Chat Rooms, Your Kids and Perverts

I highly recommend that parents visit EIE's great website, enough.org, where you can learn about EIE's comprehensive training program on how to help your children enjoy the Internet while staying safe. The program, "Internet Safety 101," includes a workbook and DVD that will also unlock the mysteries of the Internet for you. I am blessed to have helped found EIE back in 1991 when the biggest pornography and predatory problems were connected to local scummy porn shops. Today, under Donna's leadership, EIE has become the leading resource on how to protect children in our high-tech world. You owe it to your family to order "Internet Safety 101."

Take Donna's advice and "just say no" to chat rooms. And as for e-mail, Instant Messaging (IM) and other means of online conversations, here are a few basic pointers to go over with your children.

- Remind them that the age-old advice of "Don't talk to strangers" applies online, too.

- Explain that predators often masquerade as children online, and that they should never, ever have emotional or personal discussions with anyone.

- If any exchange becomes uncomfortable or edgy, they should tell you right away.

- Never give out personal information to anyone -- even someone they think is another child.

- Limit the amount of time kids spend talking to their friends online.

The Internet is a technological miracle that can benefit your children and their educations, if used correctly. But if left unchecked, your sons and daughters will likely fall victim to perverts, pornography and predators. Don't take that chance.

Akagi2 Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 2:15 PM

"Please observe. No where in my post did I advocate, support or suggest more government control over the internet."

A cut and paste from some other thread, a blast from the past.

"I did suggest the police do what they have been doing for over 200 years. Patrol!"

And they do--they set up stings in chat rooms all the time, log on to some teen chat room, log on as Amy13 or something, some guy chats them up, agree to meet (for obvious reasons) and instead of Amy--the local, state or some federal law enforcement is there to haul them of to jail--how stupid can anyone be. 1) The person is probably the police, 2) if not, the news will get on and you'll be arrested and even if not, would you want that much power over your...

Flag as Offensive

Akagi2 Wrote: Nov 03, 2009 2:03 PM

Sic usually is used to denote incorrect spellings, usage, etc not to denote your sarcasim. I suppose LOL would have been better, eh?

RW6 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 9:39 PM

'Unfortunately, too many conservatives harbor libertarian impulses..."

Better I would say "too few."

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 8:38 PM

"Patrol the internet. As with any community with a crime problem, I want the police to patrol. To be proactive and prevent crime. To investigate reports of a crime. To arrest when a crime is committed."

And they do.

Chat room conversations aren't private (nor are emails really) and as I pointed out they (the police, FBI, etc)do stings in them all the time.

Barack-A-Sorros Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 8:21 PM

Please observe. No where in my post did I advocate, support or suggest more government control over the internet.

I did suggest the police do what they have been doing for over 200 years. Patrol!

Patrol the internet. As with any community with a crime problem, I want the police to patrol. To be proactive and prevent crime. To investigate reports of a crime. To arrest when a crime is committed.

Just as with any conversation or activity in a public park, public street, public bathroom, public transportation, our conversations and posts online are not entitled to privacy rights. When I post to you on this website, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy. As such if Law Enforcement were to view my post to...

Kaboom3 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 8:20 PM

cannot seem to control your own kids?

our computer is in the family room.

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 6:24 PM

"Why do I say its all about Freedom? Because Liberal or Conservative, young or old, Freedom implies that you decide what is best for you and not the politicians...I ask all those that seek more government to join in and explain how more government will serve the interests of Freedom...I ask all those who seek less government to understand that Governments primary role is to safeguard our freedoms. That there is a role for Government to protect us from ourselves."

And how is your welcome message on your blog consistent with your desire for more government control of the Internet for the misguided goal of child protection? Banning chatrooms or banning free speech doesn't safeguard your freedom it curtails it. Sorry, I don't need...

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 6:03 PM

The stat wasn't from Sashi, but from RH's article above.

"According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, two out of every five children ages 15 to 17 who are abducted fall victim in connection with internet activity."

And the Center for Missing and Exploited Children are famous for using bogus stats to scare monger as I said it does wonders for their funding.

In the "2 out of 5" stat it was from a 1999 study of 115 children who were "streotypical" kidnap victims and 40% of those (or 46) were related to Internet activity, so 46 out of over 58,200 abductions of children, so what is that...0.08 of 1%, so less than 1 out of 1000? Doesn't sound nearly so alarming now does it and not so good for fund...

Barack-A-Sorros Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:43 PM

Child Safety.

Sorry. Your response is just dumb.

Barack-A-Sorros Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:37 PM

I really don't know if the stats Sashi provided are good or bad. What I am cautioning is how much care we take when interpreting stats.

For example, One Liberal feminist group released a stat claiming that 30% of all college girls will have been raped while at college. This same group claims that over 60% of all women will be raped in a lifetime.

This feminist group includes in their rape stats boyfriend/girlfriend relationships where the boy says, "If you love me you will do it."
Or when a husband takes his wife out to dinner then expects to have relations upon returning home.

They view this as a form of coercion and as such is not consentual sex.

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:33 PM

What kind of conservative am I? A real one which means in the world of theocratic authoritarians, who wrongly think they are conservatives and use such terms as "social" conservatives ,I am a liberal.

Unlike they, I don't think it proper to use the power of the state to force people to confirm to their defined moral values. So if people want to watch two girls and a goat on the Internet, well as long as the girls are over 18 and willing, well who am I to say.

About a hundred years ago a woman in SF said she didn't care what people did as long as they did it inside and didn't scare the horses.

I'm neither Christian or Islamic, so I don't feel the need for the government to censor. I'm a JS Mill type of guy....

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:23 PM

Much better than RH by far. Of course as Sandra's go I'd pick Sandra Dewi over Sandra Lee. Of course she is Muslim so I guess that means she is the center of evil for the likes of TH.

Gestell Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:18 PM

What the H*** kind of conservative are you, anyway? Real conservatives should support whatever government regulation and supervision it would take to maximize the safety of the Internet for children. Unfortunately, too many conservatives harbor libertarian impulses, and so are unwilling to work to support laws and policies that will censor what children may see online.

As for your "Saudi Arabia" ine, I say that genuine conservatives shouldn't be troubled by this kind of left-wing baiting. Both traditional Christianity--which is the basis of conservatism--and Islam recognize the need for censorship.

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:16 PM

"Mothers Prepetually Angry About Whatever..."

Not to be a sexist pig, but women seem to get hysterical over a variety of issues (I suppose the reason for the root of that term, hysterical). Back a few years ago, in Huntsville, Alabama I recall a woman got an entire school locked down...why?

A guy dropping off his kid (during deer season I might add and we are talking about Alabama, not the center of NYC)in the morning had a deer rifle hanging in the window of his pickup truck in a gun rack. She went in the school all up in arms about the dire threat he posed...blah blah blah. They locked down the school, of course by the time she went in and reported it and they locked down everything, he was probably up in the tree stand...

RW6 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:12 PM

A synthetic Foxette versus a blonde supermom? Bosh... Still, keeping the Fox babe's mouth busy would mean not having to listen to her irritating voice.

But for the hot blonde MILF gold standard, check out the Food Network's Sandra Lee... *sigh*

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 5:07 PM

"When you allow your child enter into another community called the internet, you have the same right to expect the government to maintain a safe enviorment while applying the same rules of law they do at the park, at school, or walking down the street."

Define "safe" and might I add laws passed to "protect" children (or so the claim) have done more to destroy freedom than almost anything. When you hear "It's for the children" you know you are about to be taken for a ride.

So should we go back to the way things were under R. v. Hicklin (1868)? And to quote from the decision "...depraves and corrupts those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall." So if...

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 4:54 PM

"When talking about abductions alone, The internet accounts for 40% of all abductions."

Drill down. A 1999 study so who knows how valid it is and 40% of 115 cases. Does the term "small sample size" mean anything to you? I could ask 115 people on TH and well over 40% would say Obama is an illegal alien, communist, racist, but hardly a view that can be applied to the US population as a whole.
What that 40% means is that 46 were abducted due to the Internet and compare this to the over 58,000 in non-family abductions.

The number is statistically not significant.

Barack-A-Sorros Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 4:48 PM

People should be policing their homes, their workplaces, their private areas.

They should not be policing public spaces throughout a community. Yes they can be the eyes and ears of the Police, but should not be actually engaged in policiing. That is the function of the professionals. We require Government to provide professinal police services.

When you allow your child to goto the store, the park, the school they are out in the community. You have the right to expect the police to maintain a civil and safe enviorment.

When you allow your child enter into another community called the internet, you have the same right to expect the government to maintain a safe enviorment while applying the same rules of law they...

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 4:42 PM

Sorry. She just looks rather plain to me. What'd you expect to see at the local Wal-Mart in Plainview, Texas or someplace.

http://www.youtube.com/rebeccahagelin

Tell me which one would you want to discuss the big bang theory with, the one on the left (not RH) or the one on the right (RH).

I know for me who wins that contest. As I said, she's rather plain and ordinary. Like a contest between a fastfood chicken sandwich and coq au vin. MILF? Hardly.

Barack-A-Sorros Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 4:31 PM

Heres where we have to be careful of Statistics.

Notice your words.

Sexual Assaults A N D abductions. This includes two crimes with sexual assaults most likely being the most common.

When talking about abductions alone, The internet accounts for 40% of all abductions.

This is kinda like the cigarette debate.

Yes the majority of people who happen to get Cancer also happen to smoke. But the majority of people who smoke never ever get cancer.

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 4:19 PM

Morris Dees and the SPLC are a bunch of left wing loons. He considers the League of the South (who favors seeing the South leave the Union again) as a hate group the same as the Klan. While not people you'd want to see move in next door they are hardly that.

Notice also the SPLC ignores true hate groups like MS-13 and the Latin Kings and other really dangerous groups. A toothless redneck with a PO Box calling himself the Invisble Knights of the White Camelia are hardly a threat.

Compare the numbers killed by MS-13 in the last ten years and those killed by the Klan, not a contest.

Now the website has a "whitewashing of the CSA" (how cute) feature. Claims there are neo-Nazis in the US military. I bet more gang...

Akagi2 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 3:56 PM

"If our Government has the manpower to set up Pornography stings on the net then they certainly can put a decoy in those chat rooms and get some of the predators off the street!"

They do this all the time. They troll into a chatroom with some name like Amy12 or Amanda2000 and wait for some guy to hit on them. They'll send some pictures to the guy, then the guy plans to meet them and then when he shows up instead of Amy15 it is some government agent (the police, the sheriff's office, the FBI, etc) with handcuffs.

MSNBC even has a series on this called to catch a predator where they get some guy to meet some teen and when the guy shows up MSNBC is there with cameras--one such guy killed himself soon after one of these MSNBC...

Sasha12 Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 3:42 PM

So if 40% of abductions are by strangers they met on the internet, then how is it that the FBI shows that 95% of abductions and sexual assaults on children are done by someone they know and trust, such as a family member or a close family friend?

Do they mean that of the 5% that are by strangers, 40% were met on the internet? In which case, the number would be around 2% of abductions, not 2 out of 5 as this article suggests. This seems more like scaremongering, as their numbers do not match up to reality.

This is not to say that the abduction and sexual assault on children isn't real problem. If it wasn't I wouldn't be studying it. Just that focusing on the wrong thing doesn't help anything, and in some cases can make it...

Why do you think they call it the right? Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 3:31 PM

TH has it's own set of pervert predators. Hal Drunkahue, will, etc....

cleverness_of_me Wrote: Jul 14, 2009 2:31 PM

Virtually all child abductors transport the child via automobile. Certainly having such a convenient and private form of transportation is an invitation to criminals to do all sorts of nasty business.

Since the invention of the auto, countless teenaged girls have been groped, sexually assaulted and/or impregnated in some guy's back seat.

Erika Johnsen	California raids 9/11 fund to cover deficits and other govt expenditures
Ed Morrissey	Romney repudiating repudiations
Erika Johnsen	Spain scuttles clean-energy subsidies; promptly watches the industry go down like a sinking ship
Ed Morrissey	Joblessness during prime working years worst in 23 years
Ed Morrissey	Noted perpetual candidate still in search of argument for a second term
Ed Morrissey	Obamateurism of the Day

Rebecca Hagelin

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Political Cartoon of the Day

Gary Varvel

Video

FACEBOOK ACTIVITY

Townhall Regular Contributors