Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You would be sensing wrong. And I'm not sure if Princess was also referring to my post so let me make it clearer:
I did NOT say that the child should suffer because their parents are indifferent or don't know, my POINT WAS, every parent SHOULD care and SHOULD KNOW what their child is doing on the internet. It is their duty. To me, it is NO different than when the child goes to a friend's house. The parent has the obligation to know where that friend lives, have the phone number to that house, have MET the friend and has a line of communication with the friend's parents so that the parent knows where that kid will be, and basically what they will be doing and what times they will be doing them. That is the job of the parent.
What I was responding to was someone stating that parents may not know how FB or other social media sites can be a place for people just like this ahole in this story. Or even worse. I stated I do not accept that answer, it is the parent's JOB to know these things even if they, themselves, have no interest in using such sites.
If your kid has a cell phone, (that you are paying for), you have the RIGHT to know what numbers that kid has called and what numbers have called your kid. You don't have to go through their phone book, you can look at the bill. Or, if you want, you can go through their phone, you bought it, they're your kid, your job is to do whatever you can to keep them safe.
That is in NO way advocating what this guy did or implying that the kid should just suffer. The parents DO have a responsibility in this in that they should be very, extremely aware of what their kid is doing on the internet and their little cell phones. Absolutely.
It's not the kids fault and of course the kid shouldn't have suffered. I can't believe you even remotely read that in my post.
Three Wolves In Snow, When I read your post I gather one thing, that a parent should be a parent. That is half the trouble right there. Too many parents want to be "freinds" with their kids instead of playing the more difficult role of the parent in which they are. Me personaly, as far as cell phones go, I have absolutely no idea what a ten year old has any business with one but that is only my Opinion, and I see plenty of 10 and unders with them.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
So would the best solution to RL bullying keep your child out of school altogether?
Depends on the circumstance I would suppose but yes, some parents do make that choice.
Quote:
Perhaps the more logical solution would be to apply similar laws to 'net stalking and harassing that we do in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Mhm.
What do you think of laws that target assault, harassment and stalking in real life? Are they also communist nature?
The Both of you said it right in your own posts. "real world" and "real life" are key words here. There should be laws regarding bullying in the real world but as I've said before, the internet is not a real world or real life situation, and thus there should be no real world consequences for these offenses. You choose to enter these sites of your own will, and nobody is forcing you to be there. If someone lacks the self control to abstain from these sites, that's their problem, or in the case of children and teens, it is the parents problem.
Put it this way, if my child came up to me and said, "i'm being bullied on Facebook" I would tell them that it wasn't a wise choice to continue on that site. If I saw it was having an adverse effect on them emotionaly, I would force them to delete their acct. and that would be the end of it plain and simple because I am the parent, and I am responsible for their welfare, and what THEY want is in reality, unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-18-2011 at 01:06 PM..
You would be sensing wrong. And I'm not sure if Princess was also referring to my post so let me make it clearer:
I did NOT say that the child should suffer because their parents are indifferent or don't know, my POINT WAS, every parent SHOULD care and SHOULD KNOW what their child is doing on the internet. It is their duty. To me, it is NO different than when the child goes to a friend's house. The parent has the obligation to know where that friend lives, have the phone number to that house, have MET the friend and has a line of communication with the friend's parents so that the parent knows where that kid will be, and basically what they will be doing and what times they will be doing them. That is the job of the parent.
What I was responding to was someone stating that parents may not know how FB or other social media sites can be a place for people just like this ahole in this story. Or even worse. I stated I do not accept that answer, it is the parent's JOB to know these things even if they, themselves, have no interest in using such sites.
If your kid has a cell phone, (that you are paying for), you have the RIGHT to know what numbers that kid has called and what numbers have called your kid. You don't have to go through their phone book, you can look at the bill. Or, if you want, you can go through their phone, you bought it, they're your kid, your job is to do whatever you can to keep them safe.
That is in NO way advocating what this guy did or implying that the kid should just suffer. The parents DO have a responsibility in this in that they should be very, extremely aware of what their kid is doing on the internet and their little cell phones. Absolutely.
It's not the kids fault and of course the kid shouldn't have suffered. I can't believe you even remotely read that in my post.
Parents also SHOULD know if their kids are having sex or using drugs or looking at porn mags or watching bad stuff on tv. FACT is, many parents now and in the past DON'T know. With more and more kids in single parent households, and more and more non-face-to-face social communication, there's even less knowing. So in the real world, the should's and duty don't help.
Speaking of the real world, stalking, harassment, bullying is real on the internet. Most states have included computer communications in their traditional laws. In some ways, internet harassment is worse because it communicates to many more people, instaneously, and adds the bluster of anonymity.
I'm glad our state and federal legislators recognize the problem and punish the right people responsible--- the harassers, stalkers, and bulliers.
What happened to freedom of speech?
Why not just ignore the buffoon?
Wasn't that just what he wanted, attention?
You are all so happy he got it for doing what he did, but there is a FINE LINE where someone might think something YOU say online is reasonable for being prosecuted.
In a free society, we are going to see a lot of bad with the good. I am not condoning this idiot, so don't jump on that bandwagon.
But if you go after anyone who says something you don't like, and basically, this is exactly THAT, then we will lose our right to express ourselves.
The best punishment for him was to have someone do a page on him, and mock him and expose him for what he was.
What happened to freedom of speech?
Why not just ignore the buffoon?
Wasn't that just what he wanted, attention?
You are all so happy he got it for doing what he did, but there is a FINE LINE where someone might think something YOU say online is reasonable for being prosecuted.
In a free society, we are going to see a lot of bad with the good. I am not condoning this idiot, so don't jump on that bandwagon.
But if you go after anyone who says something you don't like, and basically, this is exactly THAT, then we will lose our right to express ourselves.
The best punishment for him was to have someone do a page on him, and mock him and expose him for what he was.
No, not "you all". I disagreed with jail time for precisely what you just wrote.
Parents also SHOULD know if their kids are having sex or using drugs or looking at porn mags or watching bad stuff on tv. FACT is, many parents now and in the past DON'T know. With more and more kids in single parent households, and more and more non-face-to-face social communication, there's even less knowing. So in the real world, the should's and duty don't help.
Speaking of the real world, stalking, harassment, bullying is real on the internet. Most states have included computer communications in their traditional laws. In some ways, internet harassment is worse because it communicates to many more people, instaneously, and adds the bluster of anonymity.
I'm glad our state and federal legislators recognize the problem and punish the right people responsible--- the harassers, stalkers, and bulliers.
The point is, they should. The point is, parents do have to take some responsibility for their kids and the kids safety. Like I said, I do not think it's cute or funny when a parent acts clueless to the new things their child is in to.
This can totally be regulated at home, it's their fricken home! At friend's houses...like I said, if the parents took a more active role in their child's life, they would have a damn clue.
But, it's like Whippersnapper said, too many parents want to be their kids friends and not parents. "Well, we're just letting Johnny have all this freedom so his self expression isn't stifled". Oh please. Little Johnny can express himself in activities such as art or music or sports or whatever. Not knowing what your kid is doing on the computer, or who your kid is calling, or where your kid IS at the moment is **** poor parenting.
"But, it's HARD!"
Of course it's hard. Who the hell ever said parenting was easy?! My parents were right up my backside knowing every thing I was doing, where I was and who was there with me. Every. Thing. And it kept me from making a LOT of stupid, stupid, stupid decisions.
As was pointed out, kids don't make the best decisions. They're kids! Of course they don't. That's why they stay with their parents until they are 18.
Oh and Whippersnapper, I agree about the cell phones. I know people will say that they need 8 year old Johnny to have a phone and frankly, public pay phones are darn near non existent anymore. No longer can we give the kid 50 cents and say, "Call me for anything you need", now they have cell phones.
BUT, I don't think those kids need to be dialing up all their friends all over the place. Want to make a phone call? Do that at home. The cell should be to call the parents or for emergencies.
Sounds to me that the best and simplest solution to "cyber" bullying, is to keep your Child off of the net all together.
I'm not sure about that. If a fake facebook account or website is created, the bullying could still continue. The kid would just hear about it, or read it from someone elses computer or phone
The point is, they should. The point is, parents do have to take some responsibility for their kids and the kids safety. Like I said, I do not think it's cute or funny when a parent acts clueless to the new things their child is in to.
This can totally be regulated at home, it's their fricken home! At friend's houses...like I said, if the parents took a more active role in their child's life, they would have a damn clue.
But, it's like Whippersnapper said, too many parents want to be their kids friends and not parents. "Well, we're just letting Johnny have all this freedom so his self expression isn't stifled". Oh please. Little Johnny can express himself in activities such as art or music or sports or whatever. Not knowing what your kid is doing on the computer, or who your kid is calling, or where your kid IS at the moment is **** poor parenting.
"But, it's HARD!"
Of course it's hard. Who the hell ever said parenting was easy?! My parents were right up my backside knowing every thing I was doing, where I was and who was there with me. Every. Thing. And it kept me from making a LOT of stupid, stupid, stupid decisions.
As was pointed out, kids don't make the best decisions. They're kids! Of course they don't. That's why they stay with their parents until they are 18.
Oh and Whippersnapper, I agree about the cell phones. I know people will say that they need 8 year old Johnny to have a phone and frankly, public pay phones are darn near non existent anymore. No longer can we give the kid 50 cents and say, "Call me for anything you need", now they have cell phones.
BUT, I don't think those kids need to be dialing up all their friends all over the place. Want to make a phone call? Do that at home. The cell should be to call the parents or for emergencies.
So I think you will agree when I say that if there is any prosecuting going on, it should be with the parents for not keeping a closer eye on their childs on line activities. I don't even agree with prosecuting the parents but it makes much more sense and would do much more good to that instead of jailing an " on line troll"
Yep I agree with what you said about the cell phones. I failed to consider the whole emergencies thing though. That's about the only way I could see a kid having one I guess.
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88;20933293
[COLOR=black
The Both of you said it right in your own posts. "real world" and "real life" are key words here. There should be laws regarding bullying in the real world but as I've said before, the internet is not a real world or real life situation, and thus there should be no real world consequences for these offenses. You choose to enter these sites of your own will, and nobody is forcing you to be there. If someone lacks the self control to abstain from these sites, that's their problem, or in the case of children and teens, it is the parents problem.[/color]
Put it this way, if my child came up to me and said, "i'm being bullied on Facebook" I would tell them that it wasn't a wise choice to continue on that site. If I saw it was having an adverse effect on them emotionaly, I would force them to delete their acct. and that would be the end of it plain and simple because I am the parent, and I am responsible for their welfare, and what THEY want is in reality, unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
The internet is part of my real life. It's part of yours too. We don't enter some sort of different dimension when we sit at our computers.
The words you say to me on this screen have just as much impact as if you said them to my face.
What happened to freedom of speech?
Why not just ignore the buffoon?
Wasn't that just what he wanted, attention?
You are all so happy he got it for doing what he did, but there is a FINE LINE where someone might think something YOU say online is reasonable for being prosecuted.
In a free society, we are going to see a lot of bad with the good. I am not condoning this idiot, so don't jump on that bandwagon.
But if you go after anyone who says something you don't like, and basically, this is exactly THAT, then we will lose our right to express ourselves.
The best punishment for him was to have someone do a page on him, and mock him and expose him for what he was.
No no.
He was gone after for posting harassing and abusive statements in places he knew the parents would see his words.
It would be like if he was standing outside their home, shouting these things vs. talking about it privately with his friends.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
