THESIS

Responsibility for Formation and Protection

of Children and Youth

Using the Internet

INTRODUCTION

1. The Internet, like any material tool, has no moral quality in itself.  The way human persons use it in freedom, however, certainly has vast moral dimensions and implications that should be considered in a realistic and open way. 

For example, many even today consider it ironic that a world famous peace prize is awared each year by the foundation started by the inventer of TNT, Alfred Nobel.  Yet the same is true with TNT as with the Internet—in itself there is no moral judgment we can assign to it.  If it works, it is good, in a mechanical sense.  How it is used by persons with free will, though, is an entirely different matter.  Here a moral judgment comes into play.  If it used by engineers to build a road so that people have a means of reaching centres of medical or social care, we would say that the use of TNT is good.  If it used by extremists to kill in a program of terror, we say that its use is evil.

The internet is a far more powerful tool than TNT could ever be.  It has “virtually” eliminated time and space as obstacles to communication throughout the world.  It shapes and verifies by instant feedback the elements by which people comprehend the world around them.[1]  This currently ranges from benign educational tools offered to people of various ages, to the malice of graphic violence and extremism displayed on certain websites which are accessible to nearly everyone with knowledge of internet use.  It presents different approaches, some sought and some unwanted, from solliciation to pornographic and gambling sites, to the more subtle and sinister approaches of online predators who target youth for virtual or real encounters.

There is a great deal in between these extremes that deserves our attention as well.  It is the purpose of this brief treatment to help individuals become more critically aware of Internet activity, particularly with respect to their children’s use of it and the formative and psychological effects this can have. Further, we shall look at the unwanted approaches through the Internet, and suggest ways to take responsibility in collaboration with other groups in monitoring and controlling its content and influence on the young.  The risks and dangers that have always existed in “growing up” are now evident in this powerful new medium.

A QUESTION OF FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

2. The Internet has the potential of having a direct effect on the formation or malformation of conscience of individual persons.  This is important for every user of the Internet, but it is a particularly crucial question with respect to children and youth.

We are not talking here about online shopping for toothpaste with the best whitener or a better recipe for mashed potatoes.  Such information does not imprint on the practical, intellectual ability to judge actions as morally good or evil. This is what conscience is: a dictate of the practical intellect (or reason) deciding that a given particular action is right or wrong.  It is extremely important to remember, however, that conscience is not an oracle, some kind of genetic imprint which leaves a person “feeling” good or bad about some action, proposed or completed.  Conscience is like language: it becomes what it is in itself with the help of others.[2]  If it is to be an articulate instrument of correct judgment, it needs solid, correct formation.  What in current terms is called “de-sensitization” might in fact be a blunting or malformation of conscience.  (We shall consider this question in more depth when looking at actual cases of Internet offenders.)

Much of  today’s concern and discussion about monitoring Internet activity sets up false dichotomies, as if the argument is framed by freedom of expression, “one’s own space”, etc. on the one hand, vs. censorship or control issues on the other.  The real question should be: What kind of formative influence does this powerful medium have on our children?  What kind of formative influence do we want it to have?

Formation involves a Psychological progression

"Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have [virtue and excellence] because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." - Aristotle

The philosophies of formation of character run through millennia of oral tradition and recorded history, yet the basic formula is as succinct as it is psychologically accurate. 

--Sensation (something “apprehended” by the senses”) tends toward thought.  I catch a whiff of basil sauce simmering in the kitchen and I think, “Great! Pasta al pesto for dinner!”

--Thought tends toward action.  If I think about something long enough, eventually I want to translate that into some type of action.  For example, “I was going to grab something to eat at MacDonald’s tonight, but I think I’ll stay home and have pasta al pesto, scaloppini and the 1984 Chianti with my parents.”[3] 

--Repeated action tends to form habit.  Habits are stronger the more frequently the behaviour is repeated, and thus the longer the habits already exist.[4]

--Habit tends to form character.  You want to get an idea of what kind of character your hopeful “significant other” might have?  Get to know what his habits are.[5]  Parents and others responsible for formation, especially of the young, could take this and turn it around.  You want to see your children grow up with good, solid characters?  Help them form good habits.

What does all of this have to do with the Internet?

3.  “Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need.”  Will Rogers’ famous saying isn’t a denial of free will, yet it does point to a truth about the powerful influence carefully fashioned images can have to “advert”, that is, to turn and hold the viewer’s attention on the product.  Of course the advertising profession depends on the same psychological progress as described above: the sensation of the ad leads to thought and a subsequent desire to act, that is, to buy the product.

This is all the more powerful with a medium like the Internet, since once the image is presented, the view can go back to it or to similar images with the reward of instant feedback, or instant gratification.  This has a reinforcing effect, which can become habitual, even compulsive in a relatively short time, leading some individuals to spend increasing amounts of time devoted to Internet navigation.  In various areas of Internet communication, the social reinforcement is particularly rapid.  This is particularly true of chat rooms, pornographic sites, etc.[6]

Unwanted Approaches

 4. If such is the case, it is necessary to qualify the content of Internet approaches and sollicitations to which are children are exposed, and to consider measures that safeguard their exposure to unwanted approaches and communications.  The term “unwanted” has to refer both to those approaches and communications that the parents do not want for their children, as well as those that make children feel uncomfortable, inasmuch as children can be “groomed” to like or enjoy what is terribly damaging to them. 

Although there are several modes of approach (advertising, chat room sollicitations, spam, etc.) and many different themes (cults, gambling, the occult, pornography, etc.), the most readily available and most frequent in sheer volume involves sexual content.

To obtain a clearer picture of the scope of the problem, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) provided funding to Dr. David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, to conduct a research survey in 1999 on Internet victimization of youth. His research provides the best profile of this problem to date.[7]

Crimes Against Children Research Center staff interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,501 youth, aged 10 to 17, who used the Internet regularly. “Regular use” was defined as using the Internet at least once a month for the past 6 months on a computer at home, at school, in a library, at someone else’s home, or in some other place.

Survey Areas

The survey looked at four types of online victimization of youth, which Finkelhor defined as

n        Sexual solicitation and approaches: Requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or to give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult.

 

n        Aggressive sexual solicitation: Sexual solicitations involving offline contact with the perpetrator through mail, by telephone, or in person, or attempts or requests for offline contact.

 

n        Unwanted exposure to sexual material: When online, opening e-mail, or opening e-mail links, and not seeking or expecting sexual material, being exposed to pictures of naked people or people having sex.

 

n        Harassment: Threats or other offensive content (not sexual solicitation) sent online to the youth or posted online for others to see.

n         

The survey also explored Internet safety practices used by youth and their families, what factors may put some youth more at risk for victimization than others, and the families’ knowledge of how to report online solicitations and harassment.

Statistical Findings

The survey results offered the following statistical highlights:

n        One in 5 youth received a sexual approach or solicitation over the Internet in the past year.

 

n        One in 33 youth received an aggressive sexual solicitation in the past year. This means a predator asked a young person to meet somewhere, called a young person on the phone, and/or sent the young person correspondence, money, or gifts through the U.S. Postal Service.

 

n        One in 4 youth had an unwanted exposure in the past year to pictures of naked people or people having sex.

 

n        One in 17 youth was threatened or harassed in the past year.

 

n        Most young people who reported these incidents were not very disturbed about them, but a few found them distressing.

 

n        Only a fraction of all episodes was reported to authorities such as the police, an Internet service provider, or a hotline.

 

n        About 25 percent of the youth who encountered a sexual approach or solicitation told a parent. Almost 40 percent of those reporting an unwanted exposure to sexual material told a parent.

 

n        Only 17 percent of youth and 11 percent of parents could name a specific authority, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), CyberTipline, or an Internet service provider, to which they could report an Internet crime, although more indicated they were vaguely aware of such authorities.

 

n        In households with home Internet access, one-third of parents said they had filtering or blocking software on their computers.

Other Findings

The survey results confirm what is already known: although the Internet is a wonderfully fun and educational tool, it can also be very dangerous. According to the survey, one in five youth who regularly use the Internet received sexual solicitations or approaches during a 1-year period. The survey also found that offenses and offenders are more diverse than previously thought. In addition to pedophiles, other predators use the Internet. Nearly half (48 percent) of the offenders were other youth, and one-fourth of the aggressive episodes were initiated by females. Further, 77 percent of targeted youth were age 14 or older—not an age characteristically targeted by pedophiles. Although the youth stopped most solicitations by leaving the Web site, logging off, or blocking the sender, the survey confirmed current thinking that some youth are particularly vulnerable to online advances.

Most youth reported not being distressed by sexual exposures online. However, a significant 23 percent reported being very or extremely upset, 20 percent reported being very or extremely embarrassed, and 20 percent reported at least one symptom of stress. These findings point to the need for more research on the effects on youth of unwanted exposure to sexual materials and the indicators of potentially exploitative adult-youth relationships.

The large number of solicitations that went unreported by youth and families was of particular interest. This underreporting is attributed to feelings of embarrassment or guilt, fear that parents would cut off access to the Internet, ignorance that the incident was a reportable act, ignorance of how to report it, and perhaps resignation to a certain level of inappropriate behavior in the world.

Possibly due to the nature and small sample size of the survey, there were no reported incidences of traveler cases.  The survey also revealed no incidences of completed Internet seduction or sexual exploitation, including trafficking of child pornography. Despite the findings of this survey, law enforcement agencies report increasing incidents of Internet crimes against children.

The most significant aspect of this survey is that we are only beginning to realize the extent of the complex and increasingly prevalent phenomenon of Internet-based crimes against children. The sample of 1,501 youth, aged 10 to 17, was not large enough to pull any reliable statistics about sollicitation with criminal intent or activity.  Nor does it examine in depth the question of “distress”, which a number of those surveyed experienced.  A corollary to this would be to ask what the “surfing” habits of those who did not experience stress might be.  Perhaps both groups need to be flagged in certain ways.  For example, those who experienced distress should be monitored as to how often these images return in their thoughts, whereas those who navigate pornography sites on their own might be monitored for signs of de-sentisization.[8]

Further…

-          IMPRINT OF PORNOGRAPHY AND VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

The word “pornography” is a composite of two ancient Greek words: pornE prostitute + graphein  to write. It consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. 

-          ONLINE RELATIONSHIPS

Characteristics

Profile of Youth who develop online relationships

Signs of risk or danger

                Exposure to pornography

                Sexual sollicitation: engaging in sexual talk, activities, giving personal sexual information

                Offline contact through regular mail, by telephone or in-person attempts or requests for offline contact

-          HARASSMENT

-          SYMPTOMS OF DISTRESS FROM EXPOSURE, HARASSMENT OR ABUSE

-          RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A QUESTION OF FORMATION, NOT CENSUR4E

- communication

- utilization of blocking and filtering technology

- other sources of help, including Cyber Tipline, etc.

- Place computer in “populated area,” e.g., family room, TV room

- Look at Screen to See What Youth Is Doing

- Ask Youth About What He or She Does on Internet

- Check History Function for Sites Youth Has Visited

- Check Files and Diskettes

- Youth Must Ask Permission to Go on Internet

- Rule About Number of Hours Youth Can Spend on Internet

-          SUMMARY: Protect the weakest at both ends of the spectrum, both those who might become victims and those who could become victimizers.

REFERENCES

Berger, R. (ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial Band 7: 2004). Consumer panel data and rational chocie based theories of myopic habit formation. An empirical analysis. (http://www.gesis.org/Publikationen/Zeitschriften/ZUMA_Nachrichten_spezial/zn-sp-7-inhalt.htm)

 

Carr, A. (2004). Internet Traders of Child Pornography and other Censorship Offenders In New Zealand. Dept. of Internal Affairs, New Zealand.  (http://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/entirereport.pdf/$file/entirereport.pdf) 

Council of Europe (1950, 1966). The European Convention on Human Rights. (http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html)

Farmer, D. (1999). Report of Expert Witness Dan Farmer in ACLU v. Reno II re: Internet Censorship, Age verification, etc. (http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=14311&c=252) 

Foley, J. Pontifical Council for Communications (2002). Ethics in the Internet. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html) 

Foley, J. Pontifical Council for Communications (1989). Pornography and Violence in the Communications Media: A Pastoral Response. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_07051989_pornography_en.html) 

Glaser, B. (1997). Paedophilia: the Public Health Problem of the Decade. Paper presented at “Paedophilia: Policy and Prevention”. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. (http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/paedophilia/glaser.pdf)

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. A Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety. (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/pguide/pguidee.htm)

Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., Wolak, J. (2000). Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth. National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. (http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1055-1.pdf) 

Giardino, A., M.D., Giardino, E., PhD. Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter. G.W. Medical Publishing, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, 2002.

Monteleone, J., M.D. (1998). Child Abuse. G.W. Medical Publishing, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, 1998.

Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., Wolak, J. (2003). The Exposure of Youth to Unwanted Material on the Internet, A National Survey of Risk, Impact, and Prevention  (http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Exposure_risk.pdf)

Taylor, M. (1999). The nature and dimensions of child pornography on the Internet. Conference paper: Combatting child pornography in the Internet: Vienna, 29 September -- 1 October 1999.  (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/nat_dims_kp.htm)

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D. Escaping or Connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) pp. 105-119  (http://www.netsmartz.org/PARENTS/pdf/EscapingOrConnecting.pdf)