Poll: Parent Censorship

[Actual]

OF COURSE THIS IS OK!

We're always banging on about how parents should control their goddamn kids. Stop them from playing adult video games so we don't have to deal with the shitstorm from the media.

How can we tell parents to control one medium of entertainment and not another!?

I havent' read the book, but it shouldn't matter if it's the most gratuitously paedophilic book ever written or a treatise on the universal appeal of kittens. This parent is doing what she thinks is right and who the fuck are you all to tell her how to raise her kid.

You're painting two completely different pictures with the same brush, as I have been taught to say.
That book is the educational curriculum.
Video games are entertainment.
The mother is censoring a book. This affects only her daughter.
Video games for older people/xbox live accounts that are given to children make screechy t-bagging you-can't-do-anything-about-my-assholeitude 10 year olds that make online gaming a shittier thing to use affects alot more people.

You have to look at every situation and react accordingly. You can't say all censorship is good or all censorship is bad. It isn't fair.

Look at Atkinson over in Australia.
From what I've been hearing on the Escapist, this guy says M rated games are terrible for your children and the all include rape,violence,torture,etc.etc
.....
Anyways,yeah that was my rant for the day, sorry to jump down your throat like that. Just stressed about exams next week.

OK, I still haven't read the book. But I have read a plot synopsis which makes me fully internet qualified to talk about it.{/sarcasm]

The book is not just about a paedophile it's also about a 12 year old girl who uses her sexuality to get what she wants. As a parent I'd be more worried about how this could appeal to a suggestible 15 year old child. Maybe quite appealing. I don't know, it would depend on the girl.

I think anytime a parent takes an interest in what their child is doing and applies some reasonable censorship to try and make their child a better person, it's the good kind of censorship. The parent knows their child better than a school or government official, they should make the decision for that one child only and leave the other kids to learn how their parents want them to, or the school system if the parents can't be bothered.

We shouldn't have people like Michael Atkinson, we should have responsible parents keeping adult games out of kids hands. Like I assume the parent in the article would.

And your point about it being in the curriculum, well it is an entertainment book. It's just because we're now five decades after it was published and people have decided that makes it educational entertainment. In 50 years should teachers be making 12 year olds play Bioshock because it is a classic of this era?

...Maybe that would be pretty cool actually. But a parent should still have the right to say, I think that's a little to much for my child, I don't want them being all influenced into sticking strange chemicals into their veins and burning little girls.

Don't worry about the throat jumping, I enjoyed your daily rant and I come here to hear people's opinions. Good luck with your exams, stay frosty and it'll be all cool.

 

[shintakie10]

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system.

Nnno, you're thinking about this the wrong way around. Public education is education for all; education for the masses. If the mother wants to have some influence in curriculum design, she should send her daughter to a private school, where those lofty school fees really do fund the institution.

So you're saying that public school taxes fund....what? The local bakery?

You're completely wrong, every tax paying citizen that lives in a reasonable proximity to a public school (IE close enough to send their child there) is funding it through their taxes.

Except then your argument opens up a whole lot of other problems since, by your logic, not only do you pay for your kids education but every other childs education. By that stretch you should be able to dictate what every other child in that school has to learn, but so do the other parents, or the people who dont have kids but live in the area. As long as you pay taxes in that area you own those childrens education. If someone wants every child to learn that the world is flat, then by gosh the world is flat!

 

[vento 231]

i think religion should not effect schoolwork because if we kept with all this politically correct crap, no one would learn anything, like when you learn about evolution, not everyone agrees with it, but you learn it because its science.

 

[Gladion]

If a parent has a problem with literature like that, okay. But approaching that problem this way is wrong, even if it is within the right of said parent. It's more avoiding the problem than it is approaching it, really.

I'm wondering if said mother read the book herself.

Edit:

i think religion should not effect schoolwork because if we kept with all this politically correct crap, no one would learn anything, like when you learn about evolution, not everyone agrees with it, but you learn it because its science.

Who talked about religion?

 

[Danpascooch]

I think this was a bad decision on the mother's part

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system. If they do not put checks on the schools, who will? I know this is not the case, but what if the school started passing out porn in the classes for all of the kids to read? The parents would not let that happen.

okay but parents controlling what is taught in schools to a certain extent is the reason America is one of the most poorly educated countries science-wise. When concrete science like evolution is banned because parents don't like it being taught, it's really the students who suffer. Likewise with censorship. Obviously it's a good idea to keep subjects age-appropriate, but trying to "protect" students from knowledge they should receive isn't a good idea.

I am not saying that parents should be able to control what entire classes are taught, only the information that their own child receives (to an extent, like, saying they can't learn any American history or something broad like that is not reasonable) Why should they fund an education institution that is going to expose their children to something they don't want them to be exposed to?

I agree that most of the time the act of "protecting" someone from knowledge is irrational and stupid, but in a few choice scenarios (not this one though), it needs to be done.

It sucks when a parent doesn't want their kid learning about something like evolution, but all policies have some collateral damage, and I still think allowing parents to control some of what the institution they fund exposes their children to is justified.

 

[Robert632]

No, i disagree with the parent for two reasons;

1. She's limiting her childs knowledge of what i'm sure is a fine, if disturbing book

2. She's inconviencing the teacher.

 

[ike42]

I think this was a bad decision on the mother's part

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system. If they do not put checks on the schools, who will? I know this is not the case, but what if the school started passing out porn in the classes for all of the kids to read? The parents would not let that happen.

I think that's why there are such things as parent teacher associations and school boards. That being said, how far should we go? Burn books like Nazi's? Sarah Palin would say yes. I think it's just a bunch of parents who don't want to take the time to parent their children correctly by explaining concepts they have issues with. Pretending that disagreeable topics don't exist only serves to make children less capable of coping in the world when they're adults.

Oh yeah, and parents who still want to shelter their children can always home-school them.

 

[Danpascooch]

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system.

Nnno, you're thinking about this the wrong way around. Public education is education for all; education for the masses. If the mother wants to have some influence in curriculum design, she should send her daughter to a private school, where those lofty school fees really do fund the institution.

So you're saying that public school taxes fund....what? The local bakery?

You're completely wrong, every tax paying citizen that lives in a reasonable proximity to a public school (IE close enough to send their child there) is funding it through their taxes.

Except then your argument opens up a whole lot of other problems since, by your logic, not only do you pay for your kids education but every other childs education. By that stretch you should be able to dictate what every other child in that school has to learn, but so do the other parents, or the people who dont have kids but live in the area. As long as you pay taxes in that area you own those childrens education. If someone wants every child to learn that the world is flat, then by gosh the world is flat!

Please don't claim that by my logic certain ridiculous assertions apply, because if you think about it for more than thirty seconds, you will realize that none of the things you just mentioned apply.

You are in a way funding other children's education also, but you cannot decide any aspects of their education for two basic reasons:

1.) That would be chaos
2.) (here's the big reason) The other child's parent's wishes supersede your own wishes for that child, and since if the parent does not say anything it is assumed that they want the school to decide every detail of their curriculum, you cannot interfere with that parent's wishes, because they also contribute to the school, and they have the added authority of being that kid's parent.

So, no, my logic does not say what you claim it says. Also, parents do in a way influence the larger educational process for all children, have you ever heard of a PTA? Also, Sometimes books get banned from school libraries because a group of parents do not want them in a school (I disagree with about 99% of book bannings, but not the principle of the act, after all, if there could be no banning whatsoever, what is stopping playboys from making their way into elementary school libraries?)

 

[ninjamasterjudd]

Why are people getting all up in arms over this? Yes it's an english class, and yes the schools should have the freedom to teach what's right. But the parent wasn't going on a rampage and having the book banned. She wasn't forcing her views on anyone else. She was merely raising her child the way she deemed best.

My mom didn't let me watch Johnny Bravo when I was a kid, are we gonna throw a fit about that?

 

[Danpascooch]

I think this was a bad decision on the mother's part

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system. If they do not put checks on the schools, who will? I know this is not the case, but what if the school started passing out porn in the classes for all of the kids to read? The parents would not let that happen.

I think that's why there are such things as parent teacher associations and school boards. That being said, how far should we go? Burn books like Nazi's? Sarah Palin would say yes. I think it's just a bunch of parents who don't want to take the time to parent their children correctly by explaining concepts they have issues with. Pretending that disagreeable topics don't exist only serves to make children less capable of coping in the world when they're adults.

Oh yeah, and parents who still want to shelter their children can always home-school them.

I don't think it is as much of a slippery slope as you make it out to be. Let me reiterate that I disagree with about 95% of the acts of parental interference in schools.

What I do agree with is the fact that parents have the authority to influence some aspects of what their child is exposed to.

Kind of the "I disagree with what you say but will defend to my death the right for you to say it" philosophy.

 

[snow]

No I don't think it is right.

But honestly, why make a problem out of something that's not a big deal?

It is a big deal because parents these days don't just censor things from their children... They sue companies to censor things from everyone for their children because they can't do it themselves...

I actually like the mother in the story the thread creator told us of... She sounds like she is one of the few parents left that take things into her own hands and doesn't make it a problem for anyone outside of that family... Who's to say that will stay the same forever though...

Though I strongly believe that any kind of censorship causes worse outcomes than whatever is being censored. I know there will be nut jobs out there that are afraid of their little princes and princesses seeing or hearing the SLIGHTEST sprinkle of illness that covers this god forsaken planet... I just wish they'd screw up just their own children and leave the rest of the world out of that psychologist appointment waiting to happen...

At the same time we don't know anything about this girls past. What if her father was a peadophile? We can't judge this mom on the basis that we're just assuming she's crazy.

That is a possibility, I'll give you that... Like I said before though, atleast this woman is censoring within her family, and not making it an issue for everyone else. Parents have their reasons, I just feel that when they make their problems "our" problems, I start to get a little ticked...

There's so much joy to be had in a lot of things that.. Now, because of a few people who had enough of a problem with it to, instead of keeping it out of their lives, they make it so that way it's kept out of the lives of people who would normally have an issue with such a thing.

A lot of entertaining content, in the gaming world and other forms, is lost forever, because now "almost" every developer and company is afraid of being sued due to the fact that people abuse this method... I guess going after fast food chains is sooo 1998 now...

I just wish they'd come up with some form of legal documentation that protects them from being sued over something that is normally, or should normally be controlled in each household..

 

[ike42]

I think this was a bad decision on the mother's part

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system. If they do not put checks on the schools, who will? I know this is not the case, but what if the school started passing out porn in the classes for all of the kids to read? The parents would not let that happen.

I think that's why there are such things as parent teacher associations and school boards. That being said, how far should we go? Burn books like Nazi's? Sarah Palin would say yes. I think it's just a bunch of parents who don't want to take the time to parent their children correctly by explaining concepts they have issues with. Pretending that disagreeable topics don't exist only serves to make children less capable of coping in the world when they're adults.


Oh yeah, and parents who still want to shelter their children can always home-school them.

I don't think it is as much of a slippery slope as you make it out to be. Let me reiterate that I disagree with about 95% of the acts of parental interference in schools.

What I do agree with is the fact that parents have the authority to influence some aspects of what their child is exposed to.

Kind of the "I disagree with what you say but will defend to my death the right for you to say it" philosophy.

Again, if you want to control what your kids are exposed to there's private school and home school. Otherwise you have to go with the reasonable person standard. That being, would the average reasonable person on the street freak about this? No? Then kindly remove your stick.

Literature is one area where I just feel like parents who don't know anything about it should just leave it alone. This girl was like 15 I think the post said, any parent who had done their job should have prepared their 15 year old for content on the maturity that you might see in a PG-13 movie.

While I agree with your point that parents should be able to get involved, it should be on a larger scale and not have special considerations for every child. I think they should have to prove that material adds nothing to their child's education before it is removed from the curriculum though. Not just say that the idea offends them.

 

[azukar]

So you're saying that public school taxes fund....what? The local bakery?

You're completely wrong, every tax paying citizen that lives in a reasonable proximity to a public school (IE close enough to send their child there) is funding it through their taxes.

I made no comment on taxpayer dollars I said that you were coming at the issue from the wrong direction.

My point regarding the mother was this: if she wants to choose how her child is educated, she needs to choose her school. That is, she needs to choose private education. If she is choosing public education (or cannot afford anything else) then she is in no position to influence the school's curriculum.

Also I realise that you were pulling an example out of the air to make your point, but bakeries are private industry.

 

[teutonicman]

Sadly yes I believe the mother was within her rights. HOWEVER that does not mean that I don't think she's a massive retard.

 

[Daniel Cygnus]

Normally I'd say no, but because they want a fifteen year old to read "Lolita", I'll let it slide.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[SamFancyPants252]

you see, the school or government controls the curriculum, so there's nothing aloowed that's inappropriate for children. It may be on the line, but not over the line.

 

[Bat Vader]

Considering this is her kid I think that yes the mother can set the rules of the house. If the girl did want to read it she could read it behind her mothers back at school.

 

[Viivrabe]

it is fully the mothers choice.

after all isnt that exactly what the responsibilities of the parent to filter what there children watch on tv, and not allow the government to decide for them.

 

[Brok3n Halo]

It's a parent's job to assess what they think their child can handle. As a gamer who supports consumer freedom with my favorite hobby and thinks the final decision of enforcing a games rating should lie with the parent and not the government, it would be hypocritical of me to say the parent shouldn't have had the choice.

As for if the parents made the correct choice, I can't say with the information I have. As someone else said, what if she had a traumatizing incident when she was younger, reading a book with such content, especially from the perspective I think the book is from, could cause serious distress to the girl.

Before I express my thoughts on what my reaction may have been given the situation, this is my experience with the story. I have not read this book yet, though it is on my rather long "To Read" list, so my experience with it's content is limited. About year ago I did watch the 1997 film interpretation of Lolita in a Short Story: Russian Literature course at college. We were doing a topic on Vladimir Nabokov, the writer of the book. We didn't read the book because, obviously, it was a short story class and this story is anything but short. We did however discuss the content of the book as the professor compared many of the differences in presentation of the book and film.

From my understanding, the book is from the perspective of Humbert Humbert as he states his case to a jury. He is arguing that he, though feeling guilty, was not a monster for what he had done to Dolores Haze during the course of the story. It is open to interpretation as to wither his account of events was a reliable portrayal or if he was shaping the account to his defense. What makes this literary work import is that it doesn't push any moral structure onto the reader but instead leaves it up to the reader to interpret what they make of the events. The language in which the narrative is presented is designed in a way that the reader sympathizes at least a bit with Humbert, lessening the readers natural disgust at his actions and raising questions about their own perception. Arguably, one of the primary points of Lolita is to both disgust and raise moral dilemma in the reader.

Okay, on to what I would do if I had a hypothetical teenage daughter. If I heard she was going to read the book in High School, I would certainly take pause. The book would move immediately from my "To Read" list to being open in my hand. Then, once I had completed the book myself I would consider the maturity of the girl. At 15 I would suspect she would be mature enough that I wouldn't dismiss it. I would then discuss with her the topic matter of the book as well as the literary importance, then ask if she would actually want to read it. At that point I would respect her decision.

I know plenty of reasonable and intelligent grown adults who could not bring themselves to finish this book. That all being said, I certainly wouldn't dismiss this parent's decision along with those poor backwards fools that forbid their child to learn about evolution or to read the Odyssey because of religious beliefs and the need to prevent their children from thinking for themselves in fear that they may toss off their religious principles in a fit of educated sin.