Today’s Gazette relays an AP story about children being exposed to porn online:
Forty-two percent of Internet users aged 10 to 17 surveyed said they had seen online pornography in a recent 12-month span. Of those, 66 percent said they did not want to view the images and had not sought them out, University of New Hampshire researchers found. Their conclusions appear in February’s Pediatrics, due out Monday…
In the survey, conducted between March and June 2005, most kids who reported unwanted exposure were aged 13 to 17. Still, sizable numbers of 10- and 11-year-olds also had unwanted exposure–17 percent of boys and 16 percent of girls that age.
More than one-third of 16- and 17-year-old boys surveyed said they had intentionally visited X-rated sites in the past year. Among girls the same age, 8 percent had done so. The results come from a telephone survey of 1,500 Internet users aged 10 to 17, conducted with their parents’ consent.
Overall, 34 percent had unwanted exposure to online pornography, including some children who had willingly viewed pornography in other instances. The 2005 number was up from 25 percent in a similar survey conducted in 1999 and 2000…
Online use that put kids at the highest risk for unwanted exposure to pornography was using file-sharing programs to download images. However, they also stumbled onto X-rated images through other “normal” Internet use, the researchers said, including talking online with friends, visiting chat rooms and playing games.
Filtering and blocking software helped prevent exposure, but was not 100 percent effective, the researchers said…
University of Chicago psychiatrist Sharon Hirsch said exposure to online pornography could lead kids to become sexually active too soon, or could put them at risk for being victimized by sexual predators if they visit sites that prey on children…
Exposure also could skew their perceptions about what constitutes a healthy sexual relationship, said Janis Wolak, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center.
As someone stated in response to this Gazette article in the Talk Back section of the on-line edition of the Gazette: “Clearly… this study cannot be trusted. First, observe who conducted it Janis Wolak, a person who has an institutional anti-porn bias and agenda. Second, not surprisingly, the study is hardly scientific. How many kids are going to admit that they purposely go to porn websites to a stranger over the phone with the consent of, and probably therefore within ear shot, of their parents? All this proves is how many kids will admit to it in earshot of their parents imagine how many would outside of earshot of their parents. I frequently use the web, use no filters and never come across sexually explicit materials except when I search for them. But kids are involuntarily bombarded with them? Cmon. And so what if they are? As the kids in this purportedly scientific survey state, it really does not affect them. If the researchers are so eager to accept the study’s findings that kids are involuntarily exposed to porn, why cant the researchers similarly accept the studys findings that kids are not affected by it? These researchers are clearly bucking to find a problem for their solution, which, no doubt, is increasing censorship of what any and all of us can view. Why does the Gazette publish this PR trash?”
And NPN is dumb enough to replicate the publishing of this intellectual trash? Just another instance of arguing quantity over quality for NPN.
Children are not always the best judge of what’s good for them. That’s what education and adult guidance are for. Also, many of the bad effects of porn use take time to manifest, as related in Young New Yorkers Talk about Porn’s Effect on Their Relationships (explicit language).
We have amassed a sizable number of studies and articles that show that porn and children are a bad mix. You can read about them in our Child Molestation and Child Porn categories.
The study cited in the Gazette is consistent with other material we have read. We find it credible. In fact, by your own admission the children may well be understating their exposure to porn to avoid adult disapproval.
There are other solutions for social problems besides state censorship, such as awareness and self-restraint, but for some reason you seem to be unable to concede this.
First, the issue in this instance is publizing studies which are shoddy on their face. Second, there you go again arguing quantity trumps quality. Third, education means telling the truth based upon sound scientific principles and scrutiny, and based upon the shoddy studies that you are obviously relying upon, that you are not doing that. Fourth, you’re plainly when you claim to be merely “educating” and “raising awarness” when the thrust of your blog is all about hounding Cap Video out of town and any other pornographer out of business. You are not an educational or charitable organization in practice – you are no different than any other political action committe (“PAC”). The fact is that you want porn banned, period, and you have shown, sadly to me, that you will stoop to use any deceptive means necessary to rally people to your cause. Its not your point of view that porn is bad that has upset me so – while I disagree with it, I’ve said before reasonable people can differ on that; its your never ending intellectual dishonesty – i.e. lying to us and yourselves that upsets me and a whole lot of other people. Wise up!
Peter, your arguments lack both quantity and quality. Their hallmark is baseless speculation that has little foundation in reality. For example, you have speculated that adult-use zoning would lead to “Moslem zoning”. In reality, librarians in our region say no discernable trend towards censorship manifests after their towns approval adult-use zoning.
If anyone uses fantasy and fable to try to create panic among the public, it’s you. You will not dissuade us from holding those who profit from suffering accountable.
As for a “whole lot of other people”, perhaps you are referring to the 28 people who have signed your online petition to date? That’s less than 2% of the number who have signed ours.
If you’re going to quote from the story as extensively as you do, I have to wonder why you wouldn’t quote the whole article? Why, for instance, would you leave out the part where the lead researcher on the project says, “Still, many survey participants said they were not disturbed by what they saw, and Wolak said research is needed to determine how exposure to online pornography affects kids”?
Could it be that you’re trying to twist the meaning of the article to suit your purposes?
What does it mean for an argument to “lack quantity”? Are you faulting Peter’s argument for not being *long* enough?
Anyway, I was wondering how the sample for the survey you mention here was selected. Phone surveys have notorious sampling problems: even if the phone list is generated at random, only those who were wiling to complete the survey are included in the actual sample. This “willingness” factor is a notorious source of sample corruption. How was the phone list generated? Was it taken from the phone book? Or from High-Speed Internet subscribers? Or from an anti-porn petition form?
Please don’t be annoyed that I’m asking questions. These questions are important. If you’re going to argue that this survey proves anything, you should know how the sample was collected. It makes a huge difference.
As I think I’ve pointed out before, the size of the sample isn’t particularly important; it’s randomness is. If the sample isn’t random, your statistics don’t mean anything.
Finally, regarding your recent suggestion that “porn and children are a bad mix,” I have just one thing to say: duh. I was under the impression that it had been well-established in studies that are actually well-designed that sexual experiences of any kind before sexual maturity are potentially damaging.
The further contention, that porn somehow “leads” to pedophilia or to molestation, seems to be without merit. The entries you’ve posted recently seem to show little more than that child porn is sometimes used by child molesters–that’s all the recent Gazette article claims, for example. This is hardly groundbreaking. You haven’t presented any hard evidence that regular porn is a “gateway” to child porn. If evidence exists, I’d be very interested to see it.
We quote what we feel is most useful, credible and relevant. However, we also try to link to the source material in most cases so people such as yourself can do your own exploration.
I’m not sure we’re permitted to quote entire newspaper articles under copyright law, without a compelling reason to do so.
Okay, can you tell me why you found the quote from the lead author to be not useful, credible, or relevant?
And why begin hiding behind copyright laws now? When an article has interested you in the past, you’ve quoted the whole things and claimed fair use.
We have already mentioned that children can be poor judges of what’s good for them, particularly when the harm of an activity takes time to make itself apparent, as with porn addiction. We have provided substantial evidence on this site that viewing porn can coarsen a person’s attitudes towards women and rape. There is also evidence that the desire to imitate porn increases as the viewer gets younger.
We believe all the material on this site complies with copyright laws. With respect to material that has been quoted in its entirety, you’re probably thinking of selections that are part of much larger works, material in the public domain (such as testimony at public hearings), or material for which we secured explicit permission to reproduce. In some cases, reproduction of material is necessary to advance important political arguments, such as the discussion of the impact of cartoons in Hustler.
Can you tell me why you found the quote from the lead author, which says that the effects of children seeing this pornography online are unknown, to be not useful, credible, or relevant?
Outright speculation? What basis do you have for that accusation – that I have not made observations and reflected critically upon them? I dare say my critical examination of observations made by me and others is far more reliable than your reliance upon so-called studies designed to reach pre-ordained conclusions. My Moslem Voting satire? It was a satire illustrating the interrelationship between freedom of speech and the freedom of religion! Another rhetorical cheap shot via fraudulently misconstruing my work. Readers, see http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-moslem-zoning-texas-style.html. I explained “that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous.”
The online petition? Yeah, like I really focused on that? And who should feel comfortable to do so after NPN demonstrated that it would incite the public to retaliate against those who do not agree with you by publishing private facts about where they live, etc. etc., particularly since among those “whole lot of people” I recall city officials and council members who actually voted for the zoning ordinance!
Peter, we are not the party with mafia ties proposing to sell brutal movies and magazines in a residential area. We are two not very fierce homeowners. Our only real power is to raise awareness, and our impact is tied directly to the truth of what we say. We are using our freedom of speech in exactly the manner the framers of our constitution hoped for. If someone is doing something shameful, something that can put others at risk, calling them out on it may well be embarrassing. That is as it should be.
The Goldbergs, owners of 135 King Street, are proposing to take action that puts Northampton at risk (see Kittery and Springfield). Their address is on relevant public documents such as this one (PDF). We attempted to contact them privately before publishing this address. They made no response. We have a longstanding offer to substitute a different address for them if they so request. They have made no complaint to us and have provided no alternate address.
The Goldbergs will profit directly from the proposed porn shop. It is unreasonable to expect us to shield them from public comment on this important issue just because they won’t provide us with a non-home address.
In general, we go to some lengths to protect people’s privacy. For example, we covered up citizens’ addresses on these planning board minutes (PDF) from September 28, including your address. On the other hand, I see that our home address can still be found on your blog, even though we asked you to take it down, and asked you to cite our Pleasant Street mailing address instead.
As for the weak turnout with your petition, perhaps if you wasted less time abusing my image you would be more effective for your side. Your credibility on the issue of bullying, as on the issue of publishing private information, is rather low.
No time wasted on taking a shot at the record at the moporn site; the petition, I believe, left with Nick Pell long ago.
Excuse me, the brutal movies in your neighborhood were here before Cap Video. Just watch TV and visit the local pre-existing video stores.
C’mon, remember there’s more to life than ranting against porn all day and night. Watch a fun television show or video to rent and lighten up. there’s more to life, and much beauty.
No, I will not remove your home address. You claim to represent a neighborhood in which you do not live, while others, like Bill Dwight and I have a better claim to, given our relative locations. (But note I didn’t wrap myself in the mantle of representing the neighborhood.) Armed with your address, the public can judge for themselves, not only the distance, but also, how directly affected you would be. For me, the Cap Video storefront will be in my face each morning I walk downtown.
And who are you to complain? Once you published the Goldberg’s address, the cat was out of the bag. What purpose would providing an alternative address have served them? Perhaps, they are not ashamed nor intimidated by you? I really do not know.
I do know that historically in Northampton its been the anti-porn people vandalized private property and otherwise bullied people, not the free speech people.
Finally, I found your address in in the public phone book.
Ah, the ‘lighten up’ gambit. That one’s certainly been in circulation for decades. In a country where 10% of boys and 25% of girls are estimated to be victims of child sexual abuse, where ‘heroes’ like Larry Flynt publish cartoons about molestation, and where two teachers have just been arrested for possessing child porn, ‘lighten up’ is the wrong attitude.
You appear to be trying to tar us with actions taken by other people over 10 years ago. Obviously we have chosen other methods to spread our message. On the other hand, the harassment practiced by pro-porn protestors took place just last fall and is ongoing at Mopornnorthampton. Then there are our yard signs that disappeared or mysteriously became damaged in the night last year. Our opponents love free speech except when the speech is critical of porn.
I see you’re not too apologetic about tossing a picture of my head
around for kicks. I should be interested to see your reaction if I set
up a similar game with a picture of your head on NoPornNorthampton. Of course, if you objected, I could always tell you to lighten up.
How is anything you’re proposing or advocating going to address the problem of child molestation in Northampton?
NPN – If that would lighen you up, bring you back to your senses and see the broader picture, please, by all means do so! I’ll even have some fun bouncing my head around!
Yours/AC
We are raising awareness about the hazards of viewing porn. Let’s say your spouse watches a lot of porn and there are young children in your home. The information we provide should give you cause for concern.
Similarly, let’s say you’re a single mother with young children dating someone who watches a lot of porn. You might want to think twice about permitting that person to move into your home.
Do tell me what the broader picture is. Is it that your right not to have to go an extra mile or two to a porn shop outweighs the interests of homeowners, families and other businesses who have many reasons to be concerned about it?
Having discussed the prevalence of violence against women, let’s recall some actual examples of today’s porn:
Baby Kick and Bleed
Jenna Loves Pain
World of Black Bondage
Use Em’ Abuse Em’ and Lose Em’
Do you find these entertainments amusing? Do they make you laugh?