![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[Error: unknown template qotd]
Yes. It allows a parent to use their discretion as to allowing their child to viist a site, whether directly, or via a "sitter"/screening program. It also warns a child who may happen upon a site "Hey, I read this really cool story/art" - and then continue or not.
I feel that the MPAA scale is fairly accurate - and more importantly, readily recognized by the public. Though I personally prefer the TV-ratings. PG is a bit broad. Whereas my currently 7 y/o boy would be allowed to watch up to TV14 - but I'd also have an idea that a TV7FV (Fantasy violence, such as Pwr Rangers or TFs) show might have that my son would then seek to emulate. Letters to indicate sexuality, cursing or violence would be helpful.
Place a chill on expression? No I don't - it hasn't so far.
In short - yes, a rating on websites I think should be mandatory, and I don't think it'd put a crimp on creativity. If a site chooses to not host things beyond a certain level (which exists now), that is their perogative as the site/list owner. Likewise, if someone posts inappropriate material, the child or responsible adult should report it.
You can't protect children from everything - but you can try to be informed & inform them - and make the best decisions based on that information you can with the tools at your disposal. Like, I fully support the V-chip & sitter-software - BUT - I *am adamently* against pre-set filters. Let *ME*, the parent decide what my child can see/visit. Some of these public-school & libraries torque me off w/ their wide-spread filters (Wicca & non-J-C/Islamic sites have often been banned - say what?). Porn I get - that's offensive in about every culture, and should be something introduced/monitored by a parent... but sex sites for info, or religious sites about minority religions?? really??
**gets off soapbox** wow LJ - you've had some seriously thought-provoking questions this month - and it's only mid-January!!
Yes. It allows a parent to use their discretion as to allowing their child to viist a site, whether directly, or via a "sitter"/screening program. It also warns a child who may happen upon a site "Hey, I read this really cool story/art" - and then continue or not.
I feel that the MPAA scale is fairly accurate - and more importantly, readily recognized by the public. Though I personally prefer the TV-ratings. PG is a bit broad. Whereas my currently 7 y/o boy would be allowed to watch up to TV14 - but I'd also have an idea that a TV7FV (Fantasy violence, such as Pwr Rangers or TFs) show might have that my son would then seek to emulate. Letters to indicate sexuality, cursing or violence would be helpful.
Place a chill on expression? No I don't - it hasn't so far.
In short - yes, a rating on websites I think should be mandatory, and I don't think it'd put a crimp on creativity. If a site chooses to not host things beyond a certain level (which exists now), that is their perogative as the site/list owner. Likewise, if someone posts inappropriate material, the child or responsible adult should report it.
You can't protect children from everything - but you can try to be informed & inform them - and make the best decisions based on that information you can with the tools at your disposal. Like, I fully support the V-chip & sitter-software - BUT - I *am adamently* against pre-set filters. Let *ME*, the parent decide what my child can see/visit. Some of these public-school & libraries torque me off w/ their wide-spread filters (Wicca & non-J-C/Islamic sites have often been banned - say what?). Porn I get - that's offensive in about every culture, and should be something introduced/monitored by a parent... but sex sites for info, or religious sites about minority religions?? really??
**gets off soapbox** wow LJ - you've had some seriously thought-provoking questions this month - and it's only mid-January!!
