Pro Con Website: Arguments Against My Position


Arguments for my position:
  • As social media / SNS becomes integral and addictive to adolescent life, children struggle to develop their digital identity while striving for privacy. Online regulations offer limited privacy protection for ages up to 13 - this young age does not reflect the age of adulthood. Minors require protection from adult social media, content and personal data collection / disclosure.
  • Government should intervene and provide policies and stipulations regarding the enforcement of age restrictions up to a minimum of 18 years, thus mandating safer sites for children.

Argument #1:
Government efforts to protect minors violates constitutionally protected speech.
  • Government legislation is criticized to actively suppress children's rights to freedom of speech, self-expression, and other First Amendment rights. “While the court recognized that "protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web" is a compelling government interest, the court nevertheless held that COPPA violates the First and Fifth Amendments because it was not narrowly tailored to further Congress's interest, was not the least restrictive and most effective alternative in achieving Congress's compelling interest, and was impermissibly vague and overbroad.”(Groppe, 2007, p. 231).

Argument #2: 
Expanding government regulations up to the age of maturity will further the falsification of consent in order to gain access to social networking services.
  • Children 13 and over will be unable to gain access to meaningful services aimed at teens/adolescents. The interest in these services will prompt lying about age and often parental supported consent deception. In addition, this restriction may lead to other online activities that are less age appropriate and pose larger risk (Boyd, Hargittai, Schultz & Palfrey, 2011, p. 7).


Sources:
  • Groppe, J. S. (2007). A Child’s Playground or a Predator’s Hunting Ground? - How to Protect Children on Internet Social Networking Sites. CommLaw Conspectus, 16(1), 215–248.

Database or web link: Ebscohost - Communication and Mass Media Complete database
Type of Source: Scholarly
Is it peer reviewed, refereed or a legal review? Peer
Are there citations inside the article? Yes
Bias evaluation: Peer reviewed so assume no bias
  • Boyd, D., Hargittai, E., Schultz, J., & Palfrey, J. (2011). Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’ First Monday, 16(11). doi: 10.5210/fm.v16i11.3850.
Database or web link: See above
Type of Source: Scholarly
Is it peer reviewed, refereed or a legal review? Refereed
Are there citations inside the article? Yes
Bias evaluation: Refereed reviewed so assume no bias
Link back to Issue and Position