If the filtering comes in, the easiest way to do this would be to either instruct or link to instructions on how to circumvent the censorship (assuming that such circumvention is a criminal act). This would instantly render your blog RC.
Of course it only really works if the filter is in place, and hopefully it won’t come to that, but it pays to have contingencies. I would love to see them try to blacklist someone for linking to the Reporters Without Borders website. Till then, alternatives to Kerry’s photo would include anything that can be considered R18+ rated (or even some MA15+!) material. This could possibly include strong swearing, frank discussion of ‘adult themes’, non-nude but suggestive photos/illustrations and much much more!
Couldn’t agree more. The panic about paedophilia has morphed into a mass confusion and discomfort about (a) the natural sensuality of small children (b) childhood curiosity about and exploration of their own (and other’s) bodies (c) fear of ‘unhealthy’ teenage sexuality.
I am dealing with issues related to sexual/sensual exploration by small children at this very moment! I have a four year old son and he and the boy down the road have been found (not by me) in what, shall we say, was a compromising nudity in a cupboard. (I still haven’t got the full story from the other mum, but thankfully she didn’t come down muttering about homosexuality)
This was okish until the bigger sisters 7-10 heard about and started saying the boys were “gay” (and were having sex!). I explained that no they weren’t able to have sex, that they were too young, and that they were just little boys exploring and comparing each other’s interesting bits. I also took the opportunity to discuss other aspects about love and affection etc.. (Parenting 101, please stay out of it Hamilton/Rudd, we don’t need you!)
I have come to realise the beauty and innocence of the sensual world of the child, before that pubescent hormonal surge and emergent sexual awakening. At this early stage little boys are interested in their penis which seems to have a mind of its own… the fascinating golden trajectory as you learn to pee…(in the bucket, in the garden, and joy oh joy, doing it in the urinal in the presence of other men).
I think that the sexualisation of children has occurred largely because touching has become sexualised. Teachers aren’t allowed to hug the kids anymore; kids can’t hold hands in the even parents can feel uncomfortable about kissing their babies, taking photos at a pool, letting kids run naked at the beach.
I’m not sure how all this has come to be, but I do agree that Rudd is using kids and child protection issues to gain the powers to make that list. He wants to ban and control.
The Meg Thornton article http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CISY3uzg-qi_gwEQ2AUYWjIIhW8QCxX1JNY argues that we need to be getting the message out that the internet is to be considered adult only space in the same way as the pub is. This cannot be said any plainer and should be stressed sensibly and often. Depending on age, net use requires high supervision just as it is required in other areas of their lives. Children can be prey to unscrupulous activities, so we watch over them. They need to know the rules and to have parents who are prepared to give them the facts which will help them both to stay safe and access valuable information.
For instance we can supply them with the exact terminology required for exploring the higher realm of health and sexual information that is available. (i still can’t pinpoint where my posterior fourchette is!).
You can bet that girls will learn nothing much useful on the net about sexual care and hygiene etc., if they refer to ‘down there’ as their vagina or their fanny. So maybe, very voluptuous encouragement to use the word ‘vulva’ is in order, and correspondingly, for the masculine equivalent.
If you’ve found out the facts of life (and death) from the school yard then you’re likely to type in ‘itchy fanny’, rather than ‘vulva itch” …or ‘cock cleaning’, rather than ‘penile hygiene’
I’ve only felt comfortable dealing with the sexual aspect of child-rearing after reading ‘What every teenager ought to know about sex’ written by Dr Sylvia Hacker. She is very good and recommends encouraging teenagers (which thankfully mine are not, yet) to do ‘outercourse’, and to initially focus on self pleasure as well as the mutual variety. i think this is very good advice. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hackers/
This book has a useful introduction for parents’ but is compiled as a description of terms that teenagers can readily access, and so is a great book for both. Give teens the facts, and they will be able to use the net to pursue both self and other knowledge, and to participate in the highest level of cultural and human liberation ever attainable so far.
Most other media denigrates the credibility of information and services over the web. This is to be expected, as it has stolen the ground from under the media empires and they are now struggling to maintain some kind of physical presence in the form of printed material – with reduced regular and intermittent demand. But this is wrong as there is a high level of information available if you can learn how to access it. Had media empires embraced the new technology right away, they may have had some chance of dominating new conditions. Attempting to fetter or control these forces has meant tolling the bell for a couple of decades and missing the boat. (Just as Telstra did in the 1980s)
forget trying to provoke the censors to do something stupid. they are not stupid.
initial lists would focus on commercial hard core porn and desperately avoid anything that might generate controversy.
do provoke the politicians responsible to stop doing something stupid by nailing them as obsessively interested in interfering in children’s sexuality and relations with parents in a way that make it embarassing to be associated with them.
get them really, really angry and upset about the hints that they have met the enemy and it is them – they are what they fear.
hints only, so it catches on easily, rather than from fear of retribution.
they can’t do much about it, including explicit replies, without making things worse for themselves and it just becoming more and more embarassing for them to be carrying on in the way they have been.
I’d be interested to learn anyone finds out about responses to Adler’s article or any (non-confidential) reply that you get from her. I’d also be interested to know if anyone has applied this kind of analysis to other kinds of moral panic. Are there parallels with Prohibition? What is the likely outcome of this dance that law and culture indulge in?
Kez, I received a link to this via Twitter.
This is completely, absolutely, inspirational.Key phrase: RAISING THE SOCIAL COST OF CENSORSHIP. http://tinyurl.com/5tlj2j
Highly recommended.
jon.
I think the Henson thing was the most telling. Henson’s images are not pornographic and yet the Wowser response was: of course it’s pornography don’t tell me that it’s not – end debate. I think in the reams of online commentary about that issue I got one response from that side which was reasonable. One. The rest were hysterical and self-righteous.
look mate people are looking at your kid right now touching them self so get it the fuck off
Well there is a perfect example of the ‘hysterical and self-righteous’.